recalled/assigned: Rangers Recall F Boo Nieves, G Alexandar Georgiev

[Phil]

Link:

 

--

 

Notably missing here is Lindgren, but with Pionk set to return, it stands to reason he's been left with Hartford a while longer.

[Ozzy]

I liked Lindgren...I'm sure after the trade deadline he'll be back....at least I hope so!

[Future]

I liked Lindgren...I'm sure after the trade deadline he'll be back....at least I hope so!

Yea, they pretty much have to move McQuaid, so Lindgren should just slide into that spot.

[Dunny]

McQuaid might be the hardest guy to let go, for me.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

McQuaid might be the hardest guy to let go, for me.

 

Love McQuaid as well. he's an impending UFA on a non-playoff team though so he has to be considered tradeable. Add in that there are probably a ton of teams that would like to add his grit and playoff experience and I'd say we can get a decent return for him.

[Dunny]

Yup. I agree. Was a pretty good trade to get him, despite the logjam of mediocrity we have at the position. It was just fun having.. An actual defenceman.

[Future]

What? McQuaid sucks.

 

My issue with McQuaid has always been that a) they created a logjam by acquiring him after Claesson, and b) you could have gotten the same thing from any number of FA defensemen without sending out a pick. What value does McQuaid have right now that, say, Kevin Bieksa wouldn't?

 

At the end of the day, you're going to get maybe a third-round pick for McQuaid (but that seems optimistic, since you traded less not even a year ago). You gave up a 4th and conditional for him. It seems like a lot of extra logistics work to trade a 4th and 7th to maybe move up 15 spots in the middle of the draft while, at the same time, making it more difficult to get ice for ADA/Pionk/Lindgren.

[Ozzy]

I hope they hang on to McQuaid! God knows he plays hard and also tough!

[BrooksBurner]

It seems like a lot of extra logistics work to trade a 4th and 7th to maybe move up 15 spots in the middle of the draft while, at the same time, making it more difficult to get ice for ADA/Pionk/Lindgren.

 

Yeah, wondering the same thing. Don't really get why a log jam was created. Only thing I can think of is they wanted to have some "resistance" for the kids to motivate them. At the same time, you'd think they should be motivated enough to stay on the team, win, and eventually make good money as a pro. If that isn't motivating enough, then we probably dont want them on the team moving forward.

[Phil]

What? McQuaid sucks.

 

My issue with McQuaid has always been that a) they created a logjam by acquiring him after Claesson, and b) you could have gotten the same thing from any number of FA defensemen without sending out a pick. What value does McQuaid have right now that, say, Kevin Bieksa wouldn't?

 

At the end of the day, you're going to get maybe a third-round pick for McQuaid (but that seems optimistic, since you traded less not even a year ago). You gave up a 4th and conditional for him. It seems like a lot of extra logistics work to trade a 4th and 7th to maybe move up 15 spots in the middle of the draft while, at the same time, making it more difficult to get ice for ADA/Pionk/Lindgren.

 

He was the only alternative. "Any number of FA defensemen," aren't built the same way.

 

The log jam, I agree, but I think they're going to get a better return than most of us think for him. Less than Grabner but more than break even.

[Future]

He was the only alternative. "Any number of FA defensemen," aren't built the same way.

 

The log jam, I agree, but I think they're going to get a better return than most of us think for him. Less than Grabner but more than break even.

Why was he the only alternative? Why was he even needed? Kevin Bieksa could do exactly what McQuaid is doing. It's not as if McQuaid's value has gone up this year, he's been one of the Rangers worst defensemen by the shot share standard. I'm not sure how any team will look at him and think "Yea, he's a guy we need!" especially with the glut of bottom-4 30+ pending UFAs out there. What's to separate McQuaid from Enstrom, Kronwall, Lovejoy, Sustr, Gunnarson, Jensen and Polak? That's not even including anyone from LA or Anaheim, who have several defensemen under contract that they might trade, or guys like Tyler Myers and Alex Edler who could be moved in bigger trades.

 

More than break even is a 3rd-rounder, but, assuming the Rangers are bottom-10, you're talking about moving from pick ~100 to pick ~85. What's the point? You could have signed Bieksa (Enstrom, Beauchemin, Stoner, Seidenberg, whoever), and flipped them for a 5th.

[Sod16]

I found the acquisition perplexing to begin with. It did just tend to create a log jam, and if we never had real designs on the playoffs, much less contention, why would we want a McQuaid in the line up while an AGA or even a Smith is scratched? He has been a gamer and should yield a third round pick, who will have a one in ten chance of becoming a significant NHL player.

[Phil]

Why was he the only alternative? Why was he even needed? Kevin Bieksa could do exactly what McQuaid is doing. It's not as if McQuaid's value has gone up this year, he's been one of the Rangers worst defensemen by the shot share standard. I'm not sure how any team will look at him and think "Yea, he's a guy we need!" especially with the glut of bottom-4 30+ pending UFAs out there. What's to separate McQuaid from Enstrom, Kronwall, Lovejoy, Sustr, Gunnarson, Jensen and Polak? That's not even including anyone from LA or Anaheim, who have several defensemen under contract that they might trade, or guys like Tyler Myers and Alex Edler who could be moved in bigger trades.

 

More than break even is a 3rd-rounder, but, assuming the Rangers are bottom-10, you're talking about moving from pick ~100 to pick ~85. What's the point? You could have signed Bieksa (Enstrom, Beauchemin, Stoner, Seidenberg, whoever), and flipped them for a 5th.

 

"Any number of FA defensemen," aren't built the same way.

 

I said Bieksa would have sufficed. He's capable of the same qualities — leadership, grit, insert truculent descriptor here. The only thing he lacks is the ring.

 

Speaking of, we hear every year about "rings in the room." McQuaid is that, tough as nails (great for first-round uber-physical matchups), and right-handed.

[The Dude]

I'm very underwhelmed with McQuaid. I didn't mind the trade as far as giving up Kampfer, but I never understood why they bothered to add another D man. Why create that logjam?

 

I think he has stunk here. I'm really not sure there's much value there for anyone. He's a depth guy or a straggling 3rd pair defender. I honestly don't even want him starting on this joke of a team. What playoff team wants this guy for more than a 4th rounder or some AHL fodder?

[Pete]

Probably because people like saying "logjam".

[Gravesy]

Probably because people like saying "logjam".

 

It might be an annoying buzzword, but it doesn't make it less true.

I don't understand the thinking behind bringing in a guy like McQuaid to stand in the way of the young guys, certainly not in year 1 of a rebuild.

[Phil]

The problem was never McQuaid. Having that kind of player — reknowned for his leadership and "glue" in the dressing room — absolutely helps. Even if the only thing it accomplishes is making a shitty situation, like losing every other game, a little less shitty. The problem was always that he was acquired too fucking late. You make that deal in July, not September. And you sure as hell don't do it with 7-8 NHL defenders already on your roster. It was the right idea, just the wrong execution.

[Gravesy]

I don't disagree with that. To rephrase, I don't really mind McQuaid as a player/dressing room type, but the deal was made when it was made.

At that point it made no sense, having already acquired Claesson and having kept everyone else on.

[RJWantsTheCup]

I have a logjam every time I take two shits in one bathroom visit.

[Pete]

Or maybe there's just alot we don't know and they brought him in anticipating being able to get more than what they gave to get him?

[Phil]

I don't disagree with that. To rephrase, I don't really mind McQuaid as a player/dressing room type, but the deal was made when it was made.

At that point it made no sense, having already acquired Claesson and having kept everyone else on.

 

It made sense in principle. It made no sense in practice. It's an important distinction to make IMO.

[CBrowningPI]

JG said they wanted "character" players and Physicality added in. Kampher had little of both. McQuaid may always be a bottom 4 but he is definitely an intimidating presence that helped the team stand a little taller. I understood the move better when I looked at the bigger picture.

 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Gravesy]

Well sure, but the makeup of the roster and the development of young players is certainly a significant part of the bigger picture. Particularly for a team that has just started their rebuild.

[Pete]

Well sure, but the makeup of the roster and the development of young players is certainly a significant part of the bigger picture. Particularly for a team that has just started their rebuild.

 

I'd like to know why you don't feel that learning to be a pro, having a veteran presence around who's had winning pedigree, and being one of the best 6 players every single night aren't all part of player development.

 

We have had 8 defensemen and the only one not invited to take a night off has been Staal, IIRC. Healthy competition is part of development.

 

McQuaid isn't hurting anything.

[Dunny]

Yeah, I'm not sure who he's blocking, exactly. I guess ADA, but I think that's just fine to keep him uncomfortable and Claesson who is what he is.

 

In return, his rag dolling Kadri was almost worth his entire salary and we're going to get a return on him.

 

He's not blocking Lindgren/Hajek/Gilmour. They're either nowhere near ready or not a prospect to begin with.

 

Anybody that's been on a bad hockey team, and I've been on plenty, knows that it's one thing to lose bad and another thing entirely to get physically embarrassed. I can take the L, I can't take being lambs.