recalled/assigned: Rangers Re-Call D Libor Hajek

[RodrigueGabriel]

That's correct. I was speaking of a subset of both. But when it comes to the Rangers, Brooks takes up a big honkin' share of the media.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[RodrigueGabriel]

That's correct. I was speaking of a subset of both. But when it comes to the Rangers, Brooks takes up a big honkin' share of the media.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

This was a response to Phil's response to me. Because Brooks plays such an outsized role, it leaves an overall impression and he seems particularly manipulative when it comes to Gorton. Look at his dance around Kevin Hayes this season. The Rangers need to keep Kevin Hayes. Of course the Rangers will trade Kevin Hayes, it's only logical. The Rangers traded Kevin Hayes, what a blunder. My bigger point is that a story like Hajek's was used as a potential cudgel against Gorton - because of the trade - disproportionately either to the diligence of the assessment or how you would assess another player.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Phil]

That's correct. I was speaking of a subset of both. But when it comes to the Rangers, Brooks takes up a big honkin' share of the media.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Sure, which is an indictment, but I'm not sure on who. Is it on the fanbase as a whole for failing to demand more of their teams' writers, or is it on the local media covering the team for thinking this is all fans want or need? Both?

[lefty9]

This is where I'm going. If you listen to the coaches everything was fine. There should be no reason to question what's happening in Hartford. They have a shitty team. None of the top prospects are there. What do you expect them to do?

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

walk on water

[Gravesy]

This is where I'm going. If you listen to the coaches everything was fine. There should be no reason to question what's happening in Hartford. They have a shitty team. None of the top prospects are there. What do you expect them to do?

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

OK. So if I understand correctly, your angle here is that the only people worth listening to when it comes to the Rangers are the people in the organization. I respectfully disagree with that. They have their own agendas. To be fair, in this case you're correct in that Carp/Brooks/BSB etc had it wrong when it comes to Hajek (small sample size notwithstanding). It's obviously easier to filter out the BS when it comes to the Rangers rather than the Wolfpack, but I think treating whatever comes out of the organization as gospel and disregarding everything else has its own pitfalls.

 

As for the Pack, surely we can agree there are major issues down there. But I do agree it's difficult to assess exactly what those are before the talent level is significantly improved.

[Phil]

Did they have it wrong? It's been one game. How is this not a narrative, too?

 

What about the Hajek criticism was unwarranted by his actual play prior to the call up?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Gravesy]

Two, to be pedantic. Like I said, it's a small sample size. It would appear that the idea he was further away than the Rangers anticipated/expected was wrong however.

But I suppose we'll know a lot more by the end of this month.

[Phil]

Sorry, you're right. Two. I just don't buy the "narrative" narrative, is all. Nothing about Hajek's play in the AHL called for kid gloves. He was struggling mightily, and it was noticed by astute reporters who ran with the story given the likelihood people would care about that. That's partly how journalism works. There's a reason Trump is your main story and not a story about your local municipality failing to meet a deadline on a phase one contract discussion. Both "matter," but only one is "interesting."

 

The fact he's stepped up the way he has is encouraging, and it does bust the idea that he wasn't ready if this is, in fact, the player he's going to be. But that also doesn't change the fact that his play at the AHL level lead many voices to question his future. He had five points in 58 games. FIFTY-EIGHT!

[Gravesy]

Yeah. That he's been struggling has been my understanding as well, but I've just been informed in this thread that those reports were wrong.

I'll happily admit I haven't watched a second of Wolfpack hockey this year, so I'm not really sure what to believe.

But clearly as the season has progressed there has been a fairly unison view that Hajek has not progressed as the Rangers expected. At all.

 

It's good to see him come up and not look out of place though. If he can keep it up whatever happened in Hartford doesn't really matter.

[Phil]

Yeah. That he's been struggling has been my understanding as well, but I've just been informed in this thread that those reports were wrong.

I'll happily admit I haven't watched a second of Wolfpack hockey this year, so I'm not really sure what to believe.

But clearly as the season has progressed there has been a fairly unison view that Hajek has not progressed as the Rangers expected. At all.

 

It's good to see him come up and not look out of place though. If he can keep it up whatever happened in Hartford doesn't really matter.

 

I mean, Adam Herman's piece for Banter broke this down utilizing multiple clips of his poor decisions — costly turnovers, baffling passing decisions, skating into coverage, etc.

 

"Those reports" weren't wrong. They were right at the time. The Rangers, rememeber, also have a narrative to play, which is to hype their own prospects and not bury their own guys. So of course everyone from Quinn to Gorton is going to be praising Hajek for the things he's done right while utterly glossing over the mistakes.

[Future]

I mean, Adam Herman's piece for Banter broke this down utilizing multiple clips of his poor decisions — costly turnovers, baffling passing decisions, skating into coverage, etc.

 

"Those reports" weren't wrong. They were right at the time. The Rangers, rememeber, also have a narrative to play, which is to hype their own prospects and not bury their own guys. So of course everyone from Quinn to Gorton is going to be praising Hajek for the things he's done right while utterly glossing over the mistakes.

There is a huge difference between inconsistency and struggling. You can do that with every player in the league. You could make a really long reel of poor decisions and turnovers by Drew Doughty. If I had the same access to video as Herman, I could sit here and write a 3,000 word expose about how strong Hajek is defensively and just pick and choose 5 gifs to support it.

 

Quinn has been critical of all the young Rangers, and McCambridge said that Hajek had issues with consistency. Gordie Clarke ripped the young guys after Traverse last year (so much so that MSG took the video down...) This organization isn't all just fluff, and the narrative for Hajek has, from day 1, been wait until he's ready. It was never that he was going to come in and be top 4 right away, so they haven't exaggerated anything.

 

Herman and much of Banter are absolutely guilty of picking a narrative and then searching for things that support it. See: Glendenning, Adam.

[Phil]

There is a huge difference between inconsistency and struggling. You can do that with every player in the league. You could make a really long reel of poor decisions and turnovers by Drew Doughty. If I had the same access to video as Herman, I could sit here and write a 3,000 word expose about how strong Hajek is defensively and just pick and choose 5 gifs to support it.

 

Quinn has been critical of all the young Rangers, and McCambridge said that Hajek had issues with consistency. Gordie Clarke ripped the young guys after Traverse last year (so much so that MSG took the video down...) This organization isn't all just fluff, and the narrative for Hajek has, from day 1, been wait until he's ready. It was never that he was going to come in and be top 4 right away, so they haven't exaggerated anything.

 

Herman and much of Banter are absolutely guilty of picking a narrative and then searching for things that support it. See: Glendenning, Adam.

 

Drew Doughty didn't have five points in 58 AHL games while being touted as a highly-competent puck-mover and near-NHL ready at the time of his acquisition. So, again, I'm not seeing the fundamental issue with criticizing Hajek's play after he played more than half a season, be it Banter, or the New York Post.

[Future]

Drew Doughty didn't have five points in 58 AHL games while being touted as a highly-competent puck-mover and near-NHL ready at the time of his acquisition. So, again, I'm not seeing the fundamental issue with criticizing Hajek's play after he played more than half a season, be it Banter, or the New York Post.

I don't have a problem with criticizing his play. I have a problem with nitpicking to make broad statements like "there is every reason to be skeptical of the idea that he will become a quality player, if even an NHL defenseman at all," especially when 3 paragraphs directly before that undermine that point.

 

I actually don't think this Herman article/critique whatever is really that far off. The problem is that it's painfully biased based on what he said in the summer. He could have easily spun this to compliment Quinn's comments and changed the narrative entirely. That carries a lot more weight then "here's 5 plays, Hajek might not be an NHLer."

[josh]

Drew Doughty didn't have five points in 58 AHL games while being touted as a highly-competent puck-mover and near-NHL ready at the time of his acquisition. So, again, I'm not seeing the fundamental issue with criticizing Hajek's play after he played more than half a season, be it Banter, or the New York Post.

This has never been the case for Hajek. Where is this coming from?

It was immediately said that he would not be considered an offensive guy, even though he put up numbers in junior.

[Phil]

I don't have a problem with criticizing his play. I have a problem with nitpicking to make broad statements like "there is every reason to be skeptical of the idea that he will become a quality player, if even an NHL defenseman at all," especially when 3 paragraphs directly before that undermine that point.

 

I actually don't think this Herman article/critique whatever is really that far off. The problem is that it's painfully biased based on what he said in the summer. He could have easily spun this to compliment Quinn's comments and changed the narrative entirely. That carries a lot more weight then "here's 5 plays, Hajek might not be an NHLer."

 

I mean, that's fine. Take it up with Herman? My issue here has been the willingness of others to chalk this up to hivemind. Adam doesn't speak for me, for example. I speak for myself. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. "Banter" is just a medium in which we both share our thoughts. It has no biases or party-like pillars. At best, on certain topics, it can take on the appearance of having a collective thought, in the same way BSBH can, but it's momentary agreement, not party-mandated position-taking.

[Phil]

This has never been the case for Hajek. Where is this coming from?

It was immediately said that he would not be considered an offensive guy, even though he put up numbers in junior.

 

I'm probably misspeaking/misremembering. But I think the point stands regardless that five points in 58 games for a — let's call him mobile — defenseman clearly wasn't good enough.

[josh]

I'm probably misspeaking/misremembering. But I think the point stands regardless that five points in 58 games for a — let's call him mobile — defenseman clearly wasn't good enough.

 

That's the point.

That's not his game. The criticism is comparable to complaining about Marek Malik's lack of offensive stats because you saw his shootout goal.

He's a good defender, good skater, and smart. His athleticism, skating and awareness will allow him to transition and support the offense when necessary (McDonagh, Skjei, Girardi) and is not an "offensive defenseman" that will lead the rush or QB the PP like DeAngelo or Pionk.

[Gravesy]

I think the point people have been making isn’t that they’re disappointed in his production because they missed the memo that informed everyone he isn’t the next Paul Coffey.

It’s the fact that even borderline NHL quality defensemen put up vastly superior numbers offensively in the AHL.

That’s a legitimate worry, regardless of what role you envision for him.

[josh]

I think the point people have been making isn’t that they’re disappointed in his production because they missed the memo that informed everyone he isn’t the next Paul Coffey.

It’s the fact that even borderline NHL quality defensemen put up vastly superior numbers offensively in the AHL.

That’s a legitimate worry, regardless of what role you envision for him.

 

Have you seen John Gilmour?

[Future]

I mean, that's fine. Take it up with Herman? My issue here has been the willingness of others to chalk this up to hivemind. Adam doesn't speak for me, for example. I speak for myself. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. "Banter" is just a medium in which we both share our thoughts. It has no biases or party-like pillars. At best, on certain topics, it can take on the appearance of having a collective thought, in the same way BSBH can, but it's momentary agreement, not party-mandated position-taking.

I know lol. My only point was that Banter is guilty of it, at times, so the hive mind perception shouldn't really be surprising.

 

You also have to remember that Banter is just shorthand for "blog." Whether that's actually true or not, that's the perception.

[BrooksBurner]

I think the point people have been making isn’t that they’re disappointed in his production because they missed the memo that informed everyone he isn’t the next Paul Coffey.

It’s the fact that even borderline NHL quality defensemen put up vastly superior numbers offensively in the AHL.

That’s a legitimate worry, regardless of what role you envision for him.

 

Have you seen John Gilmour?

 

lol or what about McDonagh's 8 points in 38 AHL games?

 

Going to call BS on this claim that all NHL quality defensemen light up the scoresheet in the A.

[Future]

I think the point people have been making isn’t that they’re disappointed in his production because they missed the memo that informed everyone he isn’t the next Paul Coffey.

It’s the fact that even borderline NHL quality defensemen put up vastly superior numbers offensively in the AHL.

That’s a legitimate worry, regardless of what role you envision for him.

Ryan McDonagh had 8 points in 38 games in Hartford. Wade Redden had 42 in 70 on the same team. There's nobody who doesn't raise an eyebrow at Hajek's point production, but it just doesn't mean anything in terms of NHL success, especially for a guy who is a first-pass/puck mover and not a playmaker.

 

It would be a concern if Brandon Montour wasn't putting up points in the A, not Hajek.

[Gravesy]

Have you seen John Gilmour?

I’m not sure that’s relevant.

What they’re saying is that guys who are barely good enough to make NHL rosters as 5/6, stay at home guys produced significantly better. It’s not saying he’s a bust, and it might not mean much in the long run, but it’s a legitimate concern all the same.

[Gravesy]

lol or what about McDonagh's 8 points in 38 AHL games?

 

Going to call BS on this claim that all NHL quality defensemen light up the scoresheet in the A.

 

I haven’t fact checked it to be fair.

Hermann provides a long list in the linked article.

[Phil]

That's the point.

That's not his game. The criticism is comparable to complaining about Marek Malik's lack of offensive stats because you saw his shootout goal.

He's a good defender, good skater, and smart. His athleticism, skating and awareness will allow him to transition and support the offense when necessary (McDonagh, Skjei, Girardi) and is not an "offensive defenseman" that will lead the rush or QB the PP like DeAngelo or Pionk.

 

I think the point people have been making isn?t that they?re disappointed in his production because they missed the memo that informed everyone he isn?t the next Paul Coffey.

It?s the fact that even borderline NHL quality defensemen put up vastly superior numbers offensively in the AHL.

That?s a legitimate worry, regardless of what role you envision for him.

 

Again, I'd take this up with the author(s). What I disagree with is the charges of hivemind.