HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rangers will not buyout Wojtek Wolski

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-25-2011, 10:55 AM
  #126
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
He was in Colorado for 4 years.

He was in PHX for less than a year and now here less than a year. Stop making it like he's an Eminger type of journeyman.
The point being he was traded from the last two places because of his inconsistency and inability to be useful on the ice if he isn't scoring...and he doesn't score enough to get a pass

I thought he was actually OK last year even when slumping, and that's probably one reason why they won't buy him out...they think they can still work on him to get his game up to level

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 10:56 AM
  #127
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Abingdon, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,946
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
Go play with your trucks kid.
Look you are the one who sounds like a child with posting just flat out false statements. He is not even close to Enver Lisin 2.0 as you claim. Lisin had not had the success Wolski has had.

ODC may be way off sometimes, but here I think he is spot on. He definitely ups the skill quotient on a team that does lack a little bit of it.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:02 AM
  #128
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Abingdon, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,946
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
The point being he was traded from the last two places because of his inconsistency and inability to be useful on the ice if he isn't scoring...and he doesn't score enough to get a pass

I thought he was actually OK last year even when slumping, and that's probably one reason why they won't buy him out...they think they can still work on him to get his game up to level
Agreed. There were a few games where I thought to myself "damn Wolski has looked bad out there" But then again outside of maybe Callahan, I have had the same thought about every other player at one point or another.

He is inconsistent yes. He is skilled though. Players can change with the right coach, system, and training. Look at Jagr, I mean yeah he is a world class talent that Wolski never will be, but Jagr went from putting up 120+ point seasons in Pitt, to 75ish point seasons in Washington, then back to 123 points in his first full year with the NYR. Wolski saw a similar drop percentage wise. Maybe this year he revs the engine a bit and gets back to that 65 point player we know he can be. Like Jimmy Buffett says, Only time will tell.

Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:03 AM
  #129
Fleury4ever
Registered User
 
Fleury4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 975
vCash: 500
Wolski is not going to play with Richards & Gaborik...He's going to play with Richards & Callahan when Gaborik get injured. Other than that he'll be on the 2nd line.

Fleury4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:16 AM
  #130
Fireonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Wolski will be bought out. I don't want him go, but Torts cannot deal with talent that requires work. Torts is a motivator, noting else. He is not a teacher, all he can do is to challenge. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but Torts has no plan for the guy and never will. Never had any. Zherdev, Lisin, Wolski, Zuccarello he gets them all out sooner or later. After that MSG PR would blame the player. Worked before, will work again. Brooks is just a smoke screen here.
P.S. just add Chistensen to the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Scratching the player proves nothing but coach working with the guy, attempting to make him suitable. Most of the fans have no clue of what the process is so the numerous writers simplify it for them or no one will read their opuses.
Why is it when Torts scratches players(or in Zuccarello's case being sent to the AHL for more seasoning) it implies that he has no plan for them, but when other coaches do it it implies that they are working with the player to make them better?

Fireonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 11:49 AM
  #131
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,330
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
That is another speculation, since Brooks is hardly a reliable source. You wouldn't deny that Wolski buyout is a possibility, would you? As such I had all legitimate rights to express my opinion that that will happen. Those who think that Brooks has more insight should limit their readings to NY POST.
It's a possibility. I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. However, you said it's "basically a fact" at this point, which is untrue.

Quote:
That is a very weak come back.
How? You said a good coach can help a player elevate his game, in the context of John Tortorella. I'd like to know which coaches have helped Zherdev and Lisin elevate their games more so than Tortorella. I think it's a legitimate point.

Quote:
Scratching the player proves nothing but coach working with the guy, attempting to make him suitable. Most of the fans have no clue of what the process is so the numerous writers simplify it for them or no one will read their opuses.
Ah, that's right, I have no clue. When a guy gets scratched everywhere he goes, it's just the coach working with him. Not the coach being fed up with lackadaisical play. Obviously.

Quote:
I am not fan of Lisin. I, however, do not believe in smart or dumb hockey players. It is a cliche used as I said earlier to simplify things for fans, but it is far from reality. Some players are easy to coach, some not. Not that I am comparing Lisin with Kovalev, but Keenan had no problem coaching Kovy (although he sat him at times), while Campbell and many others couldn't figure the guy out. Once the coach gives up on the talented player it is a coach failure. They need to cover it somehow. That is why you see plenty of blame channeled through media by club management since they have to stand by their decisions. I see little value in those "reports" therefore.
Well, when good coaches give up on players time and time again, I think it's reasonable to not look at it as a "coaching failure" and start seeing it for what it is--a player failure.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireonk View Post
Why is it when Torts scratches players(or in Zuccarello's case being sent to the AHL for more seasoning) it implies that he has no plan for them, but when other coaches do it it implies that they are working with the player to make them better?
Because it suits his argument, basically.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 12:29 PM
  #132
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
He was in Colorado for 4 years.

He was in PHX for less than a year and now here less than a year. Stop making it like he's an Eminger type of journeyman.
Three teams in two years.

That's what I said.

There's a reason he's been moved that much the last two seasons.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 12:42 PM
  #133
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
I am not fan of Lisin. I, however, do not believe in smart or dumb hockey players. It is a cliche used as I said earlier to simplify things for fans, but it is far from reality. Some players are easy to coach, some not. Not that I am comparing Lisin with Kovalev, but Keenan had no problem coaching Kovy (although he sat him at times), while Campbell and many others couldn't figure the guy out. Once the coach gives up on the talented player it is a coach failure. They need to cover it somehow. That is why you see plenty of blame channeled through media by club management since they have to stand by their decisions. I see little value in those "reports" therefore.
That's probably because you've never spent a single second behind a bench or even working with a player in any kind of capacity, and the comments regarding "giving" up on a player only support that. One of the first things you learn as a coach, or a teacher of any kind for that matter, is that, like in life, some people are just more stubborn than others. Are you going to devote all of your time and energy to trying to help those who don't want to be helped at the expense of everyone else? That's idiotic. There is only so much a coach, ANY COACH, can do before the time comes to face reality.

It should be quite clear even for a child that watches just a handful of games that some players are MUCH, MUCH smarter than others. That's why a player like Scott Gomez, who has all of the physical gifts and tools to be a star player, isn't even half the player that Pavel Datsyuk is, despite the fact that the latter is much less physically adept for the sport. That's why a scrawny looking schmuck like Gretzky is the greatest player of all-time. He's smarter than everyone else. That's kind of the number one fundamental advantage that he had over pretty much everyone. But wait, he had the great tutelage of Glen Sather, who as we know, is a tremendous coach. I guess that's why Gretzky has more assists than any other player has points. It's all because of Sather, right? Sure, coaching played a role, but coaching played a role before these players got to the NHL in most cases. If players don't know how to play the game by the time they get to the NHL, they probably aren't going to learn it there, either. Why? Usually, it is their own fault, because there isn't a coach they'll have come across that hasn't tried to get them to play the right way.

You can blame Tortorella for refusing to work further with Zherdev, but you can't blame him for the fact that Zherdev is inconsistent and often plays like an idiot. That's on Zherdev. He's been coached by very good NHL coaches. To suggest that nearly an entire career of Kovalev's underachieving play is the fault of all coaches not named Keenan...how are you not too embarrassed to make such poorly thought out, baseless comments?

The comments regarding journalism are even more amusing. So, let me get this straight, when Terry Murray told the LA reporters that he had spoken with Frolov time and time again, and Frolov had refused to play the way Murray had asked, that was a failure on Murray's part, and he was only telling the media to cover his own ass? LOL. Give me a break.

Seriously, what a terrific bunch of nonsense.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 01:32 PM
  #134
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireonk View Post
Why is it when Torts scratches players(or in Zuccarello's case being sent to the AHL for more seasoning) it implies that he has no plan for them, but when other coaches do it it implies that they are working with the player to make them better?
LOL -1 for using logic

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 06:30 PM
  #135
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post
It's a possibility. I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. However, you said it's "basically a fact" at this point, which is untrue.
You're reaching, Emma.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post
How? You said a good coach can help a player elevate his game, in the context of John Tortorella. I'd like to know which coaches have helped Zherdev and Lisin elevate their games more so than Tortorella. I think it's a legitimate point.
Is it? Lisin never had any coaching in NHL. For Zherdev check this coach http://www.nhl.com/coaches/tom_renney.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post
Ah, that's right, I have no clue. When a guy gets scratched everywhere he goes, it's just the coach working with him. Not the coach being fed up with lackadaisical play. Obviously.
Coaches may give up on players after period of time. For Torts that time is so short that gives an impression of lazy work. Once he runs the guy through all lines combos he is done. Just an opinion, not a fact. Should I put that disclaimer after anything I post here?

If Wolski remains it would be because Sather is too lazy to find a replacement. But as as experience shows anything Slats tried to stick down Torts throat has been puked out. See player named Sean Avery as a reference.


Last edited by 94now: 07-25-2011 at 06:39 PM.
94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 07:05 PM
  #136
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Seriously, what a terrific bunch of nonsense.
Not bad if you devoted pretty long reply to it.

I heard many bad teachers arguing pretty much the same: If I focus all my time on your child, I couldn't teach the class. I refuse to accept that, although you may have some point. There are examples of the opposite, but I am not going that road. Sather and Torts are the same type. They were given winning tickets in form of the talented players/goalies and all they had to do was not to screw it up. Neither one is a great NHL coach. New York deserves the best. Meanwhile Rangers are poorly coached team that keeps changing the players.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 07:06 PM
  #137
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,330
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
You're reaching, Emma.
No, I'm not. You said that it was reported everywhere that Wolski would be bought out, and that it was basically fact. I said that it was speculated that he'd be bought out, was FAR from fact, and pointed you to where you could find evidence to the contrary (as you requested).

Quote:
Is it? Lisin never had any coaching in NHL. For Zherdev check this coach http://www.nhl.com/coaches/tom_renney.htm
Lisin had two coaches, Tortorella and Wayne Gretzky. He won't have any more because he sucks.

Zherdev posted pretty average numbers for himself under Renney. If "elevating his game" is taken to mean "gets average production," then yeah, Renney did great work!

Quote:
Coaches may give up on players after period of time. For Torts that time is so short that gives an impression of lazy work. Once he runs the guy through all lines combos he is done. Just an opinion, not a fact. Should I put that disclaimer after anything I post here?
Nope, you're entitled to your opinions. However, when you state them as fact ("Laviolette made Zherdev important," for example) and they're clearly fallacious, I'm going to challenge them.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2011, 08:25 PM
  #138
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post

Lisin had two coaches, Tortorella and Wayne Gretzky. He won't have any more because he sucks.
That is what I meant, no NHL coaching. If you think highly of those two coaches, you're wrong. Torts does not deal with unfinished products. He either sends them down (MDZ, MZA) or out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post
Zherdev posted pretty average numbers for himself under Renney. If "elevating his game" is taken to mean "gets average production," then yeah, Renney did great work!
I never insisted Renney brought the best from Zherdev in terms of stats. He did much better job with this top 6 player than Torts, however. The only players that improved under Tortorella were Boyle and Prust. He worked with them and I admire the result. I would love, therefore, to have Torts as an Assistant Coach here to work with bottom 6 or even 9. We will never have first line here as he will continue to discard all and all. Thankfully he will not be able to rid of Gaborik and/or Richards for a few years.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 01:07 AM
  #139
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma Royd View Post
No, I'm not. You said that it was reported everywhere that Wolski would be bought out, and that it was basically fact. I said that it was speculated that he'd be bought out, was FAR from fact, and pointed you to where you could find evidence to the contrary (as you requested).



Lisin had two coaches, Tortorella and Wayne Gretzky. He won't have any more because he sucks.

Zherdev posted pretty average numbers for himself under Renney. If "elevating his game" is taken to mean "gets average production," then yeah, Renney did great work!



Nope, you're entitled to your opinions. However, when you state them as fact ("Laviolette made Zherdev important," for example) and they're clearly fallacious, I'm going to challenge them.
I suspect the man you're arguing with would insist the moon was made of cheese if he heard Torts say otherwise, screaming that "John Tortorella isn't fit to be an astronomer, and he's holding other astronomers back!"

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 06:05 AM
  #140
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
However Callahan's situation is resolved, the Rangers will get a buyout window 48 hours later, providing an opportunity to clear some salary cap space. A source told The News that if GM Glen Sather is unable to make a trade to get some money off the books, using the buyout window is a definite possibility.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ho...#ixzz1TCwtcV9I

Dueling reports again. Is that the same source who told Spector the hold up in the Dubinsky negotiations was length of the contract and not money? Brooks said it was the money. It was about the money.

Has Spector heard of the AHL? Zuccarello and his $1.75M can be assigned to the AHL without worrying about losing the player on waivers. Christensen and his $925,000 should not be too hard to move.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 11:42 AM
  #141
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Not bad if you devoted pretty long reply to it.

I heard many bad teachers arguing pretty much the same: If I focus all my time on your child, I couldn't teach the class. I refuse to accept that, although you may have some point. There are examples of the opposite, but I am not going that road. Sather and Torts are the same type. They were given winning tickets in form of the talented players/goalies and all they had to do was not to screw it up. Neither one is a great NHL coach. New York deserves the best. Meanwhile Rangers are poorly coached team that keeps changing the players.
Examples of the opposite? In hockey? How about you name one? Just one. "You refuse to accept that." That doesn't make it any less true, it just makes you confused and irrational, and pondering while lacking experience.

Also, the Rangers being poorly coached, up until this season, is kind of irrelevant, because no coach could have done anything of significance with a team that lacked the skill and talent to go anywhere, as this team has since 1997. Comparing Tortorella and Sather as coaches is, again, irrelevant. Tortorella may not be the best Xs-and-Os coach, but he's proven one thing: he knows how to motivate contending teams, and finally, that's what we have here. What does any of it have to do with your ridiculous notion that coaches are to blame for players who clearly don't have the mental tools, or for whatever reason, refuse to apply them?

Here's a solution for you: how about building a team where players with problems playing the game or playing smart consistently aren't a part of your roster, or at least not among the most integral? That's generally what well run franchises do.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 08:41 PM
  #142
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Examples of the opposite? In hockey? How about you name one? Just one. "You refuse to accept that." That doesn't make it any less true, it just makes you confused and irrational, and pondering while lacking experience.

Also, the Rangers being poorly coached, up until this season, is kind of irrelevant, because no coach could have done anything of significance with a team that lacked the skill and talent to go anywhere, as this team has since 1997. Comparing Tortorella and Sather as coaches is, again, irrelevant. Tortorella may not be the best Xs-and-Os coach, but he's proven one thing: he knows how to motivate contending teams, and finally, that's what we have here. What does any of it have to do with your ridiculous notion that coaches are to blame for players who clearly don't have the mental tools, or for whatever reason, refuse to apply them?

I disagree with every point you made. Every single one. Not that you're wrong, I just hate the picture you presented. Hockey is a sport, an art, not a war. You sound like a mag general that wants to take the height or town to report upstairs a good result and willing to sacrifice a few here and there to get it done. You can win a battle like that , but you will loose the war by just sacrifice, motivation, heroics, etc. War are won by X and O guys. Poor planners need heroes on the battlefields, bad coaches can only motivate. I will leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Here's a solution for you: how about building a team where players with problems playing the game or playing smart consistently aren't a part of your roster, or at least not among the most integral? That's generally what well run franchises do.
That is utopia. It is as bad as mine only 180 degree opposite. You say my ideal coach is a dream and then you come back with something even less likely to ever exist. All players not named Crosby, Datsuk, Ovechkin, Zetterberg or some few more others are inconsistent, have physical, mental or skill limitations. Good clubs are able to build the team out of what they got and coach that group to good results.


Last edited by 94now: 07-26-2011 at 08:53 PM.
94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 09:48 PM
  #143
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=94now;35404469]I disagree with every point you made. Every single one. Not that you're wrong, I just hate the picture you presented. Hockey is a sport, an art, not a war. You sound like a mag general that wants to take the height or town to report upstairs a good result and willing to sacrifice a few here and there to get it done. You can win a battle like that , but you will loose the war by just sacrifice, motivation, heroics, etc. War are won by X and O guys. Poor planners need heroes on the battlefields, bad coaches can only motivate. I will leave it at that.

You don't make any sense.

Hockey is both art and war. The art of hockey is in executing the "war plans" flawlessly. Part of that is on the coach, but part of that is also on the player.

I'm not a huge fan of John Tortorella. He's not my type of coach. I prefer X's-and-O's coaches who find their strength in tactics and planning. Tortorella is not among the league's best in that category. He's somewhere in the middle in terms of coaching styles. He is strategic, but that is no bigger a tool in his arsenal than the motivational factor. I'm a lot more into systems than I am motivation, but you simply cannot blame him for the fact that a player like Wolski, or Zherdev, is inconsistent. That is not his failure. His failure is in concluding that he couldn't tolerate Zherdev's issues anymore. That's different than blaming him for Zherdev's inability to get rid of those issues. Some players are unreachable. No coach, no matter how smart, can reach everyone, especially not without devoting less attention to the rest of the team, which IS NOT AN OPTION.

You said there were examples of the opposite. I'm still waiting for one. I can give you countless examples of some of the league's best coaches not being able to convince an "enigmatic" player to play the game the right way and do so consistently. One close to home? How about the same Zherdev with Ken Hitchock. Hitchock is one of the league's best tacticians, much higher in that regard than Tortorella.

Quote:
That is utopia. It is as bad as mine only 180 degree opposite. You say my ideal coach is a dream and then you come back with something even less likely to ever exist. All players not named Crosby, Datsuk, Ovechkin, Zetterberg or some few more others are inconsistent, have physical, mental or skill limitations. Good clubs are able to build the team out of what they got and coach that group to good results.
No, it is not utopia. The best teams in this league have either no players that don't understand how the game is played at a mental level, or have rosters that are so overwhelmingly positive in that regard that they can afford to carry one or two mentally limited individuals (like the pre-lockout Devils with Gomez). Well-run franchises make a concerted effort to carry as few of those types of players as a possible. Teaching a player how to play the right way is not the same thing as convincing a player that they must learn to play the right way. Two very different things. Alexei Kovalev knows how to play the right way. He's displayed it for entire seasons at a time. No coach is to blame for the fact that he refuses to play the right way at all times.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 08:46 AM
  #144
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
I'm a lot more into systems than I am motivation, but you simply cannot blame him for the fact that a player like Wolski, or Zherdev, is inconsistent. That is not his failure. His failure is in concluding that he couldn't tolerate Zherdev's issues anymore. That's different than blaming him for Zherdev's inability to get rid of those issues. Some players are unreachable. No coach, no matter how smart, can reach everyone, especially not without devoting less attention to the rest of the team, which IS NOT AN OPTION.
I've never blame him for Zherdev or Wolski not being an elite performers. My beef with Torts is exactly highlighted part.
Wolski was one of the best players of Noth America of his age group when he was with Bramton. Same was Grachev with same junior team. All of the sudden both players lost mental ability to play the game they both easily dominated? I do not believe that. Sure everything is possible, but there is also well known issue of player misuse due to coach inability to do X and Os well. Rangers are overdue for coach upgrade at Hartford, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You said there were examples of the opposite. I'm still waiting for one.
You got my point and just looking to pick up the fight knowing it would be hard for me to be flawless is defending it. I'm not going in that trap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
I can give you countless examples of some of the league's best coaches not being able to convince an "enigmatic" player to play the game the right way and do so consistently. One close to home? How about the same Zherdev with Ken Hitchock. Hitchock is one of the league's best tacticians, much higher in that regard than Tortorella.
Bad example, since Hitch has never gave up on Zherdev and I heard him saying good things about the guy. Tyutin was a better value, just that. All he was saying was that Z cannot carry the team, which is true. Zherdev is a secondary scoring source we missed in the season when he went to KHL and we didn't make the playoffs. He is not an elite, but he has never been replaced as Frolov and now Wolski were not what Torts would like.

Let m suggest why is that. Torts philosophy is very simple: Give me a good goalie, defense and elite first line that could score and I will take care about destroying the opponent's game with my plumbers. That is why Wolski is not in Tort's plans. He has no or very little idea how to use him as there is no defined place for the player like that in his system. Same for Zherdev, Frolov, Lisin or whoever who is neither elite or plumber. That's why I insist WW will be bought out since it is possible to get a cheaper guy for Torts dog house.


Last edited by 94now: 07-27-2011 at 08:58 AM.
94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:03 PM
  #145
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
I've never blame him for Zherdev or Wolski not being an elite performers. My beef with Torts is exactly highlighted part.
Wolski was one of the best players of Noth America of his age group when he was with Bramton. Same was Grachev with same junior team. All of the sudden both players lost mental ability to play the game they both easily dominated? I do not believe that. Sure everything is possible, but there is also well known issue of player misuse due to coach inability to do X and Os well. Rangers are overdue for coach upgrade at Hartford, IMO.
I don't think it is a coach's fault that Grachev dominated the OHL due to his size advantage, and the caliber of his suppoting. Like a lot of "power forwards" or "big, nasty defensemen," their physical gifts can be advantageous in the short-term, but actually hinder their development as NHLers in the long term because they learn to play the game in a fashion that is not possible to recreate in the NHL, and re-learning such an instinctual game is not always easy.

Wolski played his ass off when Phoenix acquired him, and then the next season, sucked again. Same coach. So it's Tippett's fault? Very good coach, by the way.

Quote:
You got my point and just looking to pick up the fight knowing it would be hard for me to be flawless is defending it. I'm not going in that trap.
Hah, no I just don't think you're point makes any sense, nor do I think there is any evidence to support it.

Quote:
Bad example, since Hitch has never gave up on Zherdev and I heard him saying good things about the guy. Tyutin was a better value, just that. All he was saying was that Z cannot carry the team, which is true. Zherdev is a secondary scoring source we missed in the season when he went to KHL and we didn't make the playoffs. He is not an elite, but he has never been replaced as Frolov and now Wolski were not what Torts would like.
Yes, I agree that Zherdev should not have been let go for nothing and that he still was one of the team's best offensive players. Big picture, however, is irrelevant because the team would have been mediocre either way. At this point, we are strong enough that we don't need him. But how can you say that Hitchock didn't give up on him. Who cares about what he said? The fact is that he tried to get him to play one way, and most of the time, Zherdev didn't play that way. Just as Tortorella did. Tortorella could have just said "**** it," and lived with the 55-65 points Zherdev would have put up, along with the various poor decisions he makes, but that still wouldn't have turned Zherdev into the type of player he could be if he just followed his coach's instructions.

Hitchock may have been willing to go the "live with it" scenario, but he did essentially give up trying to make Zherdev play the right way. At some point, the tension and amount of time spent in trying to turn Zherdev into a polished player decreased dramatically.

Quote:
Let m suggest why is that. Torts philosophy is very simple: Give me a good goalie, defense and elite first line that could score and I will take care about destroying the opponent's game with my plumbers. That is why Wolski is not in Tort's plans. He has no or very little idea how to use him as there is no defined place for the player like that in his system. Same for Zherdev, Frolov, Lisin or whoever who is neither elite or plumber. That's why I insist WW will be bought out since it is possible to get a cheaper guy for Torts dog house.
I don't think that's so much Torts' philosophy as it is the only realistic way to build a contending, or near-contending team out of what he had to work with when he arrived, and something that could be done in 3-4 years time. In Tampa, he had 2 great offensive centers. 2 big lines.

It's not about having no idea how to use someone, it's about valuing effort and consistency more than infrequent displays of offensive flair. Also, comparing Lisin and Frolov to Zherdev and Wolski is not right. Frolov has always been more of a defensive forward than an offensive one, and Lisin is just a horrible player with no idea of what is going on out there.

Zherdev is a better offensive player than Wolski, and actually, probably more consistent, but even worse and less enthusiastic about play outside of the offensive zone. Tortorella doesn't like players who make tactical mistakes, and I can't blame him for it. I just think that, if your team is so destitute of offensive ability, sometimes it's worth living with SOME mistakes. We could have used Zherdev in the last 2 years, but at this point, we don't really need Wolski or his one out of every four games of offensive greatness. We aren't that bad offensively, and he's not that good.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:07 PM
  #146
darrenturcotte#8
Registered User
 
darrenturcotte#8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
I don't think it is a coach's fault that Grachev dominated the OHL due to his size advantage, and the caliber of his suppoting. Like a lot of "power forwards" or "big, nasty defensemen," their physical gifts can be advantageous in the short-term, but actually hinder their development as NHLers in the long term because they learn to play the game in a fashion that is not possible to recreate in the NHL, and re-learning such an instinctual game is not always easy.

This is a great analysis. Totally agree.

darrenturcotte#8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:11 PM
  #147
Brendan Shanahan
I suspend people
 
Brendan Shanahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,060
vCash: 500
I say he reaches 60 points easily this season. He's a talented player who needs to refine his game a bit. He's working on his skating this offseason. That's solid. Now let's see if he can put it together in NYC because I loved his game in Colorado. He's a very talented guy. Let's see what he can do with a guy like Richards centering him.

Brendan Shanahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:20 PM
  #148
NYRFAN218
Brass God
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,456
vCash: 500
StapeNewsday Arthur Staple
#NYRangers have no plans to buy out Wojtek Wolski in 48-hour buyout window. Roster is pretty well set for training camp.
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:23 PM
  #149
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Flames fan.

Quick question; Can Wolski play RW?

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:39 PM
  #150
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 500
On the WW vs Torts talk, I kind of agree with both sides.

WW, and Z for example, are far from ideel, but at the same time, I've not seen Torts do anything positive with them.

John Tortorella is certainly not good at working with flawed players. He is a straight shooter, he sets a bar and demand certain things, if you cannot provide that from day 1, well you will not be around. There are positive sides with that, and negative sides. There are many examples of great coaches who got a ton out of players that nobody believed in, who where heading in the wrong direction but set straight by their coach. That would of course never happend under Torts. At the same time, everyone knows what the demands are from the get go.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.