HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Tortorella's relationship with Boogaard

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2011, 11:47 AM
  #26
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,655
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
He's never had to before. That Southeast division has about the same amount fire as an iceberg. Now he's dealing with rivals. I don't know it's just a theory. It just seems to me like a fiery guy like Torts would appreciate a player who likes to smash stuff.
I would think that hardly makes a difference if Torts is an enforcer.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:48 AM
  #27
Machinehead
Moderator
Girardi's Corgi
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Land of no Defense
Country: United States
Posts: 47,780
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mint Berry Crunch View Post
This. Boogaard can't even complete a shift without looking like a liability out there sometimes. The highlight reels will show you huge hits and glass breaking and uber-intensity... great, but that's not the case 99% of the time with Boog. More often than not, he's too slow and fumbly to even line up a hit. I was stoked about the signing but after seeing him and not having him on the team - I can honestly assess this team is better off without him most nights.

With that said, I am so glad I was at MSG to witness his goal against the Caps.
I think Boogaard is more of an asset to a team that doesn't already have Prust. I don't see the need for two enforcers, especially when the other, Prust, is ten times better at the rest of the game, sans fighting.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:49 AM
  #28
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
A family member of mine was manager at the U-Maine hockey team when Torts and his brother were playing there, and apparently Torts was not a goon on the ice. Bit of a loudmouth, though.

A bit of a Sean Avery perhaps?

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:50 AM
  #29
Machinehead
Moderator
Girardi's Corgi
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Land of no Defense
Country: United States
Posts: 47,780
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I would think that hardly makes a difference if Torts is an enforcer.
Alright, alright already!

For the love of Richter!


Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:51 AM
  #30
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,607
vCash: 500
its been a while since the rangers have played a game with a real "enforcer" in their line up

have they lost a game because of it?

i'd say thats a definative hell no

team toughness >>>>>>>>>>>> enforcer all day every day

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 11:53 AM
  #31
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,655
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I think Boogaard is more of an asset to a team that doesn't already have Prust. I don't see the need for two enforcers, especially when the other, Prust, is ten times better at the rest of the game, sans fighting.
The two really aren't comparable.

Prust is a legit player who can take a regular shift.

Boogaard is one dimensional. In a salary cap world, there's no place for a player like that. And I think Torts recognizes that.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:01 PM
  #32
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Boogaard is one dimensional. In a salary cap world, there's no place for a player like that. And I think Torts recognizes that.
That would infer then that Torts was against the signing. Is that what you're saying?

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:02 PM
  #33
Machinehead
Moderator
Girardi's Corgi
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Land of no Defense
Country: United States
Posts: 47,780
vCash: 50
I think Prust is the enforcer of the future. Soon they'll all be like him. In an era that's being dominated by the salary cap, speed, youth, and well-rounded lineups, big lugs can't survive anymore. The only enforcers that will be around anymore are guys like Prust who can contribute with the gloves on as well.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:02 PM
  #34
The Beezer
Registered User
 
The Beezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Contract aside, I personally think that Torts likes the idea of having a heavyweight at his disposal. Don't forget that going into the season that they seemed like a young team that might have lacked some toughness. So without that heavyweight you were looking at Prust doing most of the heavy work (which I believe, he could handle his own against anybody). But maybe Torts didn't want Prust to worry about that so he could play the type of game that he's shown he's capable of.

Also who knew that Sauer would play so well and with an edge when needed. And how many times have we heard that Boyle wasn't even supposed to make the team? He too adds that physical presence when needed.

It is a double edge sword though, especially when they are having trouble scoring goals by having that spot in the line-up taken by an enforcer. Who says he needs to play every game (contract aside)? But I do know that when we go into places like Philadelphia, it's nice to have a big man around in case he's needed.

The Beezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:03 PM
  #35
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,655
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
That would infer then that Torts was against the signing. Is that what you're saying?
Gun to my head, I would say he would have been against it. Especially after Shelley left for what was a bad deal. At least he trusted Shelley to take a regular shift.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:03 PM
  #36
XLJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 1,374
vCash: 500
I dont think Torts wanted Boogaard. He was talking about how you have to be able to skate and play when they got rid of Orr. They brought Brashear in because he could actually play a little in his prime. The problem with Brashear is that he was old and washed up. Signing Boogaard was all Sather. Remember that quote how Boogaard will stop players from running Hank. Its been guys like Sauer, Dubi, Prust, Avery etc from stopping that and are the ones that are responsible for building more team toughness.

I agree with Fitzy I'll take an energy type player that can skate, be a good forechecker and hits everything. I think those are more effective 4th line players.

XLJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:05 PM
  #37
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,655
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beezer View Post
Contract aside, I personally think that Torts likes the idea of having a heavyweight at his disposal. Don't forget that going into the season that they seemed like a young team that might have lacked some toughness. So without that heavyweight you were looking at Prust doing most of the heavy work (which I believe, he could handle his own against anybody). But maybe Torts didn't want Prust to worry about that so he could play the type of game that he's shown he's capable of.

Also who knew that Sauer would play so well and with an edge when needed. And how many times have we heard that Boyle wasn't even supposed to make the team? He too adds that physical presence when needed.

It is a double edge sword though, especially when they are having trouble scoring goals by having that spot in the line-up taken by an enforcer. Who says he needs to play every game (contract aside)? But I do know that when we go into places like Philadelphia, it's nice to have a big man around in case he's needed.
The thing is, you can no longer say "contract aside."

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:07 PM
  #38
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,763
vCash: 500
Do any of you think that perhaps the whole "team toughness" revolution was driven/inspired by Boogaard being on this roster? First, it's a lot easier to play that role when you have the biggest guy in your corner. But more importantly, none of our guys really wants to sit out so that Boogaard plays. The easiest way, IMO, to make sure you're not the guy in the pressbox while DB isn't is to make damn sure that toughness is not lacking when you're on the ice. Virtually every guy can outplay him, so if you can contribute anything in addition to answering the bell when necessary, you're a lock to play. I think the fact that he's there keeps guys motivated to handle these things themselves or risk being the odd man out.

SML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:10 PM
  #39
Machinehead
Moderator
Girardi's Corgi
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Land of no Defense
Country: United States
Posts: 47,780
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
Do any of you think that perhaps the whole "team toughness" revolution was driven/inspired by Boogaard being on this roster? First, it's a lot easier to play that role when you have the biggest guy in your corner. But more importantly, none of our guys really wants to sit out so that Boogaard plays. The easiest way, IMO, to make sure you're not the guy in the pressbox while DB isn't is to make damn sure that toughness is not lacking when you're on the ice. Virtually every guy can outplay him, so if you can contribute anything in addition to answering the bell when necessary, you're a lock to play. I think the fact that he's there keeps guys motivated to handle these things themselves or risk being the odd man out.
I think Prust and Shelly started it last year. When they showed up, we went from a bunch of spineless squids to a chaingang.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:33 PM
  #40
Miller Time NYR
Registered User
 
Miller Time NYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Torts is mean, nasty, and down right not neighborly. If he was on the ice, he'd be punching everyone, which is what Boogaard does. Torts is a goon, and I think he wanted a goon. Or at least someone to help him handle Brooksie in the locker room.
Boogaard isn't a torts kind of guy, torts didn't like brasher, he was banished, torts dispised Averys penalty ravished loud mouth style of play and he put the kabosh on that, also while boogaard has played he has been significantly more under control as opposed to his years with the wild where he'd skate around hit everyone and take penalties just playing stupid hockey.
Torts is a blue collar hard working guy which is what he wants his players to be like and that is not boogaard, hes a guy torts has to deal with I honestly think sather wanted an enforcer as did torts but I don't think he wanted a 300 lb train that's good for nothing more then a hug match per game and a penalty or two if given unreasonable amounts of ice time.

Miller Time NYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:48 PM
  #41
BrandNewDream
Registered User
 
BrandNewDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bayonne, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I think Boogaard is more of an asset to a team that doesn't already have Prust. I don't see the need for two enforcers, especially when the other, Prust, is ten times better at the rest of the game, sans fighting.
Ok, and we had Prust. Why bring Boogaard in?

BrandNewDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:52 PM
  #42
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
 
I Am Chariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 14,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingWantsCup View Post
Since Torts has been hired, to me it seems as if Sather has given him anything he's asked for. I am a bit confused on Boogaard though. Do you guys think Boogaard was Torts' idea or Sather just throwing a curve ball? Do you guys think Torts' likes Boogaard? I know none of us are in the locker room, but let's just take a stab at this because it's important. It's important because Bogey's contract is unreasonable both in length and money for what he provides, which means if he's anywhere near Torts' dog house he won't be around much longer.

Thoughts?

I think they agreed the team needed to be tougher and ABSOLUTELY stand up for each other more. A lot of that is chemistry and pride in each other but its also having the right guys.

I'm sure they agreed there was a roster spot for a pure enforcer type and Sather went out and got the he thought was best for the job. It's somewhat subjective but obviously Boog is at the top of class when it comes to fighters.

I Am Chariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 12:54 PM
  #43
Machinehead
Moderator
Girardi's Corgi
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Land of no Defense
Country: United States
Posts: 47,780
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandNewDream View Post
Ok, and we had Prust. Why bring Boogaard in?
You'd have to ask Sather.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:04 PM
  #44
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 19,866
vCash: 500
Boogaard is the least needed player on this team right now and Torts realizes this. He hasn't dominated anyone in his few fights this year and now with PCS?

Feel bad for the guy, but Torts sees he's a detriment to the team when he's on the ice, now.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:04 PM
  #45
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,655
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chariot View Post
I think they agreed the team needed to be tougher and ABSOLUTELY stand up for each other more. A lot of that is chemistry and pride in each other but its also having the right guys.

I'm sure they agreed there was a roster spot for a pure enforcer type and Sather went out and got the he thought was best for the job. It's somewhat subjective but obviously Boog is at the top of class when it comes to fighters.
1) I understand they might have felt there's a need. But Torts is a coach that doesn't employ an enforcer every game and he rarely rolls four lines.

2) If we agree there's a need, does that need to be filled by signing a UFA to a a multi-million dollar, multiple year contract?

3) Assuming Boogaard is the best at what he does is there really such a big difference between the best guy and the 10th best? If so, does that warrant the kind of contract that Boogaard got? Matt Karkner makes 700k. I understand that he has never been a UFA, but is Boogaard twice as good as Karkner? Boogaard's dome says no.

4) It seems to me that while there might have been a need, looking at how Torts uses an enforcer, did that necessitate the capspace and money they committed to Boogaard?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:12 PM
  #46
BrandNewDream
Registered User
 
BrandNewDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bayonne, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I think Torts is the one who wanted him in the first place. Boogaard is a Torts kind of guy...for real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Torts is mean, nasty, and down right not neighborly. If he was on the ice, he'd be punching everyone, which is what Boogaard does. Torts is a goon, and I think he wanted a goon. Or at least someone to help him handle Brooksie in the locker room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
He's never had to before. That Southeast division has about the same amount fire as an iceberg. Now he's dealing with rivals. I don't know it's just a theory. It just seems to me like a fiery guy like Torts would appreciate a player who likes to smash stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead
Alright, alright already!

For the love of Richter!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
You'd have to ask Sather.

So quick to give up your opinion? Apparently, it was Torts' doing about 20 posts ago, but now it's on Sather?

Or is that just a "theory"?

We didn't need Boogaard, and I don't know why the heck we signed him. ESPECIALLY for the dollars. And EVEN MORE SO for the term. Awful, all around.

Another note, that I hadn't seen mentioned: What about when Boogaard was asked about his health, and he said "you'll have to ask Torts"? Could it be that Boogaard feels that the team is holding him back in some way?

BrandNewDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 01:30 PM
  #47
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 3743
I don't blame Torts for us having an enforcer, let alone Boogaard. I blame Dolan.

I recall reading about Dolan yelling at Sather a few years ago after a game against the Flyers in which Colton Orr wasn't dressed. After that point, Orr became a Renney regular.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:06 PM
  #48
TreeSapLlama
Registered User
 
TreeSapLlama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
While this year for Boogaard is already written off, as mentioned previously (out of shape, PCS, out of shape from PCS). I think if he came to camp in shape with some Underhill skating lessons under his belt, he would be serviceable enough for 5 minutes of hitting everything he can. Thats all I would ever hope from him. Whether that is worth the contract or not, that has been debated to death.

*edit* Since my comment wasn't very on topic. 100% Sather signing, not Torts. Torts probably request we get a little tougher, and Slats decided to just get the biggest toughest guy regardless of hockey ability. I think Glen Sather would try to sign Mike Tyson for an enforcer if he could.

TreeSapLlama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:27 PM
  #49
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,468
vCash: 500
I think Torts wanted Shelley back.
I think he wanted an enforcer who could skate and forecheck.
I think Sather was like "sorry! contract didn't work out with Jody. BRB!"
Then Riseborough was like "OHAI thar! I know da Boogie Man! Look at these yoootooob clips!"
Sather: Hot damn!
Torts: An enforcer!
Boogard: Dur
Torts: wtf? what happened to the skating and forechecking part of my request.
Sather: AFK

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 02:47 PM
  #50
Stugots
Kolo, Kolo Kolo!
 
Stugots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,436
vCash: 500
I don't think Torts wanted Stone Cold Steve Austin on skates.

Sam: "And Boogaard grabs Carcillo... STUNNER! HE GAVE HIM THE STUNNER! FIGHT OVER!"

Stugots 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 12:36 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.