Tortorella breaks it down

Some more thoughts from coach John Tortorella on a couple of items.

In discussing why Ilkka Heikkinen, who is coming over from the Finnish league, is still assigned to the Rangers while Mike Sauer, picked in the second round, 40th overall, of the 2005 draft, has been assigned to Hartford (AHL), Tortorella said it was "due to play, Heikkinen has caught our eye a little bit to take a look for a little longer. I told Mike in the meeting, he shouldn't take this in the wrong way."

Really, there seems little that Sauer can do about this. Heikkinen's game (read: his offensive potential) better suits Tortorella's system than Sauer's defensively-safe play. Sauer's game does have its strengths and he is a big body, but if he can't help the Rangers transition the other way quickly, he's not going to have a spot under Tortorella. That said, unless Heikkinen steps up his defensive play, he's going to have a hard time playing in the NHL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/AGrossRecord

Here's the quote from Tortorella when asked about the overall play of his defensemen.

"I like what I see from the kids," Tortorella said. "As far as the veteran guys, I'm not crazy about what's going on there. I'm not crazy about a few guys on the blue line in how they've played."

Tortorella went no further and I have to assume he was specifically talking about Michal Rozsival and Wade Redden. I don't believe Marc Staal and Dan Girardi fell into that veteran category.

As for Marian Gaborik, "He won't play against Detroit, we'll make a decision come the Boston game."

Tortorella admitted he's straddling a fine line as he gets to know his most important skater between allowing him time to heal his sore groin and pushing him a bit to skate.

"With Gabby, it's a matter of him mentally feeling comfortable with it," Tortorella said. "It's goodd to see him scrimmage today, you can see the talent level there. It's just like knee injuries, a lot of it is just getting through it mentally. Hopefully we'll be smart about this and get him geared up for that opener. He will play some exhibition games, it's just when he plays them.

"I don't blame him for the way he thinks about this," Tortorella added. "I believe in pushing athletes. But you can't be stupid either."

Tortorella said right now is not crunch time so there's still time to show plenty of patience with Gaborik. Asked if it was crunch time for Brandon Dubinsky, Tortorella chose not to field the question.

The Rangers now have 20 forwards, 10 defensemen and four goalies in camp. That number will likely be cut again after these next two preseason games, prior to Monday's game at the Garden against the Red Wings.

Comments

[CP (Chris)]

Great move not playing Gaborik against a fast, high powered Red Wings squad.

[bob]

Sauer is a good skater with size and he does have decent offensive ability. 23 points in 64 games last season and a whopping +29.

And in juniors he was a 35 point guy if he would have played full seasons.

Girardi did have a bad game on Tuesday, while Redden looked good, so I assume he meant Girardi and Rozsival.

Why is he not happy with Byers, he could be as good as Clarkson.

[Rogan]

Byers is still in camp; I'm surprised Dupont didn't get a closer look. I thought Sauer looked really good. I know conventional wisdom says you can't go with too many young defensemen. But it's a shame really -- as we seem loaded. It also has a bit of bitterness to it, as Rozy and Redden are taking up two slots, and contrary to their contracts, don't seem worthy of those spots. They're both making mistakes like young players, but with none (in the case of Redden) or infuriatingly never fully-realized (in the case of Rozy) upside. Personally, I'd go against conventional wisdom, choose not to dress Rozy or Redden (if the cap and numbers allow) and take my chances with the kids.

Further, Torts is in a pickle. Playing Rozy and Redden together, means putting two mistake-prone, out of position, turn-over ridden defensemen together. However, splitting them up means they spoil two defense pairings. Their play in the Washington series aside, these guys are going to cost us games.

[oleosmirf]

as overpaid and has bad as those contracts are noone can sit here with a straight face and say that Potter or Sauer is better than them...I mean its not even close...

[Lowtide10]

Perhaps not, but I'll take a kid with heart and accept his mistakes vs. a more talented vet with no heart.

[CP (Chris)]

Come the start of the season, I don't think you will find Rozy and Redden in the same pairing, anyways. At least that would be stupid if they were considering there will be two rookie defensemen. If it was me, the defensive pairings would be, in no particular order of lines, but really like the last two paired up with the first two lines:

Roszival-Sangs/DZ
Staal-Redden
Girardi-Gilroy

I agree, OLEOSMIRF. I definitely think Redden and Rozy will have a better year, too. Potter is a good player, though, and we will get his chance...

[Rogan]

Oleosmirf, actually it's exactly what I'm saying. Take Michal Rozsival for a moment. He's 31 years old. We all keep saying, if he'd only shoot the puck more, only stop turning over the puck in his own zone, only clear out the net. He's 31, if he hasn't learned to do these things now, do you really think he's going to start? When he was Jagr's personal defenseman, him and Malik, their plus-minus rating was extraudinary -- the most worthless statistic in hockey. But at this point, he's overrated at best, and costs a team hockey games. While the young guys, take your pick of our top 3 or 4 defense prospects. They're going to grow, they're going to get better; yes, they'll make mistakes, they'll cost us some games, but in the end, the design of the thing says ultimately the team will be better for it. Rozy and Redden aren't going to suddenly learn how to be better defensemen. And all things being the same, they're locked up on our defense corp well past this year. And as a final note, I think the prospects we have do have more talent. All Rozy and Redden have over them is NHL experience -- but I'd don't think either of those guys have the ability to excel consistently at the NHL level (at this point now). I could be wrong; but we're going to find out this year. But before the end of October, Torts will have benched one of them. Watch.

[Bill]

Off topic, but congratulations to Nigel Dawes for a goal and two assists last night for Calgary. I hope both Dawes and Petr Prucha do well this season!

[Rogan]

Actually, I think the plan is to break up Staal and Girardi and pair them with the rookies; and I think that says alot about how Torts feels about our other two veterans.

[Mike]

Bill - nice shout out. I always liked Dawes. The guy had some awesome hands. Good for him. I read that was quite a game last night. Is that Phaneuf (sp?) guy the same one Avery spoke about in terms of sloppy 2nds? hahahahaha - love Avery!

[Mike]

Brooks posted another article on Dubi... I guess he's lowered his asking price to 1.1. What a joke, his agent is killing him.

[CP (Chris)]

I just think Staal and Redden should be paired because of the size and physical presence Redden lacks; however, if Torts is trying to get Staal to rush the puck more, Redden may not be the best choice. One thing is for sure, and that is that Staal and Gilroy should not be paired; basically, 5 forwards on the ice trying to get in the play.

[CP (Chris)]

OK, 1.85 for two years, and he won't accept it? That's unbelievable! That's a decent premium for an additional year.

NEW YORK POST: Larry Brooks reports Rangers holdout center Brandon Dubinsky has lowered his asking price. It's believed he's now seeking either a one-year, $1.1 million contract or a two-year, $2.15 million deal. Rangers GM Glen Sather however is believed holding fast to a one-year, $700K or two-year, $1.85 million deal. Brooks believes it's unlikely Dubinsky will attract an offer sheet the Rangers couldn't match.

[Mike]

yea it kinda is... I thought the talk was ufa next year and arb. So, he is committing himself to the 2nd yr for that little? I dont get it? What if he has a huge year? Is his agent a complete moron, or is it me? hahahaha Im confused by that?

[Charles]

IF the plan is for Dubinsky to play on the first line, $2.15 is very close to the mark. If Slats doesn't want to be a jerk about it (and its his right to be so in this case), he should finalize this at 2 years for $2 mill, splitting the difference down the middle. If Dubi took $700K this year and went to arbitration next year, I'm pretty sure, barring injury or 3rd line play, that he would garner considerably more than $1.3 million next year --- perhaps as much as $2-2.5 million. Not to mention it allows 2 years to pass from the acrimony of this negotiation. We all know that arbitration rarely leaves a sweet taste in anybody's mouth.

[Rogan]

You can't reward a player who has sat out camp. Once Dubinsky and his agent tried to pull that move, they actually shot themselves in the foot. Sather talked to Dubinsky before he left camp -- and I would imagine he explained as much.

At this point, Dubinsky has cost himself any chance of wearing an A -- as well as undermining his own opportunity to man the top line. Though with Gabby not playing right now, he wasn't going to be able to make an argument for it, anyway.

His position, and that of his agent, are going to get him sent out of town.

[Charles]

Rogan, this isn't personal, this is business. You can't let emotion over the player's business decision cloud your judgment. The odds are good that over 2 years, the 2nd year being an arbitration awarded salary, Dubi would stand to make over $2.25 million. If the Rangers had signed Dubi to a $2 million 2 year contract prior to training camp, everybody here would be happy. Besides, that's an extremely good contract to trade should the Rangers decide to do so in the future.

Dubi's agent screwed up because he underestimated the current distaste of NHL GM's to make offer sheets ... if this had happened 2 years ago, Dubi would be pulling offer sheets for well over $1.5 million a year.

[CP (Chris)]

Charles, I think that you're missing the point. If it's business, why should Sather do this kid any favors? Sather started at $500K, because he CAN with leverage, and has moved up to $1.85 over two years. There is no unwritten rule that says if a GM says "if you center a player like Gaborik on a first line for a team in NHL, you deserve whatever money you demand." If Dubi doesn't accept that offer, then he shouldn't be a Ranger. By the way, the way the lineup is prematurely set, right now, in camp without him, I'm not sure we're even that desperate for his services, assuming Prospal is effective.

[jerry]

ive been saying it all along about dubinsky to just take what they are offering and just play.i usually dont change my mind but if its true that he lowered his price to 1.1 million then glen sather is a idiot for not making the deal im mean come on we are paying aron voros (the useless one)a million a year to watch from the bench. i cant believe it i have to switch my opinion on this one.slats dont be a complete fool .

[LI Joe]

rogan - just curious did you cheer when rozy scored the goal in double OT vs the sabres. the guy also played in this yrs playoffs pretty banged up. is he worth the $ 5 mm per yr. NO. but still not as bad as you make him out to be. and his contract will be pretty easy to trade after this yr since a lot of it is front loaded and some teams care more about real $ than cap $.

someone mentioned dubi will not get the A now. in my mind he never should have for this season anyway. he should sign for 1 yr $ 800 k and make his money next yr when he has arbitration. what a prima donna

[Chris D]

Heres an interesting read on the Dubinsky situation for those of you who are interested. Im personally torn on the issue. I can see both sides of the issue and it sucks. I just want to see him back in a BlueShirt come October.

http://hockeyindependent.com/blog/?p=573

[Rogan]

LI Joe, of course I cheered. I'm not rooting against him. I hope both him and Redden prove me wrong. I'll be the first to admit I'm off-base. Am I overstating the negative. Okay, maybe. But on a whole, I'm not impressed with his game; he keeps making the same mistakes. When I watch him play, he mostly frustrates me. That you see something else -- than maybe I'm missing it.

And Charles, I wasn't be personal about it. You can't send the message as an organization that a player is rewarded by missing camp. It's a poor leverage technique. Didn't the Devils get rid of Bill Guerin (sp.?) over similar nonsense. It's been said here by others, and Larry Brooks in the Post, in every other negotiation Dubinsky will have the upper hand. Dubinsky's agent is asking Sather to bid against himself. It shouldn't happen.

[Charles]

CP, Rogan, et. al. ... it's not about doing favors, it's about finding a deal that will in some way work for both parties. If 2 years at $1.9-2.0 million works for Dubi, I say it should work well for the Rangers --- unless that doesn't leave league minimum for 1 more contract, which is what I believe Slats is looking for. If Dubi plays this year at $700K and produces more than his 41 points, he'll win an arbitration for more than $1.5 million ... probably closer to $1.75-2.0 million. Over 2 years, the Rangers save money ... good money. Plus, it's an easily tradeable contract at 2 years!

If I were Slats, I would hold hard on the 1 year deal as leverage for a 2 year deal at under $2 million ... but that's just me. Is that rewarding the player for holding out? Perhaps, although if he takes the 1st year @ $700K and a second year @ $1.25 I don't see the reward ... but in any event, I wouldn't care as long as I (as a GM) were rewarded also --- and I love the tradeability of a 2 year deal, should I want to move Dubi any time during the year or over the summer.

[Rogan]

Charles, I'm all the proposal you're suggesting. If that means I'm backtracking off my previous statement, so be it. But I still think he's "not playing" himself right out of town.

[Charles]

Rogan, it's a distinct possibility that he is "not playing" himself out of town ... so if that's the case, Slats should get him in under a favorable 2 year deal and move him from a position of strength, not weakness. I believe without a contract, we're dealing from a weaker position.