The Rangers have traded for…Adam McQuaid?

[text_output]We’ve been waiting all off-season for the Rangers to put their cap space to use in unique ways. Most of us expected that to happen earlier this summer around draft time. For some reason, the Rangers decided to wait until now, acquiring right-handed defenseman Adam McQuaid from the Boston Bruins for Steve Kampfer, a fourth round pick in the ’19 draft and a conditional seventh round pick.[/text_output] [text_output]My initial reaction to the trade: Why?

I get why the Rangers would snag an overpriced veteran on an expiring contract (McQuaid will make $2.75M this year before he hits unrestricted free agency), but why would the Rangers put their own draft pick in this trade?

Further, why would the Rangers acquire a defenseman who isn’t exactly…good? The Rangers have so many short and long-term questions that need to be answered defensively, does it make sense to add a 31-year-old replacement level player who could take time away from younger players? Is the potential of flipping McQuaid in the future worth taking time away from a young player here and now?

We’ve had some time to digest the deal, look at what it could mean for the Rangers moving forward and what the front office might be thinking, and I feel…

Yeah, I still don’t love it. Allow me to explain.

First, there’s Adam McQuaid, future trade asset.

It’s not too long ago that McQuaid was a useful, though not spectacular defenseman.[/text_output][image type=”none” float=”none” src=”3078″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]McQuaid played only 38 games last year, and his style really didn’t fit what the Bruins were doing when he was healthy and available. If utilized properly, McQuaid is a big body, capable, defensive-minded option who won’t do much to help your team win, but also won’t be reasons 1-6 for why you lost like Steve Kampfer was on any given night.

McQuaid would be a solid depth option for a contending team’s bottom pair, or 7th defenseman spot. We’ve seen teams more than willing to give up a third round pick at the trade deadline to get their hands (hell, the Rangers snagged a third rounder AND AHL defensive depth for Nick Holden next year, and McQuaid is better than Holden). So, in theory, the Rangers could use McQuaid and their ability to eat 50% of his salary as a way to upgrade from an early fourth round pick to a late third round pick from a contender.

We can also point to the nearly universal praise McQuaid has received as a locker room influence as another reason why the Rangers would value him. It’s an extremely young roster, with young defenseman trying to find their feet in the NHL for the first time, and maybe having respected veterans like Marc Staal and McQuaid will make a long-term difference for how those players handle themselves. And, most importantly, the Rangers aren’t pretending to be a contending team this year. It doesn’t really matter if they’re bad defensively (it will be) or who is responsible for them being bad defensively. Next year is about finding answers, not winning games.

But that’s also my chief problem with this trade.

The Rangers need to find some long-term answers, and Adam McQuaid complicates that equation. On the right hand side of the Rangers D, the only true guarantee to start on opening night is Kevin Shattenkirk. The other two spots were, in my estimation, going to go to Neal Pionk and Tony DeAngelo as long as neither bombed during training camp.

Now? Jeff Gorton did an interview with Larry Brooks days before this trade happen and said – straight up – if a young player performs well in camp and deserves a roster spot, he’ll get the spot. It won’t matter if there’s an established veteran in front of him or vying for the same spot.

I love that kind of talk, but it’s only talk until it happens. The only way you can get full value for Adam McQuaid on the trade market is by showcasing him, so it’s hard to imagine a scenario where McQuaid is not one of the two right-handed defensemen who join Skjei. That means one of Pionk or DeAngelo is going to start the season in Hartford.

I said on the podcast this week that it wouldn’t be the end of the world if Neal Pionk starts the year in Hartford, and it wouldn’t. But I also don’t see the purpose in it. It’s a rebuilding year for the Rangers, and this is the absolute perfect time to see if your young players can handle life in the NHL when expectations are low. If by some incredible run of play from Libor Hajek pushes Pionk to Hartford? That’s one thing. But to make room for McQuaid at the expense of a player like Pionk? That’s befuddling.

And then there’s the case of Tony DeAngelo.

Maybe I was being naive, or maybe my expectations are out of whack with reality, but I have always been under the impression DeAngelo was going to get every opportunity to succeed at the NHL level this year. His style of play seems to fit like a glove for the expected system David Quinn and Greg Brown are expected to run this season. He looked significantly better and more comfortable when he was recalled late in the season by the Rangers last year before a leg injury ended his year. He’s still only 22-years-old and still flashes the potential that made him a first round pick in spite of multiple red flags related to his attitude. I’m also under the impression that the Rangers would have to attempt to pass DeAngelo through waivers if they wanted him to start the season in Hartford, a potentially unnecessary risk to lose a player as young as him who plays a clear position of need for the Rangers.

Competition is good. Asking Pionk and DeAngelo to step up their games in camp is never a problem. Asking a veteran to push your young players while also giving him an opportunity to rediscover his game is never a bad thing.

I’m just a bit confused as to why the Rangers would present an option during a rebuilding season that could keep young players off the ice and playing meaningful minutes. Not to mention, wasn’t the whole point of signing Freddy Claesson to present the safety net for the kids? Or giving Brendan Smith a shot at redemption a re-establish his value, either for the Rangers during the life of his contract or in a potential trade?

This isn’t a flat-out bad trade. It’s curious, for sure. It’s troubling if Jeff Gorton feels Adam McQuaid legitimately helps the Rangers compete. It’s interesting that Gorton feels he needed to add more options to camp in order to push his kids, and an option that is more likely to make the team than not. But is it the worst move the Rangers have ever made? No, no. We’re not anywhere near that territory.

It’s just…odd. It’s weird. I’d rather give DeAngelo the shot and sink with that ship this season. But, I’m not Jeff Gorton. So buckle up.[/text_output]