Rangers Sign F David Desharnais to 1-Year/$1M Deal

@ me

Phil Kocher

Managing Editor at Cleared for Contact
I believe in Nate Silver, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Christopher Hitchens, and hockey analytics.
Blogging between diaper changes.
@ me

It’s not exactly free agent fireworks, but the Rangers have come to terms with Unrestricted Free Agent forward, David Desharnais.

The diminutive forward spent the 2016-17 season splitting duties between the Edmonton Oilers and Montréal Canadiens — the latter having dealt him to the forward in February. He had just six goals and eight assists for 14 points between the clubs in 49 total contests in a season marred by a knee injury that cut into the middle of his year.

Desharnais, 31, has averaged 0.56 P/GP through 453 NHL games but has seen his production steadily declining since 2013-14 in which he averaged 0.66 P/GP. In the seasons following, his numbers have consistently declined, falling to 0.59 in 2014-15, 0.45 in 2015-16, and a combined 0.29 split between Montréal and Edmonton last season.

Despite this, Desharnais projects as a serviceable veteran bottom-six player who appears poised to fill the void left by Lindberg on the Rangers fourth line.

The deal is reportedly for one year and is worth $1M, which is just south of where Matt Cane’s Free Agent Projections projected the Québec native to land.

Discussion
  1. There's rolling 4 D and then there's shortening the bench in the third period and OT. I never said or meant teams roll 4 D all game. But in crunch time? Protecting a lead or trying to win? Undoubtedly most coaches aren't sending out the Tanner Glass' or Nick Holdens of the world late in a game with the game on the line... Except... You know.
    Future
    I would consider that rolling 4.

    But it's not. However, it is the staff's job to properly manage the minutes of all the guys no matter who plays what minutes. They all have to contribute and play their role no matter what it is. All players have expectations. The players know it, and need to execute properly when called upon. It doesn't matter if you play 27:00 a game, or 12:00 a game.
    Kevin
    Oh, I get the idea and I agree with what those teams did but that's not rolling 4. Rolling 4 is the two other guys sitting the bench the whole time. That doesn't happen throughout the course of any full game, nonetheless playoffs. Even if your 5 guy is getting 3-5 minutes a period that still gives the other guys a breather.

    I would consider that rolling 4.
    Future
    Teams don't necessarily want to roll 4, but I don't think coaches care.
    The Blackhawks rolled 4. Their top 4 averaged, at least, 24:45 per night the last time they won the cup and the bottom 4 were all under 10:00.
    The Bruins were similar when they won the cup in 11 - Chara and Seidenberg both played nearly 27:40, the next pair played 20:00+ and the rest got minimal minutes.
    Anaheim I think is the best example of it. They had Beauchemin (30:33), Pronger (30:31) or Niedermayer (29:51) on the ice at all times. They basically rolled three.
    What it really comes down to is whether or not there's a difference between your second and third pair. If there's a huge gap, then teams will absolutely roll 4 and if you have a Chara, Keith, Doughy, or whoever, it makes sense to do so. So while Nashville can justify playing their top 4 25:00 each, because they're basically all top pair defenders, Pittsburgh needs to rely on keeping everybody fresh because they're all average.
    There's value in either approach I guess, though, if it's me, I'd rather have 4 top guys and ride them through the playoffs than dick around with getting equal minutes.

    Oh, I get the idea and I agree with what those teams did but that's not rolling 4. Rolling 4 is the two other guys sitting the bench the whole time. That doesn't happen throughout the course of any full game, nonetheless playoffs. Even if your 5 guy is getting 3-5 minutes a period that still gives the other guys a breather.
    Guys playing 10 minutes are getting about 4-6 shifts a period. So no one "rolls" 4 D. Rolling 4 would mean no one else plays, like the Rangers rolled 5 when Stu Bickel was pasted to the bench. The other guys just play less, and are spot shifted. There's a method to every staff's madness. Some certainly may be better than others, and some might make questionable decisions at times. Some definitely make mistakes (See Renney, Tom - 2007 game 5) Truth of the matter is, they're right more often than not. The skills of player X might certainly be better than the skills of player Y. However, that doesn't mean they're cut out for certain roles or situations.
    Long live the King
    Come on man, benching 1 out of 12 forwards, is far different than rolling 4 D for 2 overtimes.

    I'd bet Ottawa did it against the Rangers... And we are also discussing that Glass was out there....
    Kevin
    That's not accurate. And it's also asking a ton from those 4 d-men to split 100 minutes of a double OT playoff hockey game.

    Teams don't necessarily want to roll 4, but I don't think coaches care.
    The Blackhawks rolled 4. Their top 4 averaged, at least, 24:45 per night the last time they won the cup and the bottom 4 were all under 10:00.
    The Bruins were similar when they won the cup in 11 - Chara and Seidenberg both played nearly 27:40, the next pair played 20:00+ and the rest got minimal minutes.
    Anaheim I think is the best example of it. They had Beauchemin (30:33), Pronger (30:31) or Niedermayer (29:51) on the ice at all times. They basically rolled three.
    What it really comes down to is whether or not there's a difference between your second and third pair. If there's a huge gap, then teams will absolutely roll 4 and if you have a Chara, Keith, Doughy, or whoever, it makes sense to do so. So while Nashville can justify playing their top 4 25:00 each, because they're basically all top pair defenders, Pittsburgh needs to rely on keeping everybody fresh because they're all average.
    There's value in either approach I guess, though, if it's me, I'd rather have 4 top guys and ride them through the playoffs than dick around with getting equal minutes.
    Kevin
    That's not accurate. And it's also asking a ton from those 4 d-men to split 100 minutes of a double OT playoff hockey game.

    The Rangers had done it for years. If there's a weak link, said weak link isn't likely to see the ice in the third period, on ANY team... much less double OT. Would Brandon Pirri see the ice in a double OT? Then why is Tanner Glass' out there? Chris Neil didn't see the ice after the 2nd period in any of the games he played in. His team won.
    The Dude
    Doesn't look like a myth when you show the exact players I mentioned in most of those situations. Tanner Glass' doesn't see the ice past the second period on any other team. Most teams have no problem rolling 4 D men in an important game.

    That's not accurate. And it's also asking a ton from those 4 d-men to split 100 minutes of a double OT playoff hockey game.
    Long live the King
    Sorry guys. Staal and Holden on the ice in all those spots is a complete myth. I just watched all the painful highlights on youtube.
    Game 1: Stepan, Buch, Vesey, McD, Girardi on the ice for Karlsson goal
    Game 2: Tied with McD, Girardi, Hayes, Grabner, Fast in the ice. Staal and Holden were on the ice for the OT winner. I guess that's what's burned into everyone's memory, but it was double OT. Is AV supposed to roll 4 D through 2 OT's?
    Game 5 (luckiest bounce ever): Stepan, Zuc, Glass, Staal, Smith on the ice and OT winner had Girardi, McD, Lindberg, Glass, Miller on ice.
    Maybe Smith and Skjei looked so good because of the matchups AV was getting for them? No that can't be right because AV sucks. He's just lead the Rangers to all those playoff wins by dumb luck...

    Thanks King. Nice job.
    Long live the King
    Sorry guys. Staal and Holden on the ice in all those spots is a complete myth. I just watched all the painful highlights on youtube.
    Game 1: Stepan, Buch, Vesey, McD, Girardi on the ice for Karlsson goal
    Game 2: Tied with McD, Girardi, Hayes, Grabner, Fast in the ice. Staal and Holden were on the ice for the OT winner. I guess that's what's burned into everyone's memory, but it was double OT. Is AV supposed to roll 4 D through 2 OT's?
    Game 5 (luckiest bounce ever): Stepan, Zuc, Glass, Staal, Smith on the ice and OT winner had Girardi, McD, Lindberg, Glass, Miller on ice.
    Maybe Smith and Skjei looked so good because of the matchups AV was getting for them? No that can't be right because AV sucks. He's just lead the Rangers to all those playoff wins by dumb luck...

    Doesn't look like a myth when you show the exact players I mentioned in most of those situations. Tanner Glass' doesn't see the ice past the second period on any other team. Most teams have no problem rolling 4 D men in an important game.
    Mikey37
    When the goalie is pulled, it's simulates a SH situation. Regardless, like I said, the staff sees and knows things we don't. I mean, you want Lindberg out there with the game on the line, but the Rangers didn't give 2 fucks up a rabbit's ass to try to keep Vegas from taking him. What does that tell you ?

    Tells me Lindberg will be a top six forward for them and get around 40+ points. It tells me he played quite well in the world's with some of the games best swedish players... It tells me the Rangers didn't think ahead.
    Tanner Glass' passed through waivers 2 times in the last two years. What does that tell you?
    Sorry guys. Staal and Holden on the ice in all those spots is a complete myth. I just watched all the painful highlights on youtube.
    Game 1: Stepan, Buch, Vesey, McD, Girardi on the ice for Karlsson goal
    Game 2: Tied with McD, Girardi, Hayes, Grabner, Fast in the ice. Staal and Holden were on the ice for the OT winner. I guess that's what's burned into everyone's memory, but it was double OT. Is AV supposed to roll 4 D through 2 OT's?
    Game 5 (luckiest bounce ever): Stepan, Zuc, Glass, Staal, Smith on the ice and OT winner had Girardi, McD, Lindberg, Glass, Miller on ice.
    Maybe Smith and Skjei looked so good because of the matchups AV was getting for them? No that can't be right because AV sucks. He's just lead the Rangers to all those playoff wins by dumb luck...
    Mikey37
    When the goalie is pulled, it's simulates a SH situation. Regardless, like I said, the staff sees and knows things we don't. I mean, you want Lindberg out there with the game on the line, but the Rangers didn't give 2 fucks up a rabbit's ass to try to keep Vegas from taking him. What does that tell you ?

    Mikey, I understand your point overall in this thread, but Dude observed a lot of the same things I did, in the playoffs.
    It is partly on the coach when the opposition scores so frequently with minutes left in the game. It is on the coach that he often had Holden and Staal on the ice in those huge spots, over the high performing pair of Smith and Skjei. Overall they played more minutes.
    Regarding the Lindberg question... maybe they made the same mistake they made with Stralman, among others. Underrated their own talent. There are plenty of other reasons. Who is to say they did shit to keep him? Brooks?!!!! He was wrong about everything, as usual. The Ranger's are leaking nothing to Brooks first, if at anything at all. Vegas had to select some decent players, hence Neal, Methot, Marshault, getting Theodore, Fleury, Pickard, etc.
    Maybe Gorton just felt we needed to hold on to 1st and 2nd round draft picks because we traded so many. Vegas probably would have wanted more than next years second, plus they then would have wanted to select Grabs, Fast or Raanta. All guys posing additional value. We did not have a 2 or 3 this year. Already traded one of our #2s next year. It probably would have cost a first to protect all four players with value. Look at what all those teams gave up in trades with Vegas.
    If you didn't think Lindberg was impressive in the playoffs, then your bar is really high. Fast, Smith, Skjei and maybe Grabs and McD were the only others who were consistently good. Just my observations. Lindberg also looked good the 2nd half of the season, plus the Worlds, and had a very nice rookie year.
    This coach had a full and healthy squad for the playoffs and we underperformed for a second straight year. He needs to make adjustments and achieve (or overachieve) in the post season this year, or the fans will rightly be calling for his head.
    The Dude
    Glass hardly kills penalties and it wasn't a short handed situation. It was the game on the line... Staal had an awful series and Skjei was their best D man in the playoffs....These guys aren't the next man up when we are talking about starting in your own zone. I get that you can't keep the same guys out there for a full two minutes, and you have to change quickly... Lindberg was phenomenal in the post season, is a better face off man than anyone on the roster, is a solid defensive forward, and he's not out there at the end of the game..
    Dispersing the wrong players at the wrong time for the wrong situation seems to be AVs MO. Add in that he hardly EVER uses a time out late in games to either rest his guys or stop opponent momentum.
    This coach trusts and feels Tanner God damn Glass and swiss cheese Holden over the right players to use in certain situations. That doesn't bode well for AV.

    When the goalie is pulled, it's simulates a SH situation. Regardless, like I said, the staff sees and knows things we don't. I mean, you want Lindberg out there with the game on the line, but the Rangers didn't give 2 fucks up a rabbit's ass to try to keep Vegas from taking him. What does that tell you ?
    ThirtyONE
    I'd bet he makes the team but doesn't last past November. One of the younger kids will take his job.

    Agree. He will have to show them something right out of the gate.
    Long live the King
    You're entire argument defeats itself...
    Coaching makes all the difference, but Crosby and Malkin won cups with 2 different coaches? Do you think AV would win a cup with 2 generational talents on his team?
    With AV at the helm the Rangers have the second most playoff wins, yet he doesn't know what players to put on the ice? How did they win so many playoff games if he's always pushing the wrong buttons? Tortorella, with largely the same team, won 16 playoff games in 4 years compared to AV's 31.

    ???
    My point is playoff success can mean dog shit if you don't have your team playing on all cylinders at the right time. Picking and choosing the lineup and whos assignment is what from game to game from shift to shift is what it's about. Having a read on your roster. Knowing who can handle what at a certain time. Especially in the playoffs. If the talent was the only thing that won cups, why hasn't Pitt and Chicago won every year and met in the finals?
    Torts had to restructure the character of this team when he arrived. He took a less talented team and implemented a system that worked for their abilities. The problem IMO became they were successful with that pretty quickly and when they added legit talent to the roster, they didn't exactly fit the system that Torts put in. It sounded like the players themselves didn't want to play the dump and chase style, and wanted to open it up. The locker room turned on Torts and got him fired. Obviously I'm sure there was way more to it than that, but I'd imagine that was part of the issue.
    Torts did a great job taking little and making something out of it. I guess AV has done the same. They're kinda equal right now as far as who good and who's not. Torts at least won a cup elsewhere.Oddly, Torts had "his" type of player. Seems like AV has the same type of "his" players.
    Mikey37
    That's a defensive situation. Those are the next men up after McD and G. Steps and Glass kill penalties, same situation. So yes, you keep putting the guys out there that are better in those situations than others, it doesn't matter that Skjei > Staal or Holden. He makes defensive mistakes more frequently than not right now. Will that change? Of course. Play the hand you're dealt. We can question personnel decisions every game. Bottom line is that a head coach goes with what he trusts and feels. Those decisions are made by the many other things he sees than we do

    Glass hardly kills penalties and it wasn't a short handed situation. It was the game on the line... Staal had an awful series and Skjei was their best D man in the playoffs....These guys aren't the next man up when we are talking about starting in your own zone. I get that you can't keep the same guys out there for a full two minutes, and you have to change quickly... Lindberg was phenomenal in the post season, is a better face off man than anyone on the roster, is a solid defensive forward, and he's not out there at the end of the game..
    Dispersing the wrong players at the wrong time for the wrong situation seems to be AVs MO. Add in that he hardly EVER uses a time out late in games to either rest his guys or stop opponent momentum.
    This coach trusts and feels Tanner God damn Glass and swiss cheese Holden over the right players to use in certain situations. That doesn't bode well for AV.

86 comments

  1. Pingback: Perhaps There's Something to Those Bozak Rumors - Cleared for Contact

  2. Pingback: How the Eric Staal Trade Still Haunts the Rangers - Cleared for Contact

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *