Photo Credit: Steven Ryan

Photo Credit: Steven Ryan

After last night’s win against Tampa Bay, which I admittedly did not watch in its entirety, there were a few hot takes running around Twitter. First is that Tanner Glass put the Rangers in a big hole by taking an unnecessary five minute major for interference. The second is that Oscar Lindberg played only six minutes, despite Glass being tossed from the game early in the first period.

I did not see the Glass hit, but let’s just go with the assumption that he got a match penalty, so it was likely some form of a dirty hit. But the focus isn’t on that hit, it’s on the fact that Lindberg played six minutes in a meaningless game with the Rangers down to 11 forwards.

Many are a little disturbed by the lack of playing time, and rightfully so. The team isn’t fighting for a playoff spot, or even for home ice, at this point. The prevailing logic is to rotate your guys accordingly, and ensure the veterans get some rest. Even if that means playing a kid that you may not entirely trust yet.

Getting rest is the present value of playing Lindberg more than six minutes, but the future value is getting him time to get adjusted to the speed of the game. It’s clear that after Lindberg’s shooting-percentage dropped, folks would start noticing some of his on-ice deficiencies, but the only way to get better is to play. After the Glass ejection, shouldn’t he have played more?

It’s tough for me to really disagree with that line of thinking, especially since everyone and their mother knows where I stand on the Glass/Lindberg debate. It may be best for the club, both immediately and for the future, to have Lindberg play. Sure, he takes a bad penalty here and there, but Pat outlined why even with that he should be playing. With just two games remaining before he’s back on the bench, what do they have to lose?

Share: 

Mentioned in this article:

More About: