I'm not here to rant about Derek Boogard's contract. The overpayment is hardly as bad as it seems. What I am here to speak about is what his actual presence would/could mean on the Rangers. If you consider the Carcillo-Gaborik debacle (quite possibly the most embarrasing on-ice moment I've had the displeasure of seeing in my twenty years of supporting the Blueshirts) you have to realize that had we Mr. Boogard on the team, nothing different would have happened in that situation. We all know that Boogard would not have been on the ice when #10's out there; he'd be on the bench gnashing his teeth in anger. Ten minutes later, or whenever Torts sends out the fourth line, what would Boogard do? He would skate around, looking to run someone over, probably out of position, and likely take a bad penalty. In a league featuring the instigator rule, the enforcer can only dance with a willing partner. The handful of gentlemen willing to throw down with Boogard are scattered around the NHL and essentially, its a moot point.
Until ALL of the Rangers are willing to step up everytime Gabby or Hank get SWEATED on, these problems will continue. You could have a fourth line of Boogard, Shelley, and Ivanans; it wouldn't matter. Today's NHL is different, and of course, that is escaping Mr. Sather.
A case can be made, however, that Tortorella's players are more afraid of his wrath than of looking like bitches while their star player gets manhandled. I can't help but reiterate the Carcillo-Gaborik incident. (did I mention it was one of the most embarrassing moments in my twenty years of watching the Blueshirts---oh I did lol). I have to believe that Girardi - who has fought in his career - feared getting ejected for being third man in and facing Torts' wrath more than he feared looking like a great big vagina. I have to believe that, or else I'm at a loss to explain why the Rangers get pushed around.
Either way, my point is we have a long way to go to being tough than signing Boogard.