HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   its not only sather's fault (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=57221)

newf 03-01-2004 08:45 AM

its not only sather's fault
 
if you really want to see the rangers re-build with youth (as sather promised), its not just his fault that hasn't happened. sather wasn't here when the rangers brought in gretzky, or marcel dionne, or guy lafleur, or even doug harvey. its happened under dozens of different coaches and general managers, and when money wasn't and issue, and now that it might be the primary issue. this organization has always gone after stars, mostly when they're after their prime. and after they get rid of him, do you really expect this pattern to change?

Fletch 03-01-2004 09:21 AM

One thing that was expected..
 
upon Sather's arrival was a departure from that mentality. He hadn't, as he brought in a 40 year old Mess, a one-hit-away-from-retirement-or-usefulness Lindros, and many others that didn't work, while giving away a pick here, and a pick there. One thing I do not fault him for is the lack of the #1 pick he had to start his tenure, and some of the dead weight with which he was saddled - all of whom he did kind of promise he wasn't afraid to send to Hartford, but only one of whom made it to the AHL - so as to scare the others - which never worked.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-01-2004 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newf
if you really want to see the rangers re-build with youth (as sather promised), its not just his fault that hasn't happened. sather wasn't here when the rangers brought in gretzky, or marcel dionne, or guy lafleur, or even doug harvey. its happened under dozens of different coaches and general managers, and when money wasn't and issue, and now that it might be the primary issue. this organization has always gone after stars, mostly when they're after their prime. and after they get rid of him, do you really expect this pattern to change?

Huh? Then why get rid of Neil Smith in the first place.

Sather came here and spouted off about how you build a team through the draft and trades and not through free agency. And then the first thing he does is sign Mark Messier and Vladamir Malakhov. He would then go on to deal three young guys for Eric Lindros.

What I had hoped would happen is Sather would come in and build a team through the draft and making timely trades to get picks and prospects (like he did in Edmonton). Cablevision's money would allow him to keep this team together as well as get the occasional free agent to fill in gaps.

Now, whether you want to say that Sather was powerless to change the philosophy of the the past (although he was brought here and given carte blanche to do so) it does not explain how the farm system is no better than it was when he got here. He has manage to deal away every Neil Smith draft pick, save Lundmark (I believe his days are numbered) and really has not done a thing to restock the system.

Sure Sather wasn't here when Gretzky, Dionne, LaFleur, or Harvey came here but he was when Mark Messier did. But what does all that mean? The reason you change regimes is to change the philosophy and direction of the team. And Sather has simply just not done that. So, yeah, I think it is only Sather's fault.

Jackson Ranger 03-01-2004 09:40 AM

Neil Smith inherited a much bigger sh*tpie from Espo (than Sather did from Smith) and he won two President's Trophies and a Stanley Cup within five years. All along acquiring the "name" guys like Gartner, Nichols and Mess. But he also wisely traded for a young Adam Graves and drafted very well to supplement his team. Things that Sather has NOT done.

newf 03-01-2004 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson Ranger
Neil Smith inherited a much bigger sh*tpie from Espo (than Sather did from Smith) and he won two President's Trophies and a Stanley Cup within five years. All along acquiring the "name" guys like Gartner, Nichols and Mess. But he also wisely traded for a young Adam Graves and drafted very well to supplement his team. Things that Sather has NOT done.

i'm not excusing sather at all. he's been here 4 years and the team has gotten worse each year. he should go. my point is that something bigger than the GM's position here. why do the rangers always go after the aging star. it doesn't matter if its bure or ken hodge. i don't know why but i don't expect it to change. honestly do you??

Jackson Ranger 03-01-2004 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newf
i'm not excusing sather at all. he's been here 4 years and the team has gotten worse each year. he should go. my point is that something bigger than the GM's position here. why do the rangers always go after the aging star. it doesn't matter if its bure or ken hodge. i don't know why but i don't expect it to change. honestly do you??

True, the edict from above has always been to have "star power" but my point is you can still go out and get a star, you just have to surround that star with the proper players.

My problems with Sather are he still thinks 1980's style hockey can still win today and that he is a poor evaluator of talent.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-01-2004 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson Ranger
My problems with Sather are he still thinks 1980's style hockey can still win today and that he is a poor evaluator of talent.

I think those two go hand in hand. He is stuck in the 1980s and he drafts players accordingly.

Fletch 03-01-2004 10:19 AM

Has his drafts been..
 
that bad, Singin'? I don't have the time to go year-by-year, but a look at the 2001 draft and I don't know if he did so bad. Would anybody have argued with the Blackburn pick? Tyutin's looking good so far. Murray too may pan out, not bad for #3. Zidlicky, while not a Ranger, was a decent pick at #6. The rest, who knows (such as Lampman, Stals, Preucil, Petterstrom and Collymmore), but those four ain't so bad. And he drafted a couple 'character' guys in Murray and Hollweg.

Here's one thing that confuses me...Sather's first draft year was 2000, correct? Looking at that draft year, I see the following players drafted: Henrik Lundqvist and Dominic Moore (along with Novak). These guys were Sather picks? He also picked Martz in that year. That too may not be such a bad draft considering there wasn't a #1.

So I don't know if his drafting has been really that bad, nor do I think that he's drafting the same types of players who succeeded in the 80s.

Bluenote13 03-01-2004 11:37 AM

I follow the draft closely and I don't think Sather has been too bad at the draft, but that I attribute to the scouts who have made some nice picks, sans 'Lee Falardeau' :mad:

;)

True Blue 03-01-2004 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13
I follow the draft closely and I don't think Sather has been too bad at the draft, but that I attribute to the scouts who have made some nice picks, sans 'Lee Falardeau' :mad:
;)

If he does not draft too badly, then where is the help? If his 4 years, we've had 2 rookies skate here. One is Tyutin, who looks good, but let's give it a little bit of time before we annoit him a top pairings guys,shall we? And the other was Ortmeyer, whom he signed. Unfortunately, Jed's ultimate upside caps at Kris Draper. Now, I WISH that Jed would develop into Draper, but he has just as good a chance at being less than a 3rd liner.
So, if Sather is not that bad at drafting, then where are all of our prospects? :dunno:

jas 03-01-2004 12:01 PM

Actually, TB...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
If he does not draft too badly, then where is the help? If his 4 years, we've had 2 rookies skate here. One is Tyutin, who looks good, but let's give it a little bit of time before we annoit him a top pairings guys,shall we? And the other was Ortmeyer, whom he signed. Unfortunately, Jed's ultimate upside caps at Kris Draper. Now, I WISH that Jed would develop into Draper, but he has just as good a chance at being less than a 3rd liner.
So, if Sather is not that bad at drafting, then where are all of our prospects? :dunno:

if you are counting Ortmeyer, then it is five of his picks/acquisitions that have skated on the big club - Blackburn, Tjuitn, Murray, Moore and Ortmeyer. Are you saying that Moore and Murray should be rushed? It wasn't sather's fault that he didn't have a #1 in 2000. It's too early to kill sather about his drafts yet, especially when they are just staring to produce. Most draft take five years to be fully evaluated. If Moore is with the big team next year, and Lundquist and Martz are in Hartford, then that would be three players, all selected lower than the 2nd round, with an opportunity to make the Rangers. If that becomes the average of each of his drafts (and, to be honest, I put more stock in Renney and Maloney running the draft, as opposed to Sather), then the Rangers would be doing okay.

Edge 03-01-2004 12:12 PM

Sather might have been the only GM in the past 25 years who had enough "reputation" behind him upon his arrival to right the ship, the problem is he didn't and that is on him and only him.

Bottom line is if you take a job and you want to win, you do what you have to do. When I am out for a job, I tell an employer what they are getting with me and what i bring to the table. If they don't want that, than it is a waste of both of our time to "force" it to work.

Sather had that option and he blew it, simple as that.

As for his Draft record, it is up and down. The jury is still out on everyone he has drafted. Blackburn and Tyutin have played, but so did Corey Hirsch and Kloucek, time will tell.

Drafting often times is not the hardest part of prospects. You have scouts, you have CSB, you have more sources than ever to be in the "Ballpark" so to speak. The key is development. It's kinda like money management. Making the money is often easier than making your money work and not ending up on the streets.

Has Sather drafted well? Well he hasn't drafted bad, but he's also skipped on some kids that made me scratch my head. Having said that, it doesn't matter if this team has 900 rookies if they aren't given a chance.

Yammer 03-01-2004 12:31 PM

There is no doubt that Sather knows how to build a young contending team. He's done it twice in Edmonton, and the formula has been cloned in Vancouver.

Therefore, it would appear that he does not have "carte blanche" to blow up the star-laden roster in New York. Smith wanted to do it and was forbidden. What, if anything, has changed in terms of ownership's perspective?

Keep in mind that building a team from scratch obliges at least a couple of seasons of rock-bottom crapulence.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 03-01-2004 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yammer
There is no doubt that Sather knows how to build a young contending team. He's done it twice in Edmonton, and the formula has been cloned in Vancouver.

Therefore, it would appear that he does not have "carte blanche" to blow up the star-laden roster in New York. Smith wanted to do it and was forbidden. What, if anything, has changed in terms of ownership's perspective?

Keep in mind that building a team from scratch obliges at least a couple of seasons of rock-bottom crapulence.


Could have sworn we've had that with nothing to show for it.

Bluenote13 03-01-2004 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
If he does not draft too badly, then where is the help? If his 4 years, we've had 2 rookies skate here. One is Tyutin, who looks good, but let's give it a little bit of time before we annoit him a top pairings guys,shall we? And the other was Ortmeyer, whom he signed. Unfortunately, Jed's ultimate upside caps at Kris Draper. Now, I WISH that Jed would develop into Draper, but he has just as good a chance at being less than a 3rd liner.
So, if Sather is not that bad at drafting, then where are all of our prospects? :dunno:

"Now, I WISH that Jed would develop into Draper, but he has just as good a chance at being less than a 3rd liner. "

Yeah, we should just give up signing players, they may all turn out to be less than 3rd liners, definitely something worth pointing out :shakehead

Slats regime has seen 4 drafts, two of those he had no first rounder because of trades. As far as drafting goes, most of the player's he drafted are still moving their way up, to early to declare his picks busts, IMO.

Fletch 03-01-2004 01:18 PM

Tb...
 
how much help are you looking for? His oldest draft pick, sans Zidlicky, is about 22 years old. Some still in college, most still in minors. Although as jas mentioned, there have been a few to make their NHL debuts, and hopefully there will be a few more in the next two seasons.

One caveat...I'm not trying to absolve Sather of anything. I do think it's not too fair to say not too many of his draftees have made it to the NHL yet/aren't in a Rangers uniform yet since his first draft was four seasons ago.

In two seasons, perhaps you have such Sather draftees as Blackburn and Lundqvist in goal, Jessiman making his debut, with Tyutin a couple years in, possibly another defenseman making his debut, like a Baranka, Taylor or somebody, and perhaps there's a Dawes in there and Moore finds his niche as a defensive specialist, and Murray sticks and maybe another college kid, like a Martz or somebody makes it. Not horrible, and not that far-fetched. Of course, that doesn't get you to the Stanley Cup, but perhaps it looks better if you have vets such as Leetch, Jagr, deVries, Kaspar and Holik still around and provided they haven't taken that dive yet.

Again, that absolves Sather from nothing. Should've had more picks and should've had guys like Ekman (and others) in the lineup at some point or another.

Edge 03-01-2004 01:56 PM

i dont think sather has any busts, i also dont think has any gems either. What he has are depth players and that is it. Not that it's bad but this team really isn't in good shape right now.

Moore is already 24 or approaching that, Murray has looked completly incapable of scoring in two AHL seasons, Lampman looks like a depth defenseman, and despite all the "hype" the rangers are trying to generate for Tyutin right now, he could just easily be a number 5 defenseman as "one to hang a hat on".

The rest of the system is filled with guys who are solid college players but don't really figure to stand out at any higher levels.

I hear the names Taylor and Martz being thrown around and they've been good college players, which proably translates into "okay" minor leaguers and "borderline NHL'ers".

Having 90 bodies on the a depth chart isn't that great unless they have higher top ends. I'd rather have 5 top level prospects in a group of 20 than 20 so-so prospects in a ground of 35.

Fletch 03-01-2004 02:12 PM

I do agree with that, Edge...
 
I think we have at some point debated it to depth and agree that there are a lot of 3/4 liners/3rd pairings, but not a lot of top guys in his stockpile. But like I said, he should've had more picks - through moving people, and not trading for others. He hasn't wasted a #1 pick, with Blackburn and Jessiman, but he's only had two. He did waste a #2 pick, and made good on another (although as you mention, time wil tell with Tyutin, but so far, he doesn't look bad for a 20 year old), and his later -round picks haven't been so bad.

On Murray...I've said the same many times, but he's only 21, right now. He jumped to the AHL just after his 19th birthday. The scoring may take a bit longer for him to develop, or perhaps we're looking at a checking winger with 10-20 goal capability. At this point, all positions are open. Next season should tell a lot.

jas 03-01-2004 02:20 PM

That's the problem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
i dont think sather has any busts, i also dont think has any gems either. What he has are depth players and that is it. Not that it's bad but this team really isn't in good shape right now.

Moore is already 24 or approaching that, Murray has looked completly incapable of scoring in two AHL seasons, Lampman looks like a depth defenseman, and despite all the "hype" the rangers are trying to generate for Tyutin right now, he could just easily be a number 5 defenseman as "one to hang a hat on".

The rest of the system is filled with guys who are solid college players but don't really figure to stand out at any higher levels.

I hear the names Taylor and Martz being thrown around and they've been good college players, which proably translates into "okay" minor leaguers and "borderline NHL'ers".

Having 90 bodies on the a depth chart isn't that great unless they have higher top ends. I'd rather have 5 top level prospects in a group of 20 than 20 so-so prospects in a ground of 35.

The addition of a few blue chippers makes the depth look a whole stronger. So, if Sather and company are able to add a couple of quality prospects and some draft choices, along with making a smart choice with the first pick, I think things WILL look a lot better come July.

Edge 03-01-2004 02:28 PM

Well that was the first mistake he made, moving too many picks like they were nothing. As a result we had to continually trade down to get picks back.

I'm still pissed and can't believe he took Lee "I can't do a darn thing" Farladeu instead of Stoll. Stoll has done nothing but rise to the occassion since, while we are still waiting to see how on earth beanpoll got drafted in the first place. Even this year i saw him and i wanted to cry. ECHL here he comes. Matt Stajan was also still on the boars when we took Lee.

the 2002 pick was lost by Sather's doing.

As for the other prospects on this team, i'm not even sure how many are gonna be offered contracts. There are just too many "average" guys in that mix.

In 4 years I'd like to believe we'd have more than just just Tyutin, Jessiman and Blackburn to point to. And i'll be honest with you, I am still not sold on Jessiman and what i see gives me a very bad feeling in my stomach. In fact i can't honestly say that if he were a kings prospect i wouldn't willing to call him a risky/not likely to work investment. the only thing that might be stopping that is a mental prejudice because it's the rangers.

So that leaves us with a potential star goalie and a likely 3 or 4 defenseman {i cant see Tyutin being a 1 or 2} rounded out by a bunch of guys who can most times be found at the waiver draft.

That's not good, at all.

Fletch 03-01-2004 02:43 PM

I'm not sold yet on Jessiman, either, but...
 
he's 19 and I wouldn't expect him to blossom until 22-25 at the earliest, being a power forward and all. Would've like to have seen some better numbers coming from him this season (although numbers ain't everything, but if he's going to be a top line guy, you'd like to see his numbers improve annually). Perhaps there's a bit more pressure and next year he gets comfortable again, who knows.

Agreed somewhat on Falardeau. He most likely won't turn out to be anything much, if anything, but at the time, Sather was thinking of a big, defensive centerman. Being 6'4, 217, is decent sized.

And as jas said, I too believe a couple blue chippers makes it look a lot better. This year's #1 hopefully being one of them. And, who knows, maybe they get a blue chipper or a #1 out of a trade. And maybe there's a surprise in what this team's already got (although I can only think of a couple surprises - Murray developing a scoring touch and Dawes becoming an NHLer). Ok, it's still tenuous.

Fletch 03-01-2004 02:47 PM

On another note...
 
is Dartmouth's season over? Just looked and I didn't see any more games scheduled for them...

Edge 03-01-2004 02:57 PM

Quote:

he's 19 and I wouldn't expect him to blossom until 22-25 at the earliest, being a power forward and all. Would've like to have seen some better numbers coming from him this season (although numbers ain't everything, but if he's going to be a top line guy, you'd like to see his numbers improve annually). Perhaps there's a bit more pressure and next year he gets comfortable again, who knows.
100% right and there are never gurantees. Heck i love Ladd in this years draft but it's all a crap shoot. Having said that, jessiman worries me. Not because of the scoring but because he just doesn't seem to be able to "read" the plays very well and i think that unless that changes, it is going to counteract everything else he does on the ice. Big guys take time, but the guys we look to as prime examples DOMINATED their junior leagues. Jessiman is good, very good in fact, but he isn't as far apart from the other talent as he should be and he's shown a glaring weakness in his defense and his ability to adjust on the fly. it is totally workable but i am concerned.

Quote:

Agreed somewhat on Falardeau. He most likely won't turn out to be anything much, if anything, but at the time, Sather was thinking of a big, defensive centerman. Being 6'4, 217, is decent sized.
I remember I was online during the draft talking to 10 people at the time who were hockey people. Almost every im i got was "why the hell did they just do that". Lee was not that impressive than, nor is he now. I know what Sather was "thinking" but he had no reason to think that. It's like us looking at Bryce Lampman and saying "he's gonna be like Brendan Witt". There is no reason to believe that. I also know that more than a few scouts werent pleased about that selection. Notice how even afterwards you didn't hear much about the rangers trading down to get him. More than a few people were pissed.

Quote:

And as jas said, I too believe a couple blue chippers makes it look a lot better. This year's #1 hopefully being one of them. And, who knows, maybe they get a blue chipper or a #1 out of a trade. And maybe there's a surprise in what this team's already got (although I can only think of a couple surprises - Murray developing a scoring touch and Dawes becoming an NHLer). Ok, it's still tenuous.
Murray i think can make it as a 4th liner at least, but the lack of scoring does concern me a lot.

Now if the Rangers really want to restock I'd suggest they add another pick. This draft is percieved as weak, but if you do your HW there are some guys to like here and adding two of them would be nice.

Ideally picking 5th through 8th, i'd take a kid like Ladd and then I'd get a pick in the 20's and aim for a defenseman than take another forward in round two.

Defense isn't really a strength in this years draft {it's the opposite of last years}.

True Blue 03-01-2004 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13
"Yeah, we should just give up signing players, they may all turn out to be less than 3rd liners, definitely something worth pointing out :shakehead

Where did I say ANYTHING that would lead you to believe that I said we should stop signing undrafted rookies? I am simply pointing out what Ortmeyer's ceiling is, IMO. You, off course are entitled to think what you want. But saying that Ortmeyer's ceiling is as a 3rd liner is not really the same as saying that we should stop signing unsigned rookies.

Edge 03-01-2004 03:11 PM

Ortmeyer is Danny Lacouture minus the fighting.

Top end third liner.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.