View Single Post
Old
05-11-2011, 08:40 PM
  #56
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Exactly. People act like Sather had this genius idea to build through the draft, when the truth is the best teams ALWAYS build through the draft, and more often than not you see them advancing in playoff series.

And then there is us.
This thread has been repeated in many different forms, but this post and the post before it are horrifyingly mistaken. Pre-lockout, teams built a base and core through the draft. When they reached a certain level of success, they moved young talent and draft picks in an attempt to put them over the top (see 2004: Sydor for Svitov). The Rangers did the same exact thing with one major problem. They never reached that level of success in the late 90s and that absolutely is the fault of the GM. In an ongoing process starting in 1994 and lasting until 2004, Smith and Sather bankrupted any youth coming through the NYR system as a organizational policy and philosophy. Didn't do the team much good, with the notable exceptions of 1994 and 1997. A "rebuild" is when your team is bankrupt of youth and filled with ineffective veterans. A "rebuild" is when your team shifts from an organizational philosophy of "bringing in the pieces to win from the outside" to "developing the pieces for eventual success from within."

So you can claim all you want that you should always collect young talent, but it's simply not the way business was done for long-term success until the implementation of the salary cap. You collected young talent, and then you used your young assets to add to the team. And don't even bother bringing up the Detroit Red Wings. They managed to draft great talent in later rounds in the last decade, pre-lockout, but they are an aberration and not an example. The exception that proves the rule, if you will.

For all the criticism of Sather finally seeing what many people saw in the latter half of the 90s, I don't understand why it is never "I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," but is instead "he should be fired, I don't care if he's leading us in the right direction." I guess my viewpoint on this is colored by the fact, obvious to all of us who pay attention, that Sather isn't going anywhere. I, for one, am happy that the organizational policies and philosophy shifted in 2004. Call it a rebuild. Call it whatever you want. That's when it happened.

You know, one thing I'd like to add. Some people here have a serious blindness towards the difference between ends and means. The Rangers were in no better position after the 1st round this year than they were in 2009. Some might say worse, although I'd be slightly inclined to disagree with that. The DIFFERENCE is the way they got to the playoffs. The types of players they used. The style of play that they used. Ignoring that is either blindness or is being disingenuous. Not sure which, but it's pretty much the root of this debate.


Last edited by Tawnos: 05-11-2011 at 08:48 PM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote