Thread: Confirmed with Link: Evgeny Grachev traded to STL for pick #72
View Single Post
06-27-2011, 12:04 PM
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Bringing this back on topic, now that I've had 24 hours to digest and gather more information from Sather's interview as well as the commentary from observers like Leslie and the beat writers, here's where I come out:

I still don't like the trade. I don't like it because I think that Grachev will amount to a solid top 6 winger in the league and that St. Louis paid an awfully small price to get a prospect of his caliber - who, it needs to be repeated, JUST turned 21.
I like Grachev, I loved the pick and think he has a future but this is unfair. St. Louis paid what the market value was for a kid that has played one decent half a season in two years of AHL hockey. A prospect of his caliber? Grachev right now is a "dime a dozen" prospect. Until he proves otherwise and all best to him doing that in St. Louis. I think he might...

However, I now UNDERSTAND the trade because I can completely buy that his camp would have requested it by now and, if it was known throughout the league, it's entirely possible that the 3rd rounder was the best return that the Rangers could get.
Entirely possible? Do you hear of another offer from another team? I know you may say the Rangers could've gotten more but you don't know if that's true or not.
I do think that there's a fair amount of misinformation flying around. They've been trying to move him for a year? I find that very hard to credit. You mean to tell me you couldn't do better for him back in early February when he was coming off of a 9-5-14 in 14 games run? More likely they only floated his name a couple of times at various points when he wasn't doing as well and didn't get meaningful interest at those times. In the same way that people have written off the "he's ready to compete for a spot" comments from Clark/Gorton as company PR, I think Sather's spinning here - in neither case do I think they're lying per se, but rather exaggerating the truth.
I agree the Rangers i'm sure are giving us misinformation. You also don't know what a team was willing to pay in "early February"? Maybe Florida would've taken Grachev instead of a 3rd round pick for McCabe? Would you have been happier about that? Teams aren't falling over themselves to trade for a player not taking the next step in the AHL. A player that can easily move back home at the next whiff of the AHL. I hate defending Sather but to say he only floated his name is a tad unfair. What do you think a fair return would be for Grachev?

In the end, I believe, as I've always believed, what you've got here is a player who was mishandled. I was saying it at the beginning of the year and I'm saying it again now. To be clear, I'm not referring to when he came out of juniors (which was entirely his camp's decision) and I'm not talking about his demotions from the Rangers (which were deserved based on his performance); I'm talking about the 95% of his Rangers career spent under the care of Gernander when he was supposedly being molded into the player he would be in the NHL. I honestly believe that Gernander demands that every player learn to play the game the way that he played it and that he does not have the flexibility to direct the progression of more skilled players. If you don't bang and grind, play straight north/south and think defense before offense, you will be forced to do so. That's fine for many players, including a rare group that has the ability to transition from that style into an offensively creative approach and back again, but it's not the approach that's appropriate for all. To take a parallel from baseball, if you're a coach and you get Mark Teixeira, you don't demand that he learn to play Brett Gardiner's game - forcing a power hitter to learn how to bat leadoff, drag bunt and steal a base is a waste of time.
So Grachev was mishandled and it's Gernanders fault because Gernander tried to make him something he isn't? Come on, I mean Gernander isn't without his faults but this is unfair. Whenver you bash Gernander you never bring up the kids that have graduated to the NHL while he was an Assistant Coach and Head Coach. What prospects in Hartford is Gernander holding back or mishandling? Surely it has to be more then Grachev for you to have a statement like this.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there's some blame to go on Grachev's side as well. I think that he may not be getting the best advice from his agent and it is disappointing that he couldn't do more in his brief stints on Broadway. But, to me, the majority of it lies with the Rangers for trying to turn him into a player that he's not. If you read the article Doyle posted, you'll see that Mellanby and Armstrong are looking forward to working with him to bring out the player he should be. I think they're going to be successful and it's going to come back to bite us in the arse.
How did the Rangers try to make him a player he isn't when nobody knows what the heck Grachev is? St. Louis says they are excited for the kid and they must be a totally honest organization because that COULDN'T be PR spin...right?

Regardless, it appears that the organization has committed to Gernander and perhaps the one track of coaching that he is able to bring is consistent with the overall organizational direction they're trying to achieve. Perhaps he even has orders to restrict himself to that style. If that's the case, then I'm glad they made the move before he lost even further value. If you believe in the concept of a "sunk cost" (and I do), then I am willing to accept that a 3rd rounder is the best they could do under the current circumstances and I'm glad they did.
This is really one of the few things you have posted that I agree with. What I'm quoting above is probably the truth and the rest of the stuff you posted is all conspiracy. You know why? Because what you posted above is logical, it makes sense, it's probably the truth...

However, if that's the case, then in judging the team's overall handling of this asset, you'd have to assign a failing grade. Either they should have drafted a different player at his spot or, since one of a similar quality was likely unavailable, they should have moved him earlier when he had more value (such as when he decided to leave juniors against their wishes). No matter how you slice it, Grachev's career with the Rangers should've ended differently - and better for the organization.
So assign a failing grade to the prospect who didn't make the most of his TWO years in the organization. You want to play hindsight with a 3 year old draft pick? Also, why would they move a prospect before he has shown what he can do for the team? That makes no sense, if this is your gripe with the Rangers it's laughable. Do you think the Rangers should move Kreider now because he hasn't left school? Should've draft another player....Should've traded him after Juniors....Take the tim foil hat off....

One last note: I've said it in every post regarding this trade, but I want to emphasize it again - my disappointment in the trade is no reflection on Fogarty who I'm very glad to have. No matter how he develops, remember that St. Louis didn't trade us that player - they traded us a 3rd round pick. If the player available made that pick more palatable to the staff, that's great... but it doesn't change the fact that in objectively analyzing value received, Grachev returned only a 3rd rounder. If the player picked with that pick goes on to become an all-star the staff deserves kudos, but it doesn't make the trade any better.

Try again. Remember the Rangers traded a player to pick Fogarty you can't seperate the two.

Do you think you are qualified to preach about "objectively analyzing value" when talking about Grachev. If the player picked turns into an All Star nobody is going to care about Grachev.....

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote