Thread: Glen Sather
View Single Post
Old
07-02-2011, 12:19 PM
  #29
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
So, let's think about these two ideas: first, he knew about all of this team's benefits, but for some reason, until very recently, he couldn't figure out how to apply them correctly, and two, he hired John Tortorella because he knew that would get him Richards?



No, that's not my argument. My argument is that Glen Sather has, in the last 5 years, made some of the worst management decisions in the history of modern major professional team sports and put his team in the position where, depending on the outcome of one specific event, the franchise could be destined to continue being irrelevant as it has been for virtually his entire tenure with the club. Just because he emerged from this one event seemingly successful does not change the fact that simply putting the franchise in such a position, where the team's fate for the foreseeable future would be determined by one thing, is not good management.

I have been talking up Richards to the Rangers since October, if not earlier. Why? Not because I am positive that it will result in a Cup for the Rangers (although I do like Richards a great deal), but because with the mismanagement of Glen Sather, this was literally the only possibility for this team to not be mediocre. That is not a good job, in my opinion. Just because he has the luxury of burying his awful mistakes in the minors doesn't change the fact that the Wade Redden contract is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in my entire life as a sports fan. Just because Marian Gaborik is a good player doesn't change the fact that signing him was not the smartest possible way to spend that money, because patience could have yielded a better, more consistent player who doesn't cause you to hold your breath everytime he gets touched by an opposing player.
So I left out that part of your argument is basically the difference between success and failure is small. Yeah, that's true for any team. If the Pens didn't get the chance to draft Crosby and then Malkin way back when now, they'd still suck. But they did. It's pointless to say they're poorly constructed because they could have easily missed out on those players. Just like in the actual games, it doesn't matter if you win by 1 or you win by 10 it counts the same in the standings. Or to use the old baseball expression about a bloop hit, "It looks like a line drive in the box score."

The Bruins just won the cup in large part because they took a flyer on an old goalie who never managed to cut it in the NHL until he exploded with them at an age goalies don't usually find their game. You think on the streets of Boston they're upset they needed that to happen to win?

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote