Rangers "interchangeable parts" plan
View Single Post
11-09-2011, 06:30 PM
DROP THE PUCK
Join Date: Dec 2007
Originally Posted by
The old timers here may remember the "interchangeable parts" fight with the Devils when Colin Campbell, as a Rangers coach, called Devil forwards interchangeable parts.
Devil management made a big deal out of it to motivate their players, but it was really a compliment. The Devils rolled out four second lines in the mid 90s. Their fourth line featured Holik, flanked by McKay and Peluso. Thats a hell of a line.
The Devils we neber a team of superstars. At most, they would rent a scorer for the playoffs. But they had a great goalie, phenomenal defensemen and 4 second and tweener lines. And the worst part was seeing them replace anyone who left through their farm. Daneyko leaves, Rafalski comes in.
Thats seems to be Sather's game plan. We have a great goalie and a good defense. It is not as god as their defense was when they had Stevens, Niedermeyer, Daneyko, etc., but we are working toestablish one of the top blue lines in the game.
Up front a lot of people are unhappy that we never drafted that flashy player. But we drafted a crapload of very solid guys.
Between 2004 and 2008, just in the second round we pulled out Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky as well as Sauer on defense. Those years, only 20% of second rounders made the NHL. Not only did we more than double this percentage, but we got terrific players and not fourth line bums in the second round.
Others like Callahan and Hagelin were drafted later or acquired for les than a second (e.g., Boyle, Prust).
We now have a backlog across every position. This is shaping up to be a team that not only can build a lineup from within, it will actually be able ti replace players if they leave. This will allow them to take a stand against those who want too much. Players will know that we are not desperate and if they want to stay, they should give us a hometown discount.
When needed, we will also have the assets to rent players at the trading deadline.
We are the new Devils. I remember in the 90s that as soon as they would draft someone, the player's stock would rise in my eyes because Devils knew what they were doing.
Thats how I feel about the Rangers today. In the late 90s, I felt bad for the kids we drafted because it was a bad omen. Not anymore.
And the funny thing is that while we became like the old Devils, they became like the old Rangers: an old team that rushes it's youth and thinks they can have half their future roster filled by UFAs.
Now we are the interchangeable parts and they are the UFA buyers.
This is a good post. And I agree.
Before there were such things as internet message boards, my friends and I would discuss this exact thing about the Rangers and Devils. Mix of fans amongst my group of friends.
In the 90's and early 2000's I loved how the Devils ran their club. Though, I hated them and still do.
I always wanted the Rangers to build that way. Build a unit, and a machine that can replace its parts at any time and continue moving at the same pace.
I agree we are in that direction. And the Devils have taken the opposite approach.
We emphasize character, and all around two-way play in evaluating our youth. And recently the veterans as well. Uniform organizational identity. With the NHL club working as a unit, a whole. A team by committee.
IMO is much better then a top heavy roster with questionable depth.
Im hoping it produces the same success for the Rangers as it did for the Devils in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.
Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 11-09-2011 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by SupersonicMonkey*