The Rangers lack of depth
View Single Post
03-19-2013, 11:14 AM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Originally Posted by
Disagree so much with this post.
Dubinsky did not become the 30 goal, 60 point player we envisioned and was vastly overpaid with 3 years remaining on his contract.
Anisimov was to be an RFA after this season with arbitration rights and was likely in line for a deal in the 3.5-4m range.
The 7.8 cap hit with Nash was a complete wash with the guys we already had on the books.
We have a cheaper, younger replacement for Dubinsky in JT Miller. He just needs a little time.
You have to make the Nash deal every day of the week. You don't have many opportunities to acquire star players in their prime. Where Sather failed was making other moves to replace our depth. We went into the year thinking Kreider was going to be able to play a prominent role and that didn't happen. We've been searching all season for some reliable depth forwards.
To each his own. I don't care for the trade. Sure, it's tough to land super star forwards in their prime, but as someone else said, those "big ticket" players don't always equate to a winning squad. Why did Columbus just lose their mega super star? Why are they doing significantly better without him?
We lost two players in that trade that bought into Torts system. We didn't resign the other players that bought into his system. And he isn't an adaptable coach. Thus, he's trying to play the same system with a completely different personnel.
If the intent was to trade for Nash and use the same system to succeed... Then absolutely it was a terrible trade. If the plan was to acquire Nash and adapt the team to a different style of play, then I'd say okay.
But at this point, it's either it was a bad trade or Tortorella needs to be canned for not adapting his team game to the personnel on the team.
We already tried the big ticket superstars in the past. How many worked out? In recent memory, just Jagr. And let's be honest, Nash isn't even close to what Jagr was for us.
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I just don't think you acquire a big name and you're a better team. It's clear we aren't. I will agree that the bigger problem with that trade was Sather's
inability to replace quality role players via the free agent market
. But again, he shouldn't have banked on Kreider at his youthful age being in the line up and scoring 20-30 goal pace.
We were too close before the Nash trade. We are further from where we wanted to be afterwards. And with Lundqvist's time running down (and believe it or not guys, he will be a much bigger factor for this squad winning the Cup then Nash can ever dream to be) you need to make the next few years count. You can't make that trade when we were two wins from the Stanley Cup Finals, take a step back and say "Well, after the Nash trade our youth will step up to fill in the holes in a few years," when Lundqvist's prime is ticking away.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fataldogg