Henrik Lundqvist; will he stay or go?
View Single Post
07-28-2013, 09:57 AM
A guy with a bass
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Originally Posted by
Regardless, the player to player comparison is really not the point. The point is that the Rangers failed to assess their team properly and went "all in" on a Nash deal that effectively gutted their middle-six position. They lost two key role players and the most likely candidate to step in next season and help on the blue line. Then they went out and traded last seasons leading goal scorer for a middle-six center, a 4th line forward, and a LH PMD who was beaten out to the NHL by the guy we traded to them 9 months earlier.
This is 100% accurate. Sather failed to understand what made his own team successful.
In the years leading up to when we won the conference, Sather's offseason moves had generally been measured and prudent. He took care of an existing issue in Gomez and replaced him with a winger on a cheap contract for his statistics in Gaborik, taking advantage of Gaborik's injury history. Later, he went and addressed the team's lack of a top center by signing the best guy on the market, albeit to too much term. All the while, the young core of the team continued to develop.
What would have been a continuation of this approach would've been bringing in some top-6 help from the UFA market without breaking the bank. Or maybe trading for Jordan Staal, who would've come cheaper than Nash. Alex Semin, PA Parenteau, Ray Whitney, Jiri Hudler. None of these are exciting names, but they would've been supplementary pieces and would've come without the price of gutting the forward corps. Or, you sign a David Moss-type and go into the next season flush with middle-6 depth.
The Gaborik trade was a reset.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Tawnos