View Single Post
Old
12-04-2006, 01:05 PM
  #72
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Thats my point. The 2003 draft would be infinitely less critical to the Rangers had they not spend the previous half dozen years before it screwing things up. Players that didnt pan out, top draft picks moved for aging vets, unfortunate injuries...
But the problem is you can't go with that approach. It's like saying "Well we wouldn't be as angry is we won the game".

Well yeah of course it wouldn't have been so bad if the Rangers hadn't done bad moves before hand, but the problem/the reality is that they did and bad moves often times change the way you approach certain situations.

Quote:
Smith failed to draft and/or develop the players that should make up the current core of this team, guys from the '96-'99 drafts that would be hitting their prime right now. Sather continued the trend, and maybe even made it worse, which is why our best draft picks are still very young, and the older ones that are NHL ready are late round "finds".

Every team, even the best ones, screws up draft picks. Plenty of them go off the board and make ridiculous selections. The good teams make it so one bad selection doesnt bury you. The Rangers are no different.
The problem is that it was two selection, further compounded by the fact that this team didn't have a first round pick in 2000 or 2002. Lee and Hugh were part of a problem that was really 4 or 5 bad first picks, they also served as the exclamation point.

When you really add it all up 96-2003 was about as piss poor as you can get.

But by 2002 or 2003 the team KNEW how badly they had already drafted and made risky picks anyway. That just compounds the stupidity.

It's one thing to make mistakes when your ignorant and you haven't seen results yet. It's another thing completely when you are aware of those results, then it becomes stupidity.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote