: Larry Brooks:
Sather must decide: Is dealing Girardi best for Rangers?
View Single Post
01-16-2014, 05:03 PM
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: New York
Originally Posted by
Careful with that. The element that you are mostly arguing against can't stand the thought of waiting, as if it really makes a difference on this season either way.
There's quite a lot of pie in the sky thinking on these boards... really from both sides. On one side, we have the people who wants to "stay the course" by resigning Girardi and Callahan, because we can't replace them, and tweak the team in minor or major ways for next season. On the other side, there's people who want to blow the whole thing up and rebuild.
The truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual.
There are major flaws to this organization. Girardi and Callahan represent assets that can be used to try to address some of those major flaws. They are assets that are aging, maybe have played their best hockey, and are potentially leaving anyway. If one, or both, has stated his intention with you to test the UFA waters, they should be dealt. It's good asset management. That's the problem with the stay the course. It doesn't make a ton of sense from a roster-building standpoint.
On the other hand, the "blow it up" crowd is mostly just railing at the mandate that comes with running the Rangers, which is to be competitive and bring the owner playoff revenue every season, and generally he'll leave you alone. The sacrifice of playoff games now for more playoff games one year or another isn't ever going to be in the cards. Given the nature of the NHL and how hard it is to win it all in a 30 team league, I totally get the idea that, from a risk management standpoint, the competition mandate is a good play to call when your goal, as the owner, is to make money.
The puzzle is how to balance the two sides and find some ultimate success. It's hard. Harder than a lot of people on here want to admit.
There is a dichotomy of discussion here; some folks are discussing what they fell should happen and some folks seem to be responding to what they feel will happen. I understand that the action plan will most likely lay somewhere in the middle, that is the path of lesser resistance of course and jobs infrequently are lost by erring on the side of safety, however I'd like for management to "blow it up".
In my opinion, doing much of anything half-heartedly out of caution leads to failure at both ends of the spectrum, both the short and long-term consequences. Making major moves now:
A) addresses the issues more immediately rather than allowing short-term team performance to cloud the reality of the holistic long-term trajectory of the team
B) allows the new core of the Rangers more opportunity to understand and develop within their new role within the organization going forward
C) leverages the reality of the situation by securing what should be a higher collection of draft picks as a result of what we'd presume to be a worse position in this season's standings after losing mature talent
I'd argue that all of the above has the ability of adding value to the long-term direction of the Rangers in contrast to waiting it out but I really do want to emphazise that many of us share a greatest fear of having the Rangers roll off a semi-impressive run which convinces management of holding course (or worse yet, buying) only to make the playoffs and get eliminated within the first round or so. The fear of that possibility is reinforced each game and every day of inaction.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by NGgator60