View Single Post
Old
01-16-2014, 04:33 PM
  #962
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGgator60 View Post
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.
I have no problem with the idea of blowing up for a rebuild. The misconception, though, is that when an organization doesn't blow up a team with flaws, that they're somehow making a mistake or "erring on the side of caution" as you put it. Management doesn't blow it up because they're, or he is, still beholden to the mandate from the top. That is the reality that Sather has to work in. Would I prefer someone else to be working in that framework? Yes, of course I would. Sather has had his chance to strike the balance and he's failed. Repeatedly. I'd like to see him fired, but I wouldn't expect, or really even ask, the new GM to try to strike a difference balance. He'd be trying to strike the same one. Maybe he'd be better at it, maybe he wouldn't. I do believe that that balance exists though. It isn't the path of least resistance. In my view, it's a tightrope walk.

Making major moves now might do everything you're saying it would. Or it might not. People would be more comfortable with us trying... but I, for one, never live in fear of my team winning hockey games.

Tawnos is offline