View Single Post
Old
03-17-2014, 01:05 PM
  #604
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 21,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
And this goes back and back to what we've all known about Sather's tenure here, in that there is no fundamental philosophy to build upon. We had it in NY one year 2011/2012. It's no surprise that is the farthest we have gone under Sather. We had a team philosophy from the top down. Black and Blueshirts. Blew it up for Nash, and didn't re-sign Prust. All seemingly good moves, but when you go back to trying to build the mountain, it messes up the plan.

Then we didn't have enough depth to run Tortorella's black and blue system, so we trade Gaborik for further depth. Again, not necessarily a bad move.

However, we took it even further to firing the guy the team was built around, and bringing in AV to settle the pieces. Square pegs into round holes. Was it a bad move to fire Torts? Of course not.

Just because these are all seemingly good moves though, doesn't mean it's helping the big picture. It's a changing philosophy every year. That in itself is the biggest problem the Rangers have.

Now, this St. Louis trade, which seems to be the biggest argument of them all, is actually a trade I still agree with. It kills the Rangers in the draft pick situation, without a doubt, but it makes the on-ice product better. Are we seeing the dividends that we wanted yet? No, of course not. Is it fair to judge MSL after 7 games? I don't think so.

And, of course we didn't *have* to trade for MSL just because he wanted to come to New York. On the other hand, it was more and more apparent that Callahan was not coming back to the team next season. Sather, instead of choosing to lose Callahan for nothing, and deal other pieces for MSL, decided to wash his hands of the situation and let Callahan go early.

You say that MSL's trade value would have declined had we waited, but it surely wouldn't have declined enough to be had for the rights to Ryan Callahan, seeing as how it's doubtful enough that the Lightning will sign him on their own accord anyway.

So, let's say for fun that MSL didn't get traded to the Rangers at the deadline, but could instead be had at the 2014 draft. What would his value be? And now, who/what are we trading for him since we don't have Callahan as a proper trading piece?

/EndRamble
Teams reassess their needs in the off-season. A failed playoff push thanks to an unhappy MSL may have forced Yzerman to budge on his asking price. Sure, Callahan would have not been a piece in the deal, but that doesn't mean the trade couldn't still have been friendlier for us. Say we dealt Callahan for a prospect and San Jose's first round pick. Now we have two first rounders this year. Maybe we wind up with San Jose's first, and our 2nd next year for MSL instead of our first next year and possibly our first this year? Heck, the deal we did make would have been more palatable had we had two picks in the first round this year. Maybe Chris Stewart was more appealing to Tampa than Callahan and fewer picks would have been necessary? It's all theoretical of course, but the asking price eventually came down for Nash, so I can't imagine the same wouldn't have been true for MSL.

There are just so many variables when it comes to building the right team, but there's a reason trades of this magnitude generally don't happen at the deadline. It throws a major wrench into things. The other big deals didn't result in the playoff contender sending key pieces back to the seller. I realize that the Blues/Sabres deal involved big names, but Stewart was on the outs and the deal didn't disrupt the leadership of the team and addressed serious needs for the Blues. Trading Callahan resulted in a leadership change with a core piece being dealt, and didn't address positional need whatsoever. It was made in a vacuum and those kind of moves never seem to work out.

Trxjw is offline