HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Sather from Detroit News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2008, 10:46 PM
  #26
rwordsworth*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 234
vCash: 500
scary how these people re-invent their own history as it suits them.

Did Sather say these things about New York when he played as a Ranger in the seventies.

rwordsworth* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 12:38 AM
  #27
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
i'm actually fairly certain that the media and fans will go after renney first before they turn their attention to sather. and that's justifiably so.

this team isn't stanley cup material but no one can convince me that this team shouldn't be up there with new jersey or even ottawa battling it out for the best in the conference right now.
Yep, he's definitely got a teflon coat. How many more times can Sather pass the buck? It's not his fault their were no prospects in the system when he came, it's not his fault that only one of his first round picks is playing in the NHL, it's not his fault that Low couldn't win, it's not his fault that he picked a coach based on a handwritten game plan that was supposedly what, 80 pages long? And it certainly isn't his fault that he couldn't even motivate the players he had signed when he came down from the President's booth and coached.

Oh no, let's fire Renney, it's all his fault.

Sooner or later someone's bound to notice.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 12:43 AM
  #28
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Yep, he's definitely got a teflon coat. How many more times can Sather pass the buck? It's not his fault their were no prospects in the system when he came, it's not his fault that only one of his first round picks is playing in the NHL, it's not his fault that Low couldn't win, it's not his fault that he picked a coach based on a handwritten game plan that was supposedly what, 80 pages long? And it certainly isn't his fault that he couldn't even motivate the players he had signed when he came down from the President's booth and coached.

Oh no, let's fire Renney, it's all his fault.

Sooner or later someone's bound to notice.
I don't see how he is passing the buck, there was nothing here when he got here, there is not one prospect that sather traded away from the neil smith era that has done much more than have an average NHL career.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 04:13 PM
  #29
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Yep, he's definitely got a teflon coat. How many more times can Sather pass the buck? It's not his fault their were no prospects in the system when he came, it's not his fault that only one of his first round picks is playing in the NHL, it's not his fault that Low couldn't win, it's not his fault that he picked a coach based on a handwritten game plan that was supposedly what, 80 pages long? And it certainly isn't his fault that he couldn't even motivate the players he had signed when he came down from the President's booth and coached.

Oh no, let's fire Renney, it's all his fault.

Sooner or later someone's bound to notice.
and how does this relate to my post exactly? where the hell have i implied anything that you copied that relates to the present?

for this season and with this team as it's constructed right now, it's mostly on renney imo.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 04:15 PM
  #30
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
I don't see how he is passing the buck, there was nothing here when he got here, there is not one prospect that sather traded away from the neil smith era that has done much more than have an average NHL career.
and that's a point in itself that's oft-overlooked.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 10:37 PM
  #31
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
I don't see how he is passing the buck, there was nothing here when he got here, there is not one prospect that sather traded away from the neil smith era that has done much more than have an average NHL career.
Last time I looked at a calender, I got the impression it was 2008--which means it's been 7+ years since Sather was hired. As far as I'm concerned (assuming I read the calender right in the first place), it's a little late for anyone to be blaming the current state of the Rangers on Neil Smith.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 10:47 PM
  #32
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
and how does this relate to my post exactly? where the hell have i implied anything that you copied that relates to the present?

for this season and with this team as it's constructed right now, it's mostly on renney imo.
So, you're assuming that the problems with the team are not the way the team has been constructed, but rather in the execution. I'm not making that assumption. I happen to think that Renney is running the team exactly the way Sather wants to be run. Could Renney do better? Sure he could, but in the end he only has what Sather has given him. I happen to think (to use an old Chinese proverb) that the fish rots from the head down and the ultimate responsibility lies with Sather.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 11:13 PM
  #33
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
So, you're assuming that the problems with the team are not the way the team has been constructed, but rather in the execution. I'm not making that assumption. I happen to think that Renney is running the team exactly the way Sather wants to be run. Could Renney do better? Sure he could, but in the end he only has what Sather has given him. I happen to think (to use an old Chinese proverb) that the fish rots from the head down and the ultimate responsibility lies with Sather.
it's well within your right to believe that. that's your opinion.

mine is renney isn't doing nearly enough with this team. the fact that they have had exactly 1 hotstreak to their credit sandwiched around mediocre/bad this entire season up to this point of their play leads me to believe that renney isn't getting the most out of this roster which is exactly what the ultimate responsibility is of a coach/manager in any sport.

and no, i don't think renney's running this team the way sather wants it to be run. but, understandably to a degree, he's giving renney a long rope to try to right the ship.

admittedly, i wouldn't have such patience especially considering that the all-star break is the last real lengthy time a new coach would have to adjust.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 11:23 PM
  #34
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
it's well within your right to believe that. that's your opinion.

mine is renney isn't doing nearly enough with this team. the fact that they have had exactly 1 hotstreak to their credit sandwiched around mediocre/bad this entire season up to this point of their play leads me to believe that renney isn't getting the most out of this roster which is exactly what the ultimate responsibility is of a coach/manager in any sport.

and no, i don't think renney's running this team the way sather wants it to be run. but, understandably to a degree, he's giving renney a long rope to try to right the ship.

admittedly, i wouldn't have such patience especially considering that the all-star break is the last real lengthy time a new coach would have to adjust.
Well maybe it's time for Sather to pull out the old walkie-talkie and start managing from the President's box again.

Seriously, while I agree that Renney could do more with what he has, as I said before I don't think he's the root of the problem. But, we'll have a better idea over the next couple of weeks.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2008, 11:32 PM
  #35
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Well maybe it's time for Sather to pull out the old walkie-talkie and start managing from the President's box again.

Seriously, while I agree that Renney could do more with what he has, as I said before I don't think he's the root of the problem. But, we'll have a better idea over the next couple of weeks.

actually, it's funny you bring up the walkie-talkie nonsense that sather had before(as horrible an idea as the dunham/zidlicky trade)...

in regards to what i said about renney not coaching the team the way sather wants it coached, i feel like sather probably has different ideas for what this team should be doing compared to the head coach. in fact, when they showed him in the luxury suite at rexall place on hnic saturday night i was thinking to myself "i bet he's really not liking what he's seeing right now...".

however, sather and renney seem to have a really deep mutual respect between them even if their ideas for winning hockey are different and i think when sather promoted renney he did so on the obvious(that renney was the only self-respecting guy willing to take the job at the time) as well as the not-so-obvious(that renney is one of the hardest working s.o.b.'s around).

eventually, as with all teams in all sports, winning will supercede any intangibles.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 12:14 AM
  #36
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
Last time I looked at a calender, I got the impression it was 2008--which means it's been 7+ years since Sather was hired. As far as I'm concerned (assuming I read the calender right in the first place), it's a little late for anyone to be blaming the current state of the Rangers on Neil Smith.
Sathers bungling aside, It will take longer than 7-8 years for us to be fully free of the damage Smiths did. Smith spent the 2nd half of the 90's not drafting or developing what should be the core of our current team.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 07:54 AM
  #37
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
the big difference between sather and smith is sather at least was of the mind to go with a purge of the roster (even if he waited last minute). smith, imo, never showed the inkling to purge the team ... i never got the sense that smith even considered the kind of job-saving purge that sather did.
Could be. Take it for what it's worth, a few years back Smith claimed that he went to the Dolans at the time of the Skrudland/Keane trades and asked if he could tear the team down and start again since many of the older horses were now gone anyway. He was told to forget about it. (There was some speculation at the time of the Sather hiring that this was exactly why Sather demanded control if he was going to sign on with the Dolans.) Smith's story was independently verified by, of all people, Bob Clarke.

Now all that aside, Smith deserved his firing. Mandates from the top may put certain constraints on a GM, but they do not make an excuse for bad drafting, bad signings, bad trades, and bad staff hirings. My argument here is that Sather is every bit as guilty of those things as Smith, but I'm no more inclined to give Sather the excuse of the Dolans than I was to give Smith that excuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
also, let's not forget that the 2001-02 season...i, like i'm sure many others, said "ok, that was disgusting to watch but with bure for a full season i can't wait for next season!"
At least on this board the hope was very mixed because response to the Bure trade was mixed. His injury status was always a factor, and there were a LOT of us who thought that a scoring winger fell far lower on the needs list than some shut-down defensemen. In the Bure trade you had the Dolan philosophy made manifest and thus nothing more than an extension of the Smith years: trade youth/picks for 30+ former superstars that may or may not actually address team needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
to his credit he done a fine job.
We'll have to disagree here. Two playoff appearances in 7 years - one a humiliating defeat - doesn't constitute a fine job in my opinion. If he'd been picking up studs like Richards and Parise in the draft, studs who were just now showing their potential to be stars, much could be put aside, but he's not done so.

It's clear now that the Dolans will never fire him. That being the case, he has plenty of time to make something of this team. If he can win a Cup, he has matched Smith's legacy and his tenure as GM can be considered a mixed success, as Smith's is.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 08:02 AM
  #38
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
there is not one prospect that sather traded away from the neil smith era that has done much more than have an average NHL career.
Sure but on what were those prospects and picks spent? You write as though nothing could have been acquired for Hlavac, Johnsson, a prospect, and 3rd rounder other than Eric Lindros. You write as though 1st, 2nd, and 4th round picks along with an NHL player and a prospect could have been traded for nothing other than Pavel Bure.

Obviously such is not the case. If Sather did not like Smith's prospects, there was no reason he could not have dealt them for other prospects and/or picks. He chose to spend them instead, at least in these two cases, on older players with devastating injury histories, injury histories that caught up to them just as many, many, many fans and pundits predicted they would. This is the part of the story on which Sather says nothing. He is quick to blame the last GM and the ownership on the team's current woes, but he has little to say about his own decisions.


Last edited by dedalus: 01-10-2008 at 08:13 AM.
dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 01:10 PM
  #39
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Quote:
Could be. Take it for what it's worth, a few years back Smith claimed that he went to the Dolans at the time of the Skrudland/Keane trades and asked if he could tear the team down and start again since many of the older horses were now gone anyway. He was told to forget about it. (There was some speculation at the time of the Sather hiring that this was exactly why Sather demanded control if he was going to sign on with the Dolans.) Smith's story was independently verified by, of all people, Bob Clarke.

Now all that aside, Smith deserved his firing. Mandates from the top may put certain constraints on a GM, but they do not make an excuse for bad drafting, bad signings, bad trades, and bad staff hirings. My argument here is that Sather is every bit as guilty of those things as Smith, but I'm no more inclined to give Sather the excuse of the Dolans than I was to give Smith that excuse.
as i've pointed out, i agree that sather deserved to be fired pre-lockout. if it weren't for the lockout in fact i would have gleefully joined the chorus in calling for his head on these boards.
Quote:
At least on this board the hope was very mixed because response to the Bure trade was mixed. His injury status was always a factor, and there were a LOT of us who thought that a scoring winger fell far lower on the needs list than some shut-down defensemen. In the Bure trade you had the Dolan philosophy made manifest and thus nothing more than an extension of the Smith years: trade youth/picks for 30+ former superstars that may or may not actually address team needs.
i also remember that no one on the team other than lindros(if/when healthy) provided consistent offense because, unlike many on this board, i was not fully in love with mike york's offense even when he was running around at 100mph. kind of reminds me of a certain mr. prucha btw but i digress. make no mistake bure addressed a need for that team at that time and presumeably(sp.) one for the following season.

also it's worth noting that at the time bure hadn't showed for years the ability to be injured like lindros. i hated the lindros trade specifically because of his most recent injury history at the time (although it's again worth noting that the trade hasn't nearly bit the rangers in the ass that anyone including myself envisioned. other than a couple of lost seasons with big e it's been unnoticeable.) on the other hand, bure had been relatively injury-free for 5 seasons and productive for 6 including that season he was dealt to nyc.


Quote:
We'll have to disagree here. Two playoff appearances in 7 years - one a humiliating defeat - doesn't constitute a fine job in my opinion. If he'd been picking up studs like Richards and Parise in the draft, studs who were just now showing their potential to be stars, much could be put aside, but he's not done so.

It's clear now that the Dolans will never fire him. That being the case, he has plenty of time to make something of this team. If he can win a Cup, he has matched Smith's legacy and his tenure as GM can be considered a mixed success, as Smith's is.
if noticed dedalus, i said "since the lockout" preceding that...

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 04:17 PM
  #40
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
on the other hand, bure had been relatively injury-free for 5 seasons and productive for 6 including that season he was dealt to nyc.
He lost half his 98 season to his knee. I cannot begin to understand how you describe an injury of that caliber "relatively injury free," and your math is clearly off since the the Rangers acquired him in 2001, a mere three seasons after he'd suffered the injury. It's also worth noting he'd sustained a groin injury with Florida the very year Sather traded for him.

There was no ignoring the guy's effectiveness when healthy, but there was no ignoring the guy's injury history, his two knee surgeries, and his age, either. Sather opted to trade the prospects and picks he now complains Smith didn't leave him to acquire this player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
i also remember that no one on the team other than lindros(if/when healthy) provided consistent offense because, unlike many on this board, i was not fully in love with mike york's offense
Meh. We can argue the greater need all day. All I'll say is that the team had three 20+ goal scorers: Nedved, Lindros, Fleury and two others who projected to 20+ if they were healthy (Dvorak and York). They were 14th in the league in goal scoring not including Bure's twelve goals: middle of the pack.

On the other hand they sported a defense of Leetch, Malakhov, Berard, Karpa, Purinton, Kloucek, McKenna, Lefebvre, and Ulanov. That is a hideous defense when it comes to stopping goals, far worse than the offense was in producing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
if noticed dedalus, i said "since the lockout" preceding that.
I did notice it. My point was that I'm not willing to dismiss 5 years of his work and judge him by only two - especially since his drafting in those initial five years (Well, four. Smith's scouting/personnel team drafted in 2000.) has been part of the team's problem over the last two.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2008, 05:39 PM
  #41
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=dedalus;11976548]
Quote:
He lost half his 98 season to his knee. I cannot begin to understand how you describe an injury of that caliber "relatively injury free," and your math is clearly off since the the Rangers acquired him in 2001, a mere three seasons after he'd suffered the injury. It's also worth noting he'd sustained a groin injury with Florida the very year Sather traded for him.

There was no ignoring the guy's effectiveness when healthy, but there was no ignoring the guy's injury history, his two knee surgeries, and his age, either. Sather opted to trade the prospects and picks he now complains Smith didn't leave him to acquire this player.
first, bure had plenty of time to sit and rest all he needed because he refused to play for the canucks again. that's why he missed the majority of that 98-99 season.
knowing how long he had to recoup, i never considered his knee to be that big of an issue at the time. i was more worried for bure the first knee injury he had. that 2nd one coinciding with the holdout/trade demand never made me blink twice about getting him. maybe you but not me.

Quote:
Meh. We can argue the greater need all day. All I'll say is that the team had three 20+ goal scorers: Nedved, Lindros, Fleury and two others who projected to 20+ if they were healthy (Dvorak and York). They were 14th in the league in goal scoring not including Bure's twelve goals: middle of the pack.

On the other hand they sported a defense of Leetch, Malakhov, Berard, Karpa, Purinton, Kloucek, McKenna, Lefebvre, and Ulanov. That is a hideous defense when it comes to stopping goals, far worse than the offense was in producing them.
certainly the defense sucked, but at the time i wasn't thinking about finishing the 2001-02 season, i was looking ahead to the 2002-03 season. i figured that with a new head coach in there who showed half a care about defense unlike ron low did that the team could only go up for defense because i assumed that the next coach could balance offense and defense evenly. unfortunately that guy was trottier and of course he was a disaster.

and that's a fact you can't overlook. the rangers defense was terrible by itself and with the goaltending issues after richter's injury but low didn't give a damn about defense in the first place. also, at the time of the bure trade this same team that was 14th in goals couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. at the time of the trade they needed a sniper to salvage whatever they could of that campaign.

Quote:
I did notice it. My point was that I'm not willing to dismiss 5 years of his work and judge him by only two - especially since his drafting in those initial five years (Well, four. Smith's scouting/personnel team drafted in 2000.) has been part of the team's problem over the last two.[/
QUOTE]

again, if i had my druthers he would have been gone after the 2003-04 season ended. but why the hell would or should i cry over spilt milk now. what's done is done and leave it in the past like it should be. and you can't deny that since the lockout ended we've seen results from him. and he's certainly in my eyes not the biggest problem with this team now.


Last edited by BwayBshirt: 01-10-2008 at 05:46 PM.
BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2008, 07:33 AM
  #42
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
unfortunately that guy was trottier and of course he was a disaster.
Right. And you agree that Sather should have been fired at that time for his poor coaching hire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
but why the hell would or should i cry over spilt milk now. what's done is done and leave it in the past like it should be.
I'd argue it's not the past at all. The management team that ran such mediocre drafts is still in place picking players. The GM who selected poor coaches is, in your own eyes, not on the same page with his current coach and thus has built a team that his coach struggles with - or who continues to keep a coach who struggles with the team the GM has built.

None of this is in the past. We are living with the mistakes of current regime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
and you can't deny that since the lockout ended we've seen results from him.
I haven't denied it. What I said was that I wouldn't ignore 5 seasons to judge on a mere two. If I was so inclined I never would have fired Neil Smith. Rather I would simply say "You can't deny he won two Presidents trophies and a Stanley Cup."

I'm judging Sather on his full body of work which is hardly impressive. Bob Clarke showed far greater success than Sather has, yet he was fired. Are Philadelphia's standards that much higher than New York's? If so, why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
and he's certainly in my eyes not the biggest problem with this team now.
You can certainly make that case. I'd offer that the buck stops at the top. As I wrote before, Sather has been credited with the team's success the last two seasons. If his creation continues to flounder, why should he not receive the criticism, especially given his poor performance throughout the majority of his tenure?

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2008, 08:46 PM
  #43
Nyrfan44
 
Nyrfan44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Sather needs to get rid of Renney.

Nyrfan44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2008, 10:29 PM
  #44
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Right. And you agree that Sather should have been fired at that time for his poor coaching hire.
above anything else this is why he should have been fired in my eyes pre-lockout. my past posts in and around the time of the lockout suggest that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I'd argue it's not the past at all. The management team that ran such mediocre drafts is still in place picking players. The GM who selected poor coaches is, in your own eyes, not on the same page with his current coach and thus has built a team that his coach struggles with - or who continues to keep a coach who struggles with the team the GM has built.


None of this is in the past. We are living with the mistakes of current regime.
the management team who ran such mediocre drafts has now ran at least 3 positive or well-received critique drafts in a row because they revamped their scouting department and its responsibilities. which was and is what a good gm would do; identify mistakes he and those around him have made and correct them, which he has shown himself to do post-lockout.

as for the issues for this team this season, i believe sather is hoping/patiently waiting for lightning to strike twice like it did last season...which i've already stated an opinion on even if i feel this season's different.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I haven't denied it. What I said was that I wouldn't ignore 5 seasons to judge on a mere two. If I was so inclined I never would have fired Neil Smith. Rather I would simply say "You can't deny he won two Presidents trophies and a Stanley Cup."

I'm judging Sather on his full body of work which is hardly impressive. Bob Clarke showed far greater success than Sather has, yet he was fired. Are Philadelphia's standards that much higher than New York's? If so, why?
technically, bob clarke wasn't fired he resigned. but nevertheless i can point out that clarke also showed himself to be mostly bad post-lockout...the opposite of sather. it's the same way avalanche ppl will tell you that there were 2 pierre lacroix's; pre-lockout and post-lockout.

i'm not saying that ppl shouldn't dismiss what happened pre-lockout. what i'm saying is that since none of us here are or have revealed themselves to be dolan that you can choose to do either 1 of 2 things: hold on to the "old" way the nhl was and lump what every gm who's still around from that time did onto their resumes (which is certainly understandable btw and i won't argue against that rationale) or just accept the fact that he was kept on and thus judge him from his moves post 2004...which i have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
You can certainly make that case. I'd offer that the buck stops at the top. As I wrote before, Sather has been credited with the team's success the last two seasons. If his creation continues to flounder, why should he not receive the criticism, especially given his poor performance throughout the majority of his tenure?
"continues to flounder"? they had a great revival season after the lockout that ended horribly and then last season he made moves that seriously helped them turned their season around when he had to which helped them move up a notch. that's not "floundering".

and if renney's the problem like i and many or most others are suspecting he is, then there's 2 ways to approach it:

1. fire renney now and bring in a new coach to salvage this season and at the same time keep the eye on next season and how that coach will fit in...at which point some of the pressure probably goes on sather more than it was entering this season.

or

2. wait until seasons' end and either fire renney(because one can make the argument that renney has earned the right himself to finish out this season) to wipe the slate clean with a new coach or drastically change personnel in the offseason which isn't likely because the core personnel on this team is talented enough in my eyes to do good things and thus doesn't deserve to be changed more than the coach deserves to be removed.

either way, sather would/will have more pressure on him to succeed which should lead him to more scrutiny as you have suggested. so in the end if you want more criticism of him you'll probably get it...unless he finds success in these scenarios.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2008, 11:22 AM
  #45
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
the management team who ran such mediocre drafts has now ran at least 3 positive or well-received critique drafts in a row because they revamped their scouting department and its responsibilities.
Critical review is fine but has yet to pan out. Smith was widely considered the uncontested winner of the '99 draft because he scored both Brendl and Lundmark. We see how that's turned out. Given his early drafts you will forgive my need to wait before rendering judgment. I will not give him a pass on his most recent drafts; I will judge him on those that can be judged, and those that can be fairly judged have been mediocre. I think I'm being fair in this, and honestly I think you're being overly generous in your willingness to say that his prospects look good, so we'll call that one for his side of the ledger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
which was and is what a good gm would do; identify mistakes he and those around him have made and correct them, which he has shown himself to do post-lockout.
1. Should he not have made management changes long before the lockout?
2. What makes you think his changes in personnel have been terribly successful? It cannot be the role his post-lockout picks are playing in the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
as for the issues for this team this season, i believe sather is hoping/patiently waiting for lightning to strike twice like it did last season
Reason enough to fire him, IMO. I have no interest in a GM operating on the hope of lightning striking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
technically, bob clarke wasn't fired he resigned.
I assume this is rhetorical in nature. You cannot possibly be offering it as a serious rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
but nevertheless i can point out that clarke also showed himself to be mostly bad post-lockout...the opposite of sather.
1. Mostly bad? He had more succes than Sather in the first post-lockout year. The Flyers gave him the quick chop less than halfway through the 2nd. All this while he showed himself to be a far better judge of drafting talent - something in no way shaped by the lockout - than Sather.

2. He was not fired for that single less-than-half season but for his overall failure to move the team forward in the playoffs even though the team was consistently more successful than the Blueshirts. I say again, why are the standards of the Flyers higher than those of the Rangers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
i'm not saying that ppl shouldn't dismiss what happened pre-lockout. ... thus judge him from his moves post 2004.
Your second statement appears to contradict your first. You seem to offer that we shouldn't dismiss his first five years, we should simply ... ignore? disregard? ... them and judge him only on the last two. Are you not merely replacing the word "dismiss" with some other word like "ignore" or "disregard"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
hold on to the "old" way the nhl was and lump what every gm who's still around from that time did onto their resumes
Suits me. There are a number of GMs who are operating just fine in the new NHL who operated just as well before the new CBA. Certainly their drafting resumes transfer perfectly; drafting has not changed at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
or just accept the fact that he was kept on and thus judge him from his moves post 2004
We could use that rationale to say we should have just accepted the decision to keep Sather in 2003, could we not? You're really only saying, "We have no say in the matter, so judge him only on the good."

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
"continues to flounder"?
I was not being clear; I meant this year. I assume that if the team continues its current level of play you'd be willing to call it floundering. Certainly you cannot conceive of this roster finishing the season 4 games below .500 and out of the playoffs.

Which makes me wonder, if the team does not significantly improve, do you feel your judgment of Sather's post-lockout performance must be seriously re-evaluated? If the team loses in the first round of the playoffs? If it goes no further than last year in spite of Sather's moves?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
and if renney's the problem like i and many or most others are suspecting he is, then there's 2 ways to approach it:

1. fire renney now and bring in a new coach to salvage this season

or

2. wait until seasons' end and either fire renney(because one can make the argument that renney has earned the right himself to finish out this season) to wipe the slate clean with a new coach
From my perspective the second scenario is not an option. Sather has placed all his eggs in the basket of this season. He's likely to lose a significant chunk of the most important elements of his roster over the summer. His finances being what they are - and what they will be after Lundqvist's new contract - he's not likely to be able to acquire the pieces needed to replace what he stands to lose. (Unless his drafts produce quite significant dividends next season which will save his cap space. I certainly see no replacement for Shanahan, Jagr, or even Straka on the current team or farm for next season.)

He's complained a number of times about the many reasons he could not get the roster he wanted: Smith's personnel decisions, the interference of the Dolans, the staff he was left, etc. He's now had time, payroll, and the mortgaging of future cap space to build the roster he wants. If he cannot make it work by now, he is out of excuses IMO.


Last edited by dedalus: 01-12-2008 at 11:31 AM.
dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2008, 11:54 AM
  #46
Bobby Granger
Registered User
 
Bobby Granger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 408
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bobby Granger
hsould we go back to the "FIRE SATHER" chants all over

Bobby Granger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2008, 04:06 PM
  #47
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Critical review is fine but has yet to pan out. Smith was widely considered the uncontested winner of the '99 draft because he scored both Brendl and Lundmark. We see how that's turned out. Given his early drafts you will forgive my need to wait before rendering judgment. I will not give him a pass on his most recent drafts; I will judge him on those that can be judged, and those that can be fairly judged have been mediocre. I think I'm being fair in this, and honestly I think you're being overly generous in your willingness to say that his prospects look good, so we'll call that one for his side of the ledger.
how about "results" pending if you really want to be technical about it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
1. Should he not have made management changes long before the lockout?
2. What makes you think his changes in personnel have been terribly successful? It cannot be the role his post-lockout picks are playing in the NHL.
to answer question 1, if you can't judge young players until 3-5 years down the road, how can you make changes until you wait that long? 2004/05 having been...oh my lord, well look at that...4/5 years down the road!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Reason enough to fire him, IMO. I have no interest in a GM operating on the hope of lightning striking.
not reason enough to fire him. based on this logic, your beloved clarke would have been "canned" a long time ago, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I assume this is rhetorical in nature. You cannot possibly be offering it as a serious rebuttal.
umm, if your beloved clarke says he was "burned out" and that's why he resigned, who the hell are you to argue?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
1. Mostly bad? He had more succes than Sather in the first post-lockout year. The Flyers gave him the quick chop less than halfway through the 2nd. All this while he showed himself to be a far better judge of drafting talent - something in no way shaped by the lockout - than Sather.
based on the logic you've thrown at me all this time, you can't leave out the 2nd season now can you? c'mon man, you've shown more than this to me so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
2. He was not fired for that single less-than-half season but for his overall failure to move the team forward in the playoffs even though the team was consistently more successful than the Blueshirts. I say again, why are the standards of the Flyers higher than those of the Rangers?
again, wasn't fired...


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Your second statement appears to contradict your first. You seem to offer that we shouldn't dismiss his first five years, we should simply ... ignore? disregard? ... them and judge him only on the last two. Are you not merely replacing the word "dismiss" with some other word like "ignore" or "disregard"?
i say such a thing because we aren't in a position to do a damn thing about it. if things had continued on the ice like they were pre-lockout i'd have a different tune but they haven't so i won't. and to me personally i see it as just a waste to ***** about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Suits me. There are a number of GMs who are operating just fine in the new NHL who operated just as well before the new CBA. Certainly their drafting resumes transfer perfectly; drafting has not changed at all.
and there are a number who aren't.
your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
We could use that rationale to say we should have just accepted the decision to keep Sather in 2003, could we not? You're really only saying, "We have no say in the matter, so judge him only on the good."
you almost have it right. it's more like me saying "why stress over something that was noticeably different that's not the case now while we have had no say over it?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I was not being clear; I meant this year. I assume that if the team continues its current level of play you'd be willing to call it floundering. Certainly you cannot conceive of this roster finishing the season 4 games below .500 and out of the playoffs.

Which makes me wonder, if the team does not significantly improve, do you feel your judgment of Sather's post-lockout performance must be seriously re-evaluated? If the team loses in the first round of the playoffs? If it goes no further than last year in spite of Sather's moves?
you're right i can't conceive it. even though the eastern conference is wallowing in parity/mediocrity, honestly tell me how much better or worse this team should be. if you want to say i'm calling it as i see on paper then so be it. off the top of my head i'd say ottawa should be clear-cut better than us. it's not like teams such as nj, carolina, montreal, and philly are that much more physical or that much bigger or that much faster than we are. we have underachieved and it starts with coach.

i wouldn't care to re-evaluate sather until i see a coach other than renney who actually has it in the game plan to strategize about offense. i said it a long time ago that a warning flag was thrown up by jagr when back at the beginning of training camp he suggested that this team attempt to score more goals than it has in the past at the expense of some defense...which this team hasn't tried for a sustained period of games all season. i'd say he's proven right so far. i'd like to see a different approach and i haven't so i say cya to renney. if the next coach can't get better results then i'll want the cord cut on sather.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
From my perspective the second scenario is not an option. Sather has placed all his eggs in the basket of this season. He's likely to lose a significant chunk of the most important elements of his roster over the summer. His finances being what they are - and what they will be after Lundqvist's new contract - he's not likely to be able to acquire the pieces needed to replace what he stands to lose. (Unless his drafts produce quite significant dividends next season which will save his cap space. I certainly see no replacement for Shanahan, Jagr, or even Straka on the current team or farm for next season.)
we shall see if all that comes to fruition. i'm not one too big on predicting.


Last edited by BwayBshirt: 01-12-2008 at 04:37 PM. Reason: in a rush to eat dinner with the mrs.
BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2008, 08:29 AM
  #48
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
how about "results" pending if you really want to be technical about it...
I think that fair. In that case, as I've written, we should judge him on results no longer pending rather than place something in his ledger that may or may not belong there. Agreed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
to answer question 1, if you can't judge young players until 3-5 years down the road, how can you make changes until you wait that long? 2004/05 having been...oh my lord, well look at that...4/5 years down the road!
Except that Sather clearly doesn't hold that view. He began tinkering with his staff the year after he arrived; he did not wait 4-5 years. He knew what he had and presumably didn't like it but presumably didn't change it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
not reason enough to fire him. based on this logic, your beloved clarke would have been "canned" a long time ago, no?
There are any number of Flyer fans who argued for just that - correctly in my opinion. But the real answer to your reply is that Clarke did not operate on hope. Clarke drafted well and traded well. His team's on-ice performance showed just that, just as Sather's showed the quality of his personnel moves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
umm, if your beloved clarke says he was "burned out" and that's why he resigned, who the hell are you to argue?
I would never be one to argue with a team's press releases. They are well known for their candor and their refusal to color internal operations in their own favor.

On a less sarcastic note, I would say that Clarke's public statements are fine. I would also say that Clarke's public statements would ring more true if he were not operating as a senior vice president in the organization.

But I take it you're saying you personally don't believe he was fired, which is to say, not asked to resign? Hitchock was fired but Clarke was not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
based on the logic you've thrown at me all this time, you can't leave out the 2nd season now can you? c'mon man, you've shown more than this to me so far.
You misunderstand. I've not thrown out his second season; in fact my logic has been consistent in that I've argued that a GM must be evaluated based on his full performance. What Clarke showed over his long tenure with the Flyers was an inability to win a championship despite one coach after another, a completely free hand with regard to personnel, and unlimited amounts of money before the cap was implemented. He was fired - yes fired - for the failures in his body of work, not for the single culminating half-season.

Despite a significantly lesser body of work, Sather has been retained as GM of the Rangers. I find that deplorable, and I cannot help but wonder if club expectations have not had something to do with the disparity in team performances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
i say such a thing because we aren't in a position to do a damn thing about it. if things had continued on the ice like they were pre-lockout i'd have a different tune but they haven't so i won't. and to me personally i see it as just a waste to ***** about it.
Right but you've not answered the question. You seem to be offering a contradiction. How do you resolve that? If we "just accept" the present situation, are we not also "dismissing" his past performance from evaluation of Sather's success?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
your point?
My point is that you seem to offer a paradigm in which holding onto an "old way" which "[lumps] what every gm who's still around from that time did onto their resumes" is in some way inferior to ... "just [accepting]" what is. This is a false choice. There is no reason at all that a GM's body of work prior to the new CBA should be jettisoned from evaluating his current status. His ability to evaluate talent successfully has in no way been shaped by the new CBA; his ability to identify good staff has in no way been shaped by the new CBA; his ability to sell the team to the public has in no way been shaped by the new CBA; nor has his ability to identify team needs and make appropriate plans for the present and future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
you almost have it right. it's more like me saying "why stress over something that was noticeably different that's not the case now while we have had no say over it?"
The operative words I see in your statement are "we have had no say over it." Whether or not things change with the team - whether it's a first or last place team - we have no say over it. That is presumably why we should not be stressed by this. Otherwise you would not have been stressed and called for the GM's firing in '03.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
we have underachieved
We agree. I have simply elected to call that "floundering," and I would say that if the team ends the year as an "underachieving" team, Sather must be called to account for yet another underachieving Ranger team.

I acknowlege that "yet another" only qualifies if one is willing to look at Sather's performance before the lockout. If one wishes to erase that history and examine only post-lockout performance, then we can say that this is Sather's first year producing an underachieving team and put it aside as an aberration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
and it starts with coach.
Fair enough. And who hired and has retained that coach even though their philosophies apparently clash?

This is where we get to looking at - or rejecting - past performance. I'd say that this is Sather's 3rd coach in less than 7 seasons (not including his own time behind the bench). I'd offer that finding the right coach for the job seems to be a weakness in Sather's resume. By your position you seem to be suggesting we forget about Low, Trottier, and Sather himself to argue that Renney has been Sather's only coach, Renney being the only post-lockout coach. You seem to be offering that Sather should be judged as a coaching evaluator based only on the Renney hire because we should just accept the case as-is and evaluate Sather on his work after the lockout.

I disagree. I'd say that if Renney is a failure, that failure suggests a weakness on Sather's part in finding the right head coach for the right job, and I'd say that assessment is supported by his pre-lockout hires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWayBShirt View Post
i wouldn't care to re-evaluate sather until i see a coach other than renney who actually has it in the game plan to strategize about offense ... if the next coach can't get better results then i'll want the cord cut on sather.
I think you're being overly generous to Sather, but I certainly see your reasoning. You're being very fair, IMO.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2008, 09:44 AM
  #49
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,674
vCash: 500
Maybe Sather's next choice for coach will hand write over 100 pages in order to secure the position.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2008, 11:05 AM
  #50
HoosierDaddy
Registered User
 
HoosierDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
DeDalus - BWayBshirt : Guys, this has been one of the best threads I've read on this, or any other board. I had an FHL team for many years called the B'Way Blueshirts so it pains me to say that if this were a presidential debate I'd vote for DeDalus.

Blather is an opportunistic blowhard who smugly threw stones at Neils glass house while he was in EDM. Devine providence put him in a position to "put-up or shut-up" when the Dolans opened their vault, got called in on his bragging that he could make the Rangers a winner with all that $$$ Neil had at his disposal. and the results speak for themselves.

We Ranger fans have always overvalued our "prospects" to the point that we are drinking the cool-aide on our current stable of prospects. Yes, we have, in my opinion, several gems (Staal, Cherepanov, Anisimov come to mind). But there is no telling what any of them will turn in to when all is said and done. We still draft small 3rd-4th line "character" plumbers with nary a "super-nova" on the horizon. Let's keep blaming Neil for that. His remarks that you need to tank for several season, Like a certain PA team, to build your team should have pre-cluded him from getting the job in the 1st place. If the Rangers EVER pulled a prank like that I'd stop rooting for them instantly. Come to think of it, I don't really root for them as much as I follow them out of a 40 year old habit. I want him GONE!

HoosierDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.