there has to be a fit with Edmonton. We Oil stink more than us.........Ir am sure they would do a multi player deal to shake things up
names like Comrie or Cogliano at C, O'Sullian , Nilson, Moreau......Strudwick,Grebeshkov
Rangers have some of Renneys old players and that can only help them...........Rozy, Girardi, Voros.........plus Kotalik ,Higgins, Lisin would be available
I respectfully disagree. Players are usually fully-formed by the time they get to the NHL, at least as far as their on-ice habits. Lindros never figured it out and neither did a few others I can think of.
Hopefully he figures it out.
Good point. There's always something a rookie needs to work on.
I'm afraid we'd have to give up picks to unload Redden and Kotalik. If not picks, then we'd have to package prospects/young players to unload them. There doesn't seem to be any other choice. Before Redden's contract runs out, Staal would be up for good raise, perhaps even in Redden's neighborhood (if Staal becomes that #1 defenseman we all hope he could be). Dubinsky and Callahan would be making at least as much money as Kotalik, when Kotalik's contract terminates. We are stuck in the cap hell without ever getting a shot at the kovalchuks and malkins of the world, be it in FA market or the draft. Unless, we give up picks/prospects to get rid off Redden and Kotalik. It's probably not going to happen, because it's hard for any man to admit his mistakes, much less likely for a distinguished hockey mind like Sather. So, we may all dream about the lecavaliers and richards', but with our cap situation and our own impending free agents - it's not happening. Oh, we can also hope for Kreider, Stepan and Bourque to pan out.
We need a bruising d-man (someone like Brooks Orpik, Matt Greene, Jeff Schultz..), players to fill out our top 6 that can actually score(I guess you could hope for the best with Grachev next year, and re-sign Prospal, and things wouldnt be SO bad with Gaborik, Dubinsky, Prospal, Grachev, Anisimov, and one more player), and I'd prefer we went out and got a top 6 center at somepoint from somewhere so we can put Dubinsky on the LW on a more permanent basis. I don't think this team is missing that many pieces, but it's just going to be very difficult to add the pieces we're missing because of a thin free agent pool, how difficult it is to pull off a trade for a worthwhile player these days, and some of the guys we'll have to move to create cap space(Redden, Roszival, Kotalik, Brashear)
there has to be a fit with Edmonton. We Oil stink more than us.........Ir am sure they would do a multi player deal to shake things up
names like Comrie or Cogliano at C, O'Sullian , Nilson, Moreau......Strudwick,Grebeshkov
Rangers have some of Renneys old players and that can only help them...........Rozy, Girardi, Voros.........plus Kotalik ,Higgins, Lisin would be available
let's get something done for a shakeup
There's no reason the Oilers would want Kotalik or Voros.
Kotalik was already there, they already saw how crappy he is. Voros had his best month or so under Renney, but that doesn't mean Renney is going to have that much pull to go get him for pretty much no reason. If the Oilers didn't claim Valiquette on waivers when they pretty much had no options behind Jeff Deslauriers and with Khabibulin out for what could be the rest of the year, they probably have no interest in most of Renney's favorites.
To lose as many games as possible and build a team the way Chicago and Pitt. did it. Get the best picks you can in the draft for a few years and hope they turn into franchise players.
Firstly, the Rangers aren't tanking anything, so get that thought out of your mind. Secondly, there's no guarantees that finishing at the bottom of the league and getting continuous top picks turns into success. There isn't a perfect formula when it comes to drafting, see the Islanders, Panthers, Thrashers, Blue Jackets, etc.
Pittsburgh is a completely different matter. They were blessed by winning the 2005 lottery and selecting Crosby. I never understood the logic of the NHL awarding PGH three ping pong balls because they had the #1 pick in one of the previous three seasons (2003), albeit via a trade with Florida...which is another issue entirely. Heck, going into that lottery there were tons of people who thought it'd be fixed...and given the fact that PGH was bankrupt with the chance of moving very good, I can see it happening.
Pittsburgh is a completely different matter. They were blessed by winning the 2005 lottery and selecting Crosby.
Uh-huh. And Washington? And Chicago? These "completely different matters" are piling up, I'd say.
There is one guarantee you get for losing big. You are guaranteed the best opportunity to select impact players. People who love to say "there are no guarantees" hate to see that, but it's a simple fact.
Want to know why Pitt has Malkin/Crosby and the Rangers don't? Because of where Pitt picked.
Want to know why Washington has Ovechkin and the Rangers don't? Same reason.
Kane? Same.
There are no guarantees. There are only methods that are proven more and less successful. Again and again and again, finishing at the bottom for several seasons has shown itself the quickest and most reliable method for building a longterm winner.
Teams with bad management (like the Islanders and Panthers) blow that advantage, but the problem is not the method. It's the management.
All that said, we agree. This organization will not commit to such a program. Too many egos on the line. Too much money available.
The Islanders are turning it around by good drafting. Kyle Okposo is solid, Josh Bailey is playing at a high level right now especially considering his age, and John Tavares is going to be a great NHLer. Maybe they're not Crosby or Ovechkin level, but they are building a solid team through the draft.
I would never want to see the Rangers purposely wind up in last place year after year, but we're stuck in a pattern of mediocrity. Missing the playoffs, year after year, but never by enough to get a first overall, to barely making the playoffs, year after year, and getting kicked out first or second round. We're neither a good team nor a bad team. I'd rather be a bad team for a little while so one day we can actually be a good team. But the Rangers organization will never be patient enough for that.
Its not a good idea. The MSG has had issues with ice girls in the past. Re: Harassment. Also Henrik has had bad experiences with them. They might also be a distraction to Avery. Id say we pass.
which team is sitting at the top of the eastern conference standings?
When was the last time they had a top 5 pick?
whose sitting at the #2 spot of the western conference standings? When was the last time they had a top 5 pick?
How about the Red Wings? Calgary?
There are plenty of teams out there that contend for the cup that dont build by tanking. You make smart trades (trade for Thornton, trade for Heatley) and keep your other contracts low, and be very cautious in the free agent market. and develop supplemental players that can come in on a revolving door around them.
I'll say it one more time, if Sather wasn't such a retard in the free agent market, he'd be a pretty good GM.
The Islanders are turning it around by good drafting. Kyle Okposo is solid, Josh Bailey is playing at a high level right now especially considering his age, and John Tavares is going to be a great NHLer. Maybe they're not Crosby or Ovechkin level, but they are building a solid team through the draft.
I would never want to see the Rangers purposely wind up in last place year after year, but we're stuck in a pattern of mediocrity. Missing the playoffs, year after year, but never by enough to get a first overall, to barely making the playoffs, year after year, and getting kicked out first or second round. We're neither a good team nor a bad team. I'd rather be a bad team for a little while so one day we can actually be a good team. But the Rangers organization will never be patient enough for that.
There have been plenty of teams that have been bad and stayed bad for a while. The magic solution is not to lose and get first overall in a lot of cases.
It has nothing to do with drafting 1st or last. It has do with signing past-their-prime Veterans. Tell me, where we would be right now if we passed on Redden and went after Bouwmeester a year later?
Where would we be if Drury was never signed? Where would we be if we did not sign Rozsival to a 5 year deal?
Drafting has nothing to do with this teams struggles. Its stupid signings. Getting the first pick next year would be great, but as long as Redden, Drury and Rozsival are cloggin up almost 20 million dollars of cap space, we will be mediocre.
As long as nearly half the cap is taken by mediocre players, you will be average to below at best.
There are plenty of teams out there that contend for the cup that dont build by tanking.
Right. And how many of them have won a championship?
Also, of those who didn't start with a core of top players who were acquired via top-10 picks, how many have stayed consistently good for eight to ten years? Because that's also what we're talking about here.
I think your list will be short indeed.
In any case, no one has claimed that there's no other way to build a championship team. Having top players acquired by selecting high has proven the most consistent way of doing it. The history is really quite clear on that.
Right. And how many of them have won a championship?
Also, of those who didn't start with a core of top players who were acquired via top-10 picks, how many have stayed consistently good for eight to ten years? Because that's also what we're talking about here.
I think your list will be short indeed.
In any case, no one has claimed that there's no other way to build a championship team. Having top players acquired by selecting high has proven the most consistent way of doing it. The history is really quite clear on that.
Um...... The only recent dynasty in hockey. The Detroit Red Wings. That should be enough to show you.
Drafting has nothing to do with this teams struggles. Its stupid signings. Getting the first pick next year would be great, but as long as Redden, Drury and Rozsival are cloggin up almost 20 million dollars of cap space, we will be mediocre.
Drafting has everything to do with those signings. The Rangers sign UFAs because their drafting has failed them. If the Rangers had drafted Richards, Brown, Parise or several other players instead of Jessiman, we do not need Drury or Gomez.
If the Rangers draft Daley or Duncan Keith instead of Falardeau, we do not need Roszival or Redden. If they draft Stoll instead of Falardeau we don't need Kotalik.
If the Rangers draft Zajac instead of Korpikoski they don't need Kotalik; if they draft Wolski or Meszaros or Green, they don't need Redden or Roszival.
It is the Rangers failure to draft players in the early to mid part of the decade that has forced them to go out looking so extensively at the FA market to fill their holes. The same was true in the final years of Neil Smith's regime.
Ummmm ... and have you looked at the Cup rosters of said dynasty? You might want to begin with the draft position of Steve Yzerman. But if you'd like to make the case that the 96-97, 97-98, and 01-02 Wings win their championships without Yzerman, Shanahan (acquired for #3 overall Keith Primeau) and #10 overall Martin LaPointe, go right ahead. Should be an interesting argument.
In any case, I said the list would be quite short, and you seem to be proving that. Thanks.
Uh-huh. And Washington? And Chicago? These "completely different matters" are piling up, I'd say.
There is one guarantee you get for losing big. You are guaranteed the best opportunity to select impact players. People who love to say "there are no guarantees" hate to see that, but it's a simple fact.
Want to know why Pitt has Malkin/Crosby and the Rangers don't? Because of where Pitt picked.
Want to know why Washington has Ovechkin and the Rangers don't? Same reason.
Kane? Same.
There are no guarantees. There are only methods that are proven more and less successful. Again and again and again, finishing at the bottom for several seasons has shown itself the quickest and most reliable method for building a longterm winner.
Teams with bad management (like the Islanders and Panthers) blow that advantage, but the problem is not the method. It's the management.
All that said, we agree. This organization will not commit to such a program. Too many egos on the line. Too much money available.
Ok, and how do teams like Anaheim, Detroit, Carolina, etc. find success?
It HASNT shown itself to be the quickest and most reliable method for building a longterm winner, and you can't just cite bad management when it doesn't pan out. In fact it's not very quick at all and the amount of things you need to go your way is crazy.
It's actually funny you mentioned the panthers seeing as how they've done fine with the picks they've had. In 04 you can argue Olesz was a bad pick, but who exactly in the top 20 that came after him became an impact player? Stafford? Zajac? meh.
Frolik's a solid player for the panthers (10th overall, 2006, again, no impact players after him in the top 20 quite yet.). In 2005 they picked 20th overall. Jury's still out on 07 and 08.
Pre-lockout Nathan Horton was a no-brainer for them, shame it didn't pan out for them AS well as it probably shouldve, although a couple of 62 point seasons is solid. Jay Bouwmeester panned out and didn't want to stay. Weiss only turned out to be a 20 goal scorer, bummer.
The draft is a crap-chute. There's not many sure things out there, and I think it's becoming a huge misconception that if you get a lottery pick you're guaranteed an elite player. It's clearly not the case.
It's more about what teams do with their other picks too.
The capitals: Varlamov at 23rd overall, Neurvith at 34th overall, Keith Seabrook at 52nd overall in 2006. In 2004, Jeff Schultz 27th overall, Mike Green 29th overall. In 03, Eric Fehr at 18th overall has been a good contributor. Semin was had at 13th overall the year before, and wasn't even their first pick in that draft.
The Pens are in fact the only team I'd probably credit with building nearly completely off top picks. The luck they had with the lottery was amazing, to get top 5 picks that many times and for 3 of 4 turning out to elite players and the other panning out as a very solid 3rd liner(staal) that contributes on the PP and PK.
Ummmm ... and have you looked at the Cup rosters of said dynasty? You might want to begin with the draft position of Steve Yzerman. But if you'd like to make the case that the 96-97, 97-98, and 01-02 Wings win their championships without Yzerman, Shanahan (acquired for #3 overall Keith Primeau) and #10 overall Martin LaPointe, go right ahead. Should be an interesting argument.
In any case, I said the list would be quite short, and you seem to be proving that. Thanks.
4th overall for Yzerman? Its not like they were dead last. Every team at some point gets high draft picks. The Rangers have had draft picks that high. Where is our Steve Yzerman? #10 overall? You're grasping at straws.
4th overall for Yzerman? Its not like they were dead last.
Who has ever said a team has to finish last overall? Was Malkin a #1 overall pick?
Fact of the matter is that the majority of elite players - like Yzerman and Malkin - come in the top 5, and these are the players you need to win a Cup. When teams can stockpile a couple of players in the top 10, the increase their odds many times over for winning a Cup. The history really is very clear about this, and saying "Yzerman was a #4 overall!!!!!!!" changes nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpicowski
Every team at some point gets high draft picks. The Rangers have had draft picks that high. Where is our Steve Yzerman?
We don't have one. That's my point. Sather and Smith before him have failed at the draft table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpicowski
You're grasping at straws.
Do you think so? Because I'm still waiting for you to offer some shred of evidence that it wasn't Detroit's foundation of high picks that wasn't a central piece to the dynasty you mention.
If you want to say that Detroit won its Cups without paying a price in badly losing seasons, I say fine. Explain to me how they win their Cups without Shanahan, Yzerman, and LaPointe. Do that and you've shown the team's bad seasons had nothing to do with its championships.
Ok, and how do teams like Anaheim, Detroit, Carolina, etc. find success?
Detroit, see above: Yzerman, Shanahan, LaPointe
Carolina: You get that by drafting Eric Staal #3 overall, acquiring RodBrindAmour for Primeau for Pronger #2 overall, and trading three top 10 picks for Glen Wesley.
Helps a LOT to be bad.
Anaheim: You move Tverdovsky (#2 overall) for Selanne for Rob Niedermayer.
Then you draft Lupul at #7 and Smid at #9 overall so you can trade them for Chris Pronger.
Oh yeah, then you sign three undrafted UFAs who end up in your top five scoring. That happens regularly enough that we should definitely look to Anaheim as a model for how to build a championship team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
It HASNT shown itself to be the quickest and most reliable method for building a longterm winner
Sure it has. See above, not to mention the Devils, Avalanche, and Lightning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
and you can't just cite bad management when it doesn't pan out.
Yep I can. For the most part, when teams have good picks year in and year out and fail to builf anything substantial, it's because they're drafting badly or doing stupid things with those picks and prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
the amount of things you need to go your way is crazy.
This is true of every championship team, so it constitutes no argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
Pre-lockout Nathan Horton was a no-brainer for them, shame it didn't pan out for them AS well as it probably shouldve, although a couple of 62 point seasons is solid. Jay Bouwmeester panned out and didn't want to stay. Weiss only turned out to be a 20 goal scorer, bummer.
Oh Weiss is looking like a much better player this year and Horton is improving. We'll see indeed what 07 and 08 bring, and if they turn out successful, we'll see yet another team that built its core on high draft picks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
I think it's becoming a huge misconception that if you get a lottery pick you're guaranteed an elite player. It's clearly not the case.
Since I never made such an argument, I can dismiss it our of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
The capitals: Varlamov at 23rd overall, Neurvith at 34th overall, Keith Seabrook at 52nd overall in 2006. In 2004, Jeff Schultz 27th overall, Mike Green 29th overall. In 03, Eric Fehr at 18th overall has been a good contributor. Semin was had at 13th overall the year before, and wasn't even their first pick in that draft.
And where were this year's top five scorers drafted? Last year's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
The Pens are in fact the only team I'd probably credit with building nearly completely off top picks.
And again, since I never made the claim that a team has to be built completely off top picks, I can dismiss this out of hand. Good luck finding a team that's been built completely off anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10
The luck they had with the lottery was amazing, to get top 5 picks that many times and for 3 of 4 turning out to elite players and the other panning out as a very solid 3rd liner(staal) that contributes on the PP and PK.
It's not luck. They positioned themselves to get lottery picks by not making trades and signing free agents to keep them in the middle of the pack, as the Rangers have been doing.
If the Rangers followed the same strategy, they, too, would be landing lottery picks. Now whether or not the Rangers made the correct picks is another story, but whether they screwed the pooch or not in that regard, they would have put themselves in the best position to draft the best talent.
I'll say it one more time, if Sather wasn't such a retard in the free agent market, he'd be a pretty good GM.
Exactly...aside from the success of Nylander and Straka coming out of the lockout, to a degree, Shanahan, and Gaborik, and to a lesser extent Prospal, the his UFA signings have been awful...Ward, Cullen, Gomez, Drury, Redden, Kotalik and Brashear...too much money on players not worth the money they were given. Heck, the Nylander, Straka and Prospal signings were bargain basement signings.
You make smart trades (trade for Thornton, trade for Heatley)
Smart trades? LOL, are you kidding? This sure isn't a smart statement, I'll tell you that. Please show me another team in the league that has acquired two superstar, top-line forwards in two complete ripoffs in such a relatively short period of time in the post-lockout NHL. That is a total fluke that will be incredibly difficult to repeat for the Sharks or anyone else.
Other than the Red Wings and the Devils, none of the NHL's top teams over the last number of years are sans former top draft picks. That includes the Sharks, who added a former #1 and a former #3 to their own former #1.
Now, unless we can do what the Red Wings and the Devils can (which neither we or anyone else in the league has proven capable of doing), then drafting high remains far and away the best strategy toward building a team.
Smart trades? LOL, are you kidding? This sure isn't a smart statement, I'll tell you that. Please show me another team in the league that has acquired two superstar, top-line forwards in two complete ripoffs in such a relatively short period of time in the post-lockout NHL. That is a total fluke that will be incredibly difficult to repeat for the Sharks or anyone else.
Other than the Red Wings and the Devils, none of the NHL's top teams over the last number of years are sans former top draft picks. That includes the Sharks, who added a former #1 and a former #3 to their own former #1.
Now, unless we can do what the Red Wings and the Devils can (which neither we or anyone else in the league has proven capable of doing), then drafting high remains far and away the best strategy toward building a team.
Not that I am disagreeing that it doesnt occurs often but Dallas got Ribeiro for Ninima(sp?) and Richards for pretty cheap.
