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: What more?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-25-2010, 08:23 AM
  #51
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd View Post
If the "will" is such a strong truism, doesn't the "should" become a waste of time?
You're right of course. Shifting the ground from evaluative to the predictive is usually only a means of AVOIDING a conversation.

I'll be honest, nothing in this thread will be news. I only opened it because another poster insisted I do so if I was to get him to answer a question (the question which begins the thread). He refused to answer the question in the thread it originated, so ...

Anyway though, the conversation is the point. It's a waste of time for those who aren't interested.


Last edited by dedalus: 08-25-2010 at 08:46 AM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:32 AM
  #52
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
OK so what will that be for Slats? Coach number 5 he will have canned? How many coaches do you need to go through before you realize the real problem?
You can't expect that Sather is going to admit that he's the problem. The only one who is going to hold Sather accountable is Dolan, and as long as the Rangers are pulling in revenue, he's not going to care one bit.

Sather is an idiot, but as long as Dolan is the man behind the curtain, it's always going to be more about the star power than it is about the team building.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:37 AM
  #53
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
the context of my statement as orginally given was that all of the things that are currently active with this club: emphasis on drafting talent, bringing in young talent via, free agency, trades, etc., continuing to integrate youth in our active roster...

These are all things that I would want to see a GM do for the NYR right now. Regardless of Sather's mishaps from the past he's doing right (relatively speaking)
at the moment.
Couple of things...

1. Regardless of his mishaps? I don't think it's regardless. I think the reason Sather is doing "right" is BECAUSE of his mishaps. If he didn't put himself in a salary cap bind like he has then he would continue to hand out bad contracts. He's proven himself incapable of having any foresight towards building a hockey team and also being a terrible talent evaluator. Why should he get the benefit of a do-over after this mess is sorted out?

2. You say he's doing "right" and give the following reasons...
- Emphasis on drafting - In what way?
- Bringing in young talent via free agency - Who? The only person I can think of that you might be referring to is Aasen and the reason he apparently signed here is because he thinks the competition for playing time in the top 6 will be lite. That's not exactly something to hang your hat on as a GM of a club for the past 10 years.
- Bringing in young talent via trades - Again, who?
- Continuing to integrate young talent - oh, you mean like every single other organization that exists in this salary capped NHL?

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:38 AM
  #54
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
The OP wasn't answered in the former thread because he dismissed points that were made. So instead of answering, he devised what he feels is this ingenious question based on something i wrote taken out of context.

i have since answered him in his own thread. he's ignored the response again...

*Read and respond to my brilliant posts, while I ignore everything you've written, and make assumptions about what you believe.

^ seems to be the MO on this board.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:44 AM
  #55
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
My opinion is that Sather should stay on to right the ship.
You've asserted elsewhere: "I never said patience was needed to turn around Sather’s tenure in NY."

But I don't see the difference between "Sather should stay on" and "patience."

I also don't see the difference between "right the ship" and "turn around [his] tenure."

When Bleed Ranger Blue said elsewhere that "its absolutely absurd to fool yourself into believing that 'patience' is whats going to turn around [Sather's] train wreck of a tenure here," you accused BRB of imposing his thoughts on you so he could "sound smart."

When you write above that "Sather should stay on to right the ship," you are saying exactly what Bleed Ranger Blue asserted.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:50 AM
  #56
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
I wish a reporter would ask Sather "what have you learned about handling contracts over the last 10 years?"
One can only imagine how that would raise the old man's hackles.

"Sonny, I was dealing with contracts and budgets my whole life in Edmonton! I was a budget genius when you were a gleam in your daddy's pants ... or something ..."

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:51 AM
  #57
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
Couple of things...

1. Regardless of his mishaps? I don't think it's regardless. I think the reason Sather is doing "right" is BECAUSE of his mishaps. If he didn't put himself in a salary cap bind like he has then he would continue to hand out bad contracts. He's proven himself incapable of having any foresight towards building a hockey team and also being a terrible talent evaluator. Why should he get the benefit of a do-over after this mess is sorted out?

2. You say he's doing "right" and give the following reasons...
- Emphasis on drafting - In what way?
- Bringing in young talent via free agency - Who? The only person I can think of that you might be referring to is Aasen and the reason he apparently signed here is because he thinks the competition for playing time in the top 6 will be lite. That's not exactly something to hang your hat on as a GM of a club for the past 10 years.
- Bringing in young talent via trades - Again, who?
- Continuing to integrate young talent - oh, you mean like every single other organization that exists in this salary capped NHL?

well that’s your opinion which you qualify by saying: “ I think”. That doesn’t make what you
Say any more valid than what I’ve said. We’re not the only team that have struggled with the Cap.
What happened with the hawks is a tragedy imo. The market for high priced talent is high today.
We’re paying dearly because Drury,Redden, and Rosival aren’t giving us the production they’re being paid
For. Flyers fans were pretty upset about the Briere contract up until this past season.
The player that signs the contract must take some of the responsibility here as well.

2. Look at everything that Sather and NYR management are focusing on at the moment. I’m just reiterating
What they are saying. Can I prove to you that they’ll keep their word? No, but you can’t disprove it yet either.
Take a look at the moves this team has made via trade, UFA, integrating youth over the past 4 yrs. They haven’t been for over the hill 35+ players!

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:53 AM
  #58
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
One can only imagine how that would raise the old man's hackles.

"Sonny, I was dealing with contracts and budgets my whole life in Edmonton! I was a budget genius when you were a gleam in your daddy's pants ... or something ..."
You're right, that's exactly what Sather would be thinking, but it's worse than that. Sather would not deem the reporter worthy of his time, and would totally ignore him.

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 08:57 AM
  #59
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
well that’s your opinion which you qualify by saying: “ I think”. That doesn’t make what you
Say any more valid than what I’ve said. We’re not the only team that have struggled with the Cap.
What happened with the hawks is a tragedy imo. The market for high priced talent is high today.
We’re paying dearly because Drury,Redden, and Rosival aren’t giving us the production they’re being paid
For. Flyers fans were pretty upset about the Briere contract up until this past season.
The player that signs the contract must take some of the responsibility here as well.
The Blackhawks are a Stanley Cup champion who has salary cap problems. The Rangers are having salary cap problems while missing the playoffs. There is no comparison.

Quote:
Take a look at the moves this team has made via trade, UFA, integrating youth over the past 4 yrs. They haven’t been for over the hill 35+ players!
One signing in the last four years was for an over the hill 31 year old player who was signed for SIX years.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 08-25-2010 at 09:02 AM.
Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:00 AM
  #60
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
The OP wasn't answered in the former thread because he dismissed points that were made.
Question:
"Given all of what you write about other teams likely using the same methods as Sather and given the fact that "there is no magic GM or formula that would miraculously turnaround this squad as currently configured," how should we approach an evaluation of Glen Sather? Should we throw his ass on the street tomorrow morning?"
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=826


Answer:
"start a new thread about evaluating Sather, I’m here to comment on the OP."
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=837

Make up your mind, dude. Did you refuse to answer because your points were dismissed? Or did you refuse to answer because you "here to comment on the OP"?

And just remember, you answered the OTHER questions posed in the thread. My presumed "dismissal" certainly didn't bother you there.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:03 AM
  #61
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
You've asserted elsewhere: "I never said patience was needed to turn around Sather’s tenure in NY."

But I don't see the difference between "Sather should stay on" and "patience."

I also don't see the difference between "right the ship" and "turn around [his] tenure."

When Bleed Ranger Blue said elsewhere that "its absolutely absurd to fool yourself into believing that 'patience' is whats going to turn around [Sather's] train wreck of a tenure here," you accused BRB of imposing his thoughts on you so he could "sound smart."



When you write above that "Sather should stay on to right the ship," you are saying exactly what Bleed Ranger Blue asserted.
actually here's what i wrote in it's entirety. (that usually works when you quoute someone - if you don't want to come off disingenuous)


My opinion is that Sather should stay on to right the ship (Rid Redden, groom Messier, etc.) and retire within the next few years.

my opinion is that since he has improved, it would be best for him to stay on and try to correct his mistakes before he leaves/gets fired.
To me, it would serve no purpose. Besides Dolan will never fire this man. I've learned to live with this fact and make the best of it.

I've expressed myself to the best of my abilities in this and other threads regarding Sather. if you disagree fine. If you think i'm being hypocritical in any way, that's fine too.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:07 AM
  #62
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
well that’s your opinion which you qualify by saying: “ I think”. That doesn’t make what you say any more valid than what I’ve said.
He never claimed his assessment was more valid. He merely has a viewpoint that opposes your own, and he has stated the reasons why he feels as he does.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:09 AM
  #63
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Who is the magic GM that the OP proposes and what will he do that isn't going
on right now? He doesn't say. He just wants SAther gone because of his past errors.
I want Sather gone so he can't make those same errors again.

Quote:
My opinion is that Sather should stay on to right the ship (Rid Redden, groom Messier, etc.) and retire within the next few years.
Why? What has he done to earn that right?

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:11 AM
  #64
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
He never claimed his assessment was more valid. He merely has a viewpoint that opposes your own, and he has stated the reasons why he feels as he does.
how many posters are you currently speaking for right now?

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:16 AM
  #65
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Question:
"Given all of what you write about other teams likely using the same methods as Sather and given the fact that "there is no magic GM or formula that would miraculously turnaround this squad as currently configured," how should we approach an evaluation of Glen Sather? Should we throw his ass on the street tomorrow morning?"
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=826


Answer:
"start a new thread about evaluating Sather, I’m here to comment on the OP."
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=837

Make up your mind, dude. Did you refuse to answer because your points were dismissed? Or did you refuse to answer because you "here to comment on the OP"?

And just remember, you answered the OTHER questions posed in the thread. My presumed "dismissal" certainly didn't bother you there.
check out what i wrote in it's entirety in this thread:

i have since answered him in his own thread. he's ignored the response again...

I told you that i would answer this earth-shattering question of yours in it's own thread. I did. (#34, #37) You ignored it up until now, because you're being called out about it.

Why make an issue out me supposedly avoiding this question of yours, if you’re only going to ignore my response?


We’re not in agreement here, but you seem to be pressing for something else...

Let me know what you’re trying to accomplish here?

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:17 AM
  #66
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
actually here's what i wrote in it's entirety ... My opinion is that Sather should stay on to right the ship (Rid Redden, groom Messier, etc.) and retire within the next few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
I never said patience was needed to turn around Sather’s tenure in NY. Do you usually insert your thoughts into other peoples posts and in order to sound smart when you reply?
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=796

I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think you have a pair of contradictory statements, and you refuse to admit you've contradicted yourself.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:24 AM
  #67
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=796

I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think you have a pair of contradictory statements, and you refuse to admit you've contradicted yourself.
You honestly don’t see a difference in: Righting the ship and turning around a Tenure?

I’ll do me best to explain MY THOUGHTS.

By righting the ship: I feel he can stop making past mistakes, make some good signings/trades and try to eradicate bad contracts

Turning around a Tenure would mean (to me) doing so much good that his past mistakes would be overshadowed, to the point
Of being forgotten. I don’t think that is possible.

That’s the best I can do. If you think they contradict. Oh well.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:29 AM
  #68
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
how many posters are you currently speaking for right now?
Only myself, and if you can quote Vito saying his opinion is more valid than yours, I will be happy to read that quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
I told you that i would answer this earth-shattering question of yours in it's own thread. I did. (#34, #37) You ignored it up until now, because you're being called out about it.
Sorry, friend. Had I been here at 8:15 last night when you posted those, I would gladly have done' to you then exactly what I'm doing to you now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
Why make an issue out me supposedly avoiding this question of yours
That was not my first choice. You said I had to openb a new thread to get an answer from you. If it seems I'm "making an issue" of this, blame yourself. You might just as easily have written what you wrote here in an earlier thread.

Now that you have the game you wanted to play, let's not complain about it, shall we? That really IS hypocritical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
you’re only going to ignore my response?
Am I ignoring your responses, NikC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
Let me know what you’re trying to accomplish here?
I'm trying to get your thoughts on Sather.

Once I had those, I showed how you were wrong to accuse Bleed Ranger Blue as you did.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:33 AM
  #69
terrrrrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Keep Sather around until Drury/Rozsival/Redden's contracts are up, then get someone else in there so he doesn't blow it all on one player.

terrrrrible is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:33 AM
  #70
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
my opinion is that since he has improved, it would be best for him to stay on and try to correct his mistakes before he leaves/gets fired.
Last year, Sather gave Kotalik 3 years/9 mil. Kotalik didn't last the year and he was lucky that Sutter is an even bigger idiot. He gave Brashear 2 years/2.8 mil and he didn't last the year. Again, Sather was lucky to be able to get rid of him.

This year he gave Boogaard a ridiculous 4 years/6.5 mil.

In exactly what area do you think he's improved?

The only reason he's made less/smaller mistakes in the last couple years is because he's had less cap space to work with. But he's still making the same types of mistakes. How do you not see that?

You've said that a new GM would be doing the exact same things as Sather is doing right now. So, if that's the case, then why would it be best if Sather stays on to correct his mistakes and then retires? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of him now, let the new GM get his feet wet by doing what Sather would have done anyway, and then be more prepared in 2 years when we have some cap space?

Your 2 assertions are logical opposites. If a new GM would do the same things Sather is doing, then keeping Sather can't possibly be the best course of action.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:38 AM
  #71
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Sorry, friend. Had I been here at 8:15 last night when you posted those, I would gladly have done' to you then exactly what I'm doing to you now.
Lol, what do you think you are “doing to me”? Get over yourself and your opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Once I had those, I showed how you were wrong to accuse Bleed Ranger Blue as you did.
Now that you have the game you wanted to play, let's not complain about it, shall we? That really IS hypocritical.
The game I wanted to play was to stick to the OP, not participate in a “honk if you hate sather” thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Once I had those, I showed how you were wrong to accuse Bleed Ranger Blue as you did.
Explanation to the best of my abilities in #67.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:42 AM
  #72
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrrrrible View Post
You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Keep Sather around until Drury/Rozsival/Redden's contracts are up, then get someone else in there so he doesn't blow it all on one player.
But why keep Sather around until then if we agree his old dog tricks don't work anymore? Time to bring in a new dog now.

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:44 AM
  #73
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Last year, Sather gave Kotalik 3 years/9 mil. Kotalik didn't last the year and he was lucky that Sutter is an even bigger idiot. He gave Brashear 2 years/2.8 mil and he didn't last the year. Again, Sather was lucky to be able to get rid of him.

This year he gave Boogaard a ridiculous 4 years/6.5 mil.

In exactly what area do you think he's improved?

The only reason he's made less/smaller mistakes in the last couple years is because he's had less cap space to work with. But he's still making the same types of mistakes. How do you not see that?

You've said that a new GM would be doing the exact same things as Sather is doing right now. So, if that's the case, then why would it be best if Sather stays on to correct his mistakes and then retires? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of him now, let the new GM get his feet wet by doing what Sather would have done anyway, and then be more prepared in 2 years when we have some cap space?

Your 2 assertions are logical opposites. If a new GM would do the same things Sather is doing, then keeping Sather can't possibly be the best course of action.

My 2 assertions are logical opposites to you only because you define his moves as “mistakes”.

The Kotalik signing on paper was a good move. He is a perennial 20g scorer and is PP threat, not to
Mention chemistry with the Captain. It’s only a mistake to you because you have the benefit of seeing it in retrospect.
No it didn’t work out, but we wouldn’t be the first team to have a player not fit in. Should we stop signing UFAs?
Is that what the “new’ GM should do? Will he know ahead of time if a player will work out or not? Will he have crystal ball
Like you do?

You define the Boogaard contract as a “mistake”. It’s an overpayment, to me but not a mistake. I like the signing.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:44 AM
  #74
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
You honestly don’t see a difference in: Righting the ship and turning around a Tenure?
You honestly claim there is a difference? Let's look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
By righting the ship: I feel he can stop making past mistakes, make some good signings/trades and try to eradicate bad contracts
That definition doesn't jibe with your original statement: "Sather should stay on to right the ship."

In the "impressive" thread, you have said that Sather has already made good signings and trades and that he is not making the same mistakes he has in the past. That is something that is happening in the present.

"Should stay on to right the ship" points to a future event. "To" in your sentence meaning "in order that."

These are two contradictory statements. By the definition you offer above, Sather has already "righted the ship" because he no longer engages in bad practice. Yet in your intial statement, "righting the ship" was something that would happen in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
If you think they contradict, oh well.
Sorry friend, they do contradict.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-25-2010, 09:49 AM
  #75
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Lol, what do you think you are “doing to me”? Get over yourself and your opinions.
Revealing the contradictions in your own language isn't amatter of opinion, NikC. It's only a matter of looking at your statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
The game I wanted to play was to stick to the OP, not participate in a “honk if you hate sather” thread.
That's hardly credible when you ranged from the OP so frequently and when you answered my other questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Explanation to the best of my abilities in #67.
Yep. Revealing the contradictions in your own language isn't amatter of opinion, NikC. It's only a matter of looking at your statements.

And since you've not quoted him, I assume your silence is your admission that Vito was not claiming to offer a more valid opinion than yours.

dedalus is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:03 PM.

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.