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

Why do the Rangers have the same problems, year, after year, after year, after year?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2011, 09:42 AM
  #51
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuccarello Awesome View Post
Some people only see the positive tank stories like the Pens and Hawks. The Islanders tanked for many years. Do I need to say anything else? The #1 overall is a lottery, and there aren't generational talents in every draft.
But it's not about the #1, it's about the people running the teams and everything else they do. The teams that are always in the lottery and don't improve are teams that are, in almost every case, small-market, economically disadvantaged, and most importantly, run incompetently. No one is saying that all you need is a #1. You need the person making the choice and running the team to know what he's doing, too.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:47 AM
  #52
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
This team can't score, has a bantam-level powerplay, and has no big bodies to keep the opponent out from in front. These are the exact same problems the Rangers have had every year, since I'm knee-high to Theo Fleury. Why aren't they ever addressed?
This team has some of the same failings as in previous years (suspect PP and goal scoring problems). But this is not anything like the teams we suffered through from 97 to last year. This team is built from the back up (goalie and D) and is very young and promising. The forwards that could/should be difference makers are in the system getting ready to make a splash soon.

I'm not happy about the PP or the production from our "stars" but I am happy about the direction we are headed and the help that is coming.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:54 AM
  #53
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,068
vCash: 500
The blame lies with Sather. That's the simple explanation.

In reality, it's a combination of everything that's happened under his tenure. The mistakes he made pulled this team into a state of mediocrity that was offset just enough by the acquisition of Jagr, and the emergence of Lundqvist to be "passable" to the fan base, and to the ownership.

It's nice to see that we're implementing more youth into our line up, and that we're putting a stronger emphasis on drafting and developing our own players. However, there will always be that part of me that dreads July 1st. Sather hasn't learned the error of his ways, he's just handcuffed himself enough that he's at the point where he cannot be the guy getting all the press on the first day of free agency.

Whats worse is that this mentality has rooted itself in the fan base. Even the majority of "hardcore" fans on this board are constantly discussing who we should go after at the deadline, and what free agents we can get on July 1st. I understand the desire for Richards, but when people star throwing out names like Connolly I feel like slapping them.

Then there's the issue of "bad contracts" getting in the way of us offering those same contracts to other people. Which just makes very little sense to me. "Buy out Drury so we can get Richards!" Okay, sure. So what happens if Richards signs elsewhere, or stays in Dallas? Do you think Sather is going to stick that money in his pocket for another day?

Build from within, then when you have a solid core, try and upgrade by trading redundant assets. If necessary, attempt to target a UFA. Sather has been doing it backwards for far too long.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:56 AM
  #54
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,901
vCash: 500
I must agree with the others and say that it's Glen Sather. Although he's been showered with praise by some lately, he simply is not a very good GM.

For years, major needs are not adequately addressed: no 1st line center, no PP QB, no crease-clearing defenseman. If a GM is unable to address those needs through the draft and has the financial resources to spend money in free agency, there is no reason why these needs should not have been fulfilled by now. Instead, we have had players such as Holik, Gomez, Drury, and Redden signed to ridiculous contracts and thrust into roles that are over their ability level.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:59 AM
  #55
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
I must agree with the others and say that it's Glen Sather. Although he's been showered with praise by some lately, he simply is not a very good GM.

For years, major needs are not adequately addressed: no 1st line center, no PP QB, no crease-clearing defenseman. If a GM is unable to address those needs through the draft and has the financial resources to spend money in free agency, there is no reason why these needs should not have been fulfilled by now. Instead, we have had players such as Holik, Gomez, Drury, and Redden signed to ridiculous contracts and thrust into roles that are over their ability level.
yeah he's the worst ever....but at least we are getting some decent draft picks.

We just give max money to players who shouldn't get max money...which holds us back. It's that simple...

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:02 AM
  #56
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
 
TrollololBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
We're never getting rid of Sather until he either steps down or dies

But then who's the next nut job that Dolan will hire?

TrollololBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:26 AM
  #57
The Mouth
Registered User
 
The Mouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I'm not saying the team isn't young and promising, I just wanna know why it's always the same problems. At this rate, the future contenders everyone is excited about won't be able to score on the PP either.
I guess it's the coaching philosophy perhaps. We had Renney for awhile and now Torts who had to adopt a defense first attitude because of last years Team.

The rangers never seem to have a run and gun team, it may be because we have been blessed to have some very solid goaltenders in the last 25 years. VBK, Richter, Hank that those teams feel they could win with defense first.

Although I really cant say that for Richter as much.

The only answer I really have any faith in is that they rarely draft high scoring forwards, before the cap they were horrendous at money management and talent evaluation.

They also never finish low enough to grab those young guns and stockpile them.

The Mouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:48 AM
  #58
Stugots
Kolo, Kolo Kolo!
 
Stugots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,395
vCash: 500
I agree with Trxjw in the sense that the attitude of the GM has manifested itself in the fans.

Just look at every thread on these boards: there is ridiculous proposals like DZ + 1st rounder + Grachev for Spezza or buyout Drury for Richards or trade Gaborik to clear space then sign Richards.

Yeah seriously, getting rid of young assets and signing/trading for big name free agents has worked SO WELL in the past that we should continue doing it.

Like I said in the Gaborik speculation thread: its like a vicious cycle. Get rid of one contract and replace it with another.

Stugots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:53 AM
  #59
Kane One
HFB Partner
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,940
vCash: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mouth View Post
I guess it's the coaching philosophy perhaps. We had Renney for awhile and now Torts who had to adopt a defense first attitude because of last years Team.

The rangers never seem to have a run and gun team, it may be because we have been blessed to have some very solid goaltenders in the last 25 years. VBK, Richter, Hank that those teams feel they could win with defense first.

Although I really cant say that for Richter as much.

The only answer I really have any faith in is that they rarely draft high scoring forwards, before the cap they were horrendous at money management and talent evaluation.

They also never finish low enough to grab those young guns and stockpile them.
I always get confused when anyone says we have a "defense first" system. I always think it looks like we are defense first because we can't score.

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:14 PM
  #60
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Then they refuse to do what is necessary to not only provide the fanbase with a superior product on the ice, but to provide them with the best possible team.



The Red Wings didn't get lucky with Zetterberg. Most teams just never devoted enough scouting to Russia and Sweden. Zetterberg, Lundqvist, Datsyuk...IMO, it is HIGHLY unlikwly that we'll see players that good get drafted that late ever again. Everyone is scouting those nations now, because now everyone realizes the value of it.



You think every player in the system is a star in the making. I don't. They are building a team. A team full of second and third liners that isn't good enough to compete for a Stanley Cup. A team that is inferior to numerous teams around the league that are just as young but far more talented.



It's not the only way. They just won't make a sacrifice, even though they inadvertently have sacrificed season after season to mediocrity.



Tavares has been there for two seasons, Hall as been there for less than one. The Rangers have every single advantage in the world. The Islanders and Oilers have pretty much none. In one way or another, both of those franchises have the deck stacked completely against them. It's a terrible comparison.

And having a perennial top 5 pick isn't enough. It takes competent management, as well. The Oilers were terribly operated over the last few years. Numerous awful personnel decisions. The Islanders, you know the story.

False insinuation. I peg a FEW prospects to be very good hockey players. I have NEVER, NOT ONCE stated any of them are going to be superstars.

The Rangers roster is full of very good young players. They don't meet your high standards, whatever.

The fact is BECAUSE of those very good young players, the Rangers are in a position to take the next step by acquiring the right piece to make them a contender.

Richards would be that piece. If they don't get him, they stick to the plan.

That's not good enough for you, then I don't know what to say.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:21 PM
  #61
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,379
vCash: 500
Awards:
I blame Chris Drury.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:24 PM
  #62
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I blame Chris Drury.
I blame his knee.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:34 PM
  #63
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
There's nothing inadvertent about it. Obviously I'm advocating a tank, or at least I did, when it was still a viable option for this team.

Then you said not to compare to isles and other teams that have tanked but have failed. This is a contradiction. Either you talk about all the teams that tanked and their results or you're not being fair.

No team that has won a Stanley Cup since the lockout has done so without undergoing a tremendous rebuild first. Zero. Not one. Until that changes, my opinion (which is based on nothing more than common sense and logic, the likes of which I just presented) would seem to be the valid one.

That's fine I said if this is your opinion then good for you. But first we are talking about fielding an elite team. one deserving of the cup. Plenty of teams are "Deserving" but failed within inches. That in my eyes does not diminish what they had built that one year. But if you feel this way about tanking then you should be able to say "The Rangers won't win a cup, division or even make the finals b/c they won't be that caliber of team unless they tank" yet you can't or won't say it...Like Is aid tanking is far from a guarantee. If it worked 100% theeeen it's a fact. it doesn't. So I don't subscribe to this tank theory. It's possibly untrue. Sorry but your belief might not be 100% true. You might be wrong. I've said nothing more than this.

No, I'm not saying that at all. You are saying that because you have an agenda to attack me but you can't actually argue things that I say without contorting them to such a degree that they completely lack resemblance to my original point. I said nothing about late first, second or third round picks. Your point is completely irrelevant.

it's just a debate my friend. i suggest not being so sensitive to attacks b/c nothing I put was an attack. I did say you might be wrong. might be...If that's an attack then I dunno what to say.

I've done nothing of the sort. You are a liar. I never said anything about drafting well outside of the top of the draft.

You advocate a tank as the ONLY way. you also implied the steals won't be there later in the draft...well ok what about late in the 1st or in the 2nd-4th round? There will always be steals. There may not be any like Zetterberg who is a steal mainly b/c only the Wings scouted correctly overseas but there will still be steals. Where did I lie?
"The Red Wings didn't get lucky with Zetterberg. Most teams just never devoted enough scouting to Russia and Sweden. Zetterberg, Lundqvist, Datsyuk...IMO, it is HIGHLY unlikwly that we'll see players that good get drafted that late ever again. Everyone is scouting those nations now, because now everyone realizes the value of it."
Like I said there can still be late 1sts-4ths and prob even 7th's that WILL be steals. I understand you were saying no future euros will be steals JUST b/c they are euros but you are ALSO saying you need to tank to get that elite player. So I feel it's relevant to discuss the fact that there ARE elite steals later in drafts and will continue to be some. Doesn't matter if they're Euro's or not teams gotta catch lightning in a bottle.
You cand raft outside the top 5 and still come up with the type of gold that wins cups. Agree or disagree? Based on what you said earlier it sounds like you disagree and that you think teams have to tank and they can never ever draft well enough to win the cup outside of tanking. That's what you said. If we had drafted Parise why would we be unable to win the cup? One of our current prospects could turn out that good. And our current overall team could be enough to win especially if you add a player like that...Hell even another player around Dubs level might be enough to add. I have a hard time believing Tavares/Stamkos had to be taken to win but Parise/Giroux couldn't be answers. Also if you continue to quote me why don't you ever quote all the relevant surrounding sentences to my points? You only quote one line but leave out the lines around it that explain further. Are you not able to comprehend their importance or are you trying to be sneaky when you debate?


It's not an opinion at all. It's fact. The Rangers have not been more than a mediocre team since the 1990s. The standings support that statement. Also, what I said was simply quoting, almost word for word, what someone who is currently a member of an NHL team's front office, one with strong ties to the Ranger organization, said to me less than a year ago.

Define mediocre and tell me the team from 03 should be applied to the team and farm we see today. Certainly you're not silly enough to pretend the organization is exactly the same today as it was every single year from 1990-today? Sorry but one single person's quote there isn't enough to mean anything.

Once again, you are a blatant liar. I never said anything of the sort. Please address things that I actually say rather than accusing me of saying things that I didn't. What I said was that leaving the entire possibility of contending for a Stanley Cup to the chance that ONE player may or may not reach free agency is a terrible way to manage a team because if the player does not reach free agency or sign with your team, you are, in effect, screwed.
Explain how I lied there or anywhere really b/c I didn't. You can say I did but that doesn't make it true.
Leaving it to chance a FA is available is bad but leaving it to the chance that the year you tank a 18 year old kid might just happen to be the 1 pick and turn out good enough to compliment the guys who couldn't win squat before is soooo different right? Columbus, St. Louis, Washington, Isles, Coyotes should I keep going? Philly...oh wait they never tanked they've just been managed well consistently...Montreal...wait they never tanked either they too have been consistent...Buffalo....wait same thing...San Jose...my god almost all the teams that lead the league perennially have been doing so thanks to good drafting, trades and free agent signings! Oh but several of those teams ONLY win their division year after year. They ONLY make it to game 7 of the cup finals. Yes clearly this is grounds for disqualifying them all out of hand!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
That's not what I said. That's what YOU said.
very mature. Read above.
Sorry, but I'm not going to say what you want me to say so that you can manage to discredit me. I understand that the only way you can argue with me is to accuse me of saying things that I didn't say, but you can't possibly expect me to agree to be complacent in it, can you?

Read above. Just wanted to see if you would stand by your words a little more firmly. So lemme get this straight you feel uncomfortable saying "The Rangers will never win a division or even make it to a cup finals over the next ten years without tanking first?" You feel so strongly that tanking is the answer then please at least tell me what your problem is with this statement. Forget it's me just look at the statement. be fair and tell me if you can agree with that statement or not. If you can't then clearly you feel tanking is not the ONLY way. Since several teams win their divisions and make it to the finals every year without tanking I'd have to say your tank theory is just a gross overgeneralization with no proof other than circumstantial evidence.

I never said the organization didn't improve. Things should be good is a meaningless, vague, and completely subjective statement, since the majority of the people here think that good = 6-8 place and 20-25 goal role players. That's not my definition of good.

So we're not allowed to discuss how our good prospects and rookies who are performing well look like a good sign but you can talk about how the completely subjective point of "tanking is the only way to win...if you don't tank you will never even be capable of winning no matter how well you draft, trade and sign FA's"


The right things according to who? You? I see, so later in this post, you attack me for being unhappy that the organization doesn't do what I want, but when they do what you want, it's the "right things." What an incredible hypocrite.

Did I say that they did the right things because it was what I want? No I didn't. I thought signing gabs was way too risky. I Hated the McI pick. I hated letting Jags go for Drury but loved signing Gomer. I hated not going after Chara but was excited about Redden . I was not fond of Kotalik, Higgins, Boogie signings. But I also liked signing Frolov (and still do b/c it's already over and we won't suffer long term) and liked the Sangs pick. I could go on and on about the FA i wish we'd signed or hadn't etc.
So no they haven't done what I wanted but i'm man enough to admit that the team knew better than me a few times or at least fixed their enormous errors and as a result are much better off. I may have thought two years ago this team would be a piece of sh** for years but now with Step, AA, Staal< girardi, Sauer, McD, Dubs, Cally, prust, boyle plus the guys we have on the way? Forgive me for being optimistic. All I'm saying is I don't think it's right to discount optimism here and attack fans because we support the organization. And it seems like you are insulting people because we support the org when it didn't do what YOU wanted. You can disagree with us but no need to act like a bully and start lumping us in as fools especially when your stance is no more solid than ours.


I don't think that the organization has done the right things overall in the last 5 years. What the organization has done in the last 5 things is gone from doing the completely wrong things over and over again, to doing enough to be decent. Essentially, the things that any competently run team does. The right things, which is doing whatever is necessary to acquire elite young talent, they have refused to do, which is why today, they are, once again, a bubble playoff team, just as they were last year, just as they were the year before, and just like they will be next year if they fail to acquire Brad Richards.

That's your opinion but are you really so close minded that you can't see the rationale behind getting optimistic based on the improvement of our current NHLers and potential of the prospects we have? it's funny we have elite guys but since we haven't won and our best is a goalie it automatically means that it's only b/c goalies don't win anymore...has nothing to do with the rest of the team. The team itself is getting better across the board. This is the main reason why I'm excited. This is a better team even if we have a 5th place finish. We had enormous injuries and now we will have an adjustment period not to mention look at the insane amount of inexperience on this team. To play like this with all that against the team? You can disagree but damn does that look good to me...way better than 03 or 06 or 09.

What I want is simply to follow a formula, that to this date, is far and away the best route to success. So please stop trying to pass off what "I" want as some sort of radical nonsense. And it's not what "I" want. It's what many others want, as well. But of course you won't quote those posts, just mine. Again, "there's plenty of talent here" means absolutely nothing, because obviously, there isn't as much talent here as there is on other teams. If there was, we'd be doing a lot better.

I wonder if you honestly believe this stuff sometimes. i'm referring to you accussing me of accussing you of "radical nonsense". Lol where did I imply you were radical or spouting nonsense? I didn't. But we all know what's really going on here. Sting doesn't wanna be wrong ever...don't forget Stepan's season is disappointing. WHat bearing does the same exact opinion froma different poster have on our debate? it has none. Other people share MY opinion. That doesn't mean anything. Address me and stop dancing in circles b/c you have no response.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:40 PM
  #64
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,379
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I blame his knee.
Well it is his knee.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 01:53 PM
  #65
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
 
TrollololBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
False insinuation. I peg a FEW prospects to be very good hockey players. I have NEVER, NOT ONCE stated any of them are going to be superstars.

The Rangers roster is full of very good young players. They don't meet your high standards, whatever.

The fact is BECAUSE of those very good young players, the Rangers are in a position to take the next step by acquiring the right piece to make them a contender.

Richards would be that piece. If they don't get him, they stick to the plan.

That's not good enough for you, then I don't know what to say.
Exactly, the purpose of prospects are to find the ones that fit into the future plans, and ship all the others away for players who will make an impact. This team has built a beyond solid core, now it just needs a few more prospects to come up, and an impact player which we can sign through FA or trade.

A great team is constructed through trades, free agent signings and the draft together. You can't build a team exclusively with one and not the other two.

TrollololBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 03:56 PM
  #66
Skrimpy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Wow. I don't know where to start here. There are so many things wrong with so many of these posts I don't know what to do with them.

1. Whoever said management was happy with mediocrity is full of it. There are several strategies taken by teams to MAKE MONEY. Some of them produce winners and some don't. Most winners are profitable but not all profitable teams are winners (Toronto hasn't been capable of even winning a Calder Cup the last few seasons let alone making the NHL playoffs). Don't lose site of the fact that management doesn't really give a crap about what we think as long as their wallets keep getting fatter. Mediocrity to them refers to the business side of the game. Not the W column.

2. This team is exciting to watch, and that's a product of the quality of character player that they've been targeting. Were there mistakes made in the current team? Yes. Will there be more? Yes. That's what it's about at this level. Who makes the least mistakes. I think management has been great. Why? Because they are making money. They are making press. Not because they are a winner, but because there is buzz. Because the fans for the most part have not been behind the team like this since 97. Would I prefer them to be the top team in the league? Of course! Does management care about being the top team? In the bottom line first, in the win column second. Don't forget it.

3. Del Zotto. The kid is 20 years old for Pete's sake! Do any of you remember being 20? Are most of you still not over 20? You are young and awkward and it's a pretty big stage. The biggest stage in the world for a hockey player. He needed and probably still needs a wake up call. Wasn't it two seasons ago Glen sent Cally down because he wasn't performing? I remember it clear as day. Would he even dream of sending him down now? Not a chance. Buzz is Del Zotto has the potential to be good. Crazy good. There wasn't this buzz around Cally. Give him some time time to develop before you count him out. He needs to get the tail chasing out of his system and get his mind back in the game. In the next two to three years you will all talk about Del Zotto like you do about Cally and Dubi now and he has the potential to be that much better. If you are all bashing him here in two to three years for being terrible, I'll eat my shoe.

4. Staal. Horse. He is the man. HE (and his defense partner) are THE reason they've stolen games against elite teams this year. They will be the reason this will be elite in the next five years (given the identity of the team continues to be hard work)

5. Girardi. Are you kidding? How can you knock scouting when they got this guy undrafted? Maybe he still makes some mistakes. Everyone does. Most blocked shots in the league. Night in and night out he gets the thankless job of being in Staal's shadow and is expected to lay down in front of the likes of a Zdeno Chara slapshot. Let me ask you. If you knew more often than not you were going block those shots successfully, would you keep doing it? I've heard Sam and Joe say it and I've heard the Vs guys say it and the analysts say it. Girardi is just as good as Staal. They are and would be the top pair on almost any team in this league.

6. Teams don't want to play the Rangers. Even the elite ones. They make them pay. They make them work. If they want that W they know they are going to be hurting in the morning. Tell you what. I bet if they polled the league they would get the highest number of votes from players for a team they didn't want to play in a 7 game series. Not because they injure the other teams. Not because they are bullies or are afraid of them. Not because the Rangers are so good they are going to win every game. Because they play the hardest, work the hardest and they punish opposing teams the most with that hard work. It's frustrating and exhausting playing the Rangers game and many players and coaches have mentioned it.

This is going to add up to a very, very good team. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next, but if they keep instilling this type of work ethic in their players, eventually they will be one of the top teams in the league. Right now, they aren't and if they keep on this skid, there won't be any playoffs this year but hold on to your hats kids. I think it's going to get really fun for us Ranger fans, really soon. I haven't felt this optimistic since 97.

...and I still say Gabby isn't an elite player. Scoring three goals in only games against schlubs isn't elite. When he can get back to multi point games CONSISTENTLY against elite teams, then we can talk.

Skrimpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 09:00 AM
  #67
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 500
Why the same problems? Read -

Didnt want to create a new thread about this, but it kinda falls into the mix of this thread.

When I read this quote on Grosses blog it sent up red flags.

Quote:
“In practice, I was taking one-timers and a shooting a lot off the point and they asked me if I had done it and I said I did,” Wolski said. “I said I was comfortable with it. There’s a lot of time to face up and see the zone.”
Quote:
Wolski is also somewhat comfortable at the blue line because, when he first started playing hockey as a kid, he started as a defenseman.


http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/r...he_power_play/

Simple quotes right? Wrong. What does it tell me? does Glen Sather even research these players before he signs / trades for them? Wheres the scouting staff on this? Wolski manned the point his entire junior career and was pretty successful at it. Arent these things you should KNOW about a player you are picking up and relaying that to your coaching staff when he arrives?!? Here we are three weeks from when he came here and they are jsut finding this out now?

These arent things the coaching staff should figure out in practice or if a player themselves brings it up in discussion.

Remember when the Rangers got Boyle? Sather said he did a great job of shutting down Anisimov in the AHL playoffs the prior year... they never even PLAYED against eachother! I mean seriously - what is this guy doing? Just picking names out of hat or going onto TSN.com and looking up stats to see who might fit in? Thats NOT the way you build a team, its lazy and it shows me theres very little if any intelligent foresight going into signings and deals, other than having to fit a player under the cap (and he manages to screw that up too)

For me, assembling a team has to be extremely analytical because you would like for all the parts to compliment eachother. Sather never thinks this way and it becomes more evident when I read stuff like this. Its not that i dont like Wolski, I like him - but it would have showed me a lot if Sather actually recognized the skill set of the man he traded one of the longest tenured Rangers for and his ability to man the point was actually one of the reasons he brought him in.

Throw in all the failed projects, "human interest stories", and complete bust signings Glen has brought in here over the past 10+ years and you have half of your answer why this team faces the same problems over and over again...The common denominator is lack of talent evaluation and how it fits into a team model.

Glen Sather really hasnt built this current team. The scouting staff at the draft table and the players who took it upon themselves to become pros have. Think about it. Read the stuff about Stepan manning the point in college as well... how come this information wasnt relayed to the coaching staff???


Last edited by HockeyBasedNYC: 02-10-2011 at 09:15 AM.
HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:04 AM
  #68
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
You advocate a tank as the ONLY way. you also implied the steals won't be there later in the draft...well ok what about late in the 1st or in the 2nd-4th round? There will always be steals. There may not be any like Zetterberg who is a steal mainly b/c only the Wings scouted correctly overseas but there will still be steals. Where did I lie?
Here's what I said:

The Red Wings didn't get lucky with Zetterberg. Most teams just never devoted enough scouting to Russia and Sweden. Zetterberg, Lundqvist, Datsyuk...IMO, it is HIGHLY unlikwly that we'll see players that good get drafted that late ever again. Everyone is scouting those nations now, because now everyone realizes the value of it.

As you can see (though I imagine you'll refuse to), I made absolutely no mention about first, second or third round picks. What I said that a player as good as Zetterberg, Datsyuk, or Lundqvist would probably never be drafted as late as they were (which, of course, is 7th and 8th round) again.

Here's how you responded:

So you're saying there will never be a Parise again? late round 1sts, 2nds, 3rds. Come on there will always be guys who go well over their projections. maybe not a 7th steal like you're saying but you're completely leaving out steals in earlier rounds or late 1sts and that's important to note. We have to be the ones to catch lightning in a bottle which is what every team tries to do and generally 31 teams every year fail if you wanna be so black and white about it.

Even you can (hopefully) see that I never said anything like "there will never be a Parise again." What I said doesn't even come close to proclaiming anything of the sort (and why would it, when that claim would be totally absurd?). But that doesn't stop you from not only saying that this is what I said, but then proceeding to develop an entire argument based on that.

This, of course, is what you do nearly every time you try to "argue" my points (and by argue, I mean hijack a thread and do everything you possibly can to kill and bury it). I say one thing, and you twist it around into something that bears no resemblance to what I said, and then begin debating that point. I don't know if it's because you are afraid, or simply because you enjoy wasting people's time and detracting from the experience on the boards. But you aren't interested in having a debate with me. You're, in effect, debating yourself. This is when you aren't busy anointing yourself as an unofficial moderator by accusing various people who don't agree with your opinions of being trolls, despite the fact that you don't seem to know what the definition of a troll is.

When you actually want to address points that I've made, then there is a debate to be had. But I don't know how to have a debate with you and the other you.

Quote:
Also if you continue to quote me why don't you ever quote all the relevant surrounding sentences to my points? You only quote one line but leave out the lines around it that explain further. Are you not able to comprehend their importance or are you trying to be sneaky when you debate?
I don't even think the stuff that I'm quoting is relevant. There would have to be importance there for anyone to be able to comprehend them, but what's actually there, in nearly every instance, is either something that you've perverted and misconstrued, something that you've repeated several times over, or something that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. While you may not care about the other people reading this board, I don't feel it's necessary for them to have to see this stuff 3-4-5 times on every page.

Quote:
Explain how I lied there or anywhere really b/c I didn't. You can say I did but that doesn't make it true.
Sure it does. You're accusing me of saying something I didn't say, just like I've proven that you did in the above example. That means you are lying. Anyone who cares (and I can't imagine that any one does) can simply scroll up or click on the previous page and see how you repeat this pattern.

Quote:
Leaving it to chance a FA is available is bad but leaving it to the chance that the year you tank a 18 year old kid might just happen to be the 1 pick and turn out good enough to compliment the guys who couldn't win squat before is soooo different right? Columbus, St. Louis, Washington, Isles, Coyotes should I keep going? Philly...oh wait they never tanked they've just been managed well consistently...Montreal...wait they never tanked either they too have been consistent...Buffalo....wait same thing...San Jose...my god almost all the teams that lead the league perennially have been doing so thanks to good drafting, trades and free agent signings! Oh but several of those teams ONLY win their division year after year. They ONLY make it to game 7 of the cup finals. Yes clearly this is grounds for disqualifying them all out of hand![/B]
Right, like the Sharks, who were on the winning side of the two of the biggest ripoffs ever. You know, where they acquired a former #1 draft pick and a former #3 draft pick. Tell me, how many other trades that lopsided have occurred in the last 5 years? 10 years? Not many, I'd say. Maybe none.

That right there, that's been explained not only on the Ranger forum, but also on the main board more times than any human can possibly remember. In fact, every single "point" you made in this paragraph has been refuted time after time after time. Perhaps instead of wasting people's time and hijacking the thread with this nonsense, you could, for once, show some decency and use the 'search' function. That way, you can see how it is nearly impossible to be one of the top teams in this league consistently without, one way or another (and history shows quite clearly that there is one way that is far likelier to yield this result than any other) , having one (or in most cases, mupltiple) top 3 draft pick on the roster. And if you still disagree with that, then you can take up that argument in those threads. You're just not worth the time that it would take to play through that weak argument again.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:07 AM
  #69
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,983
vCash: 500
Well, the good news is, Wolski can play the point!

He can pass, shoot, skate. I wanted Gaborik back there but he couldn't have looked more uncomfortable with the role.

__________________
"I have something better than proof: I have anecdotal evidence."
Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:07 AM
  #70
SickNice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 485
vCash: 500
To be fair, the Rangers have not had the "same" problems year-after-year when you look at the current team. This team is much stronger from the back-end.

But, as Chariot and others pointed out, its front-line talent. I understand things have changed in the past few years from a perspective of drafting and player devl't, but the fact of the matter is you need to organically develop a handful of top-2 line players to be a strong candidate. UFA is supposed to be used to fill a hole or two to propel you over the top, its not supposed to be the primary strategy behind building a tema.

SickNice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:09 AM
  #71
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Didnt want to create a new thread about this, but it kinda falls into the mix of this thread.

When I read this quote on Grosses blog it sent up red flags.





http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/r...he_power_play/

Simple quotes right? Wrong. What does it tell me? does Glen Sather even research these players before he signs / trades for them? Wheres the scouting staff on this? Wolski manned the point his entire junior career and was pretty successful at it. Arent these things you should KNOW about a player you are picking up and relaying that to your coaching staff when he arrives?!? Here we are three weeks from when he came here and they are jsut finding this out now?

These arent things the coaching staff should figure out in practice or if a player themselves brings it up in discussion.

Remember when the Rangers got Boyle? Sather said he did a great job of shutting down Anisimov in the AHL playoffs the prior year... they never even PLAYED against eachother! I mean seriously - what is this guy doing? Just picking names out of hat or going onto TSN.com and looking up stats to see who might fit in? Thats NOT the way you build a team, its lazy and it shows me theres very little if any intelligent foresight going into signings and deals, other than having to fit a player under the cap (and he manages to screw that up too)

For me, assembling a team has to be extremely analytical because you would like for all the parts to compliment eachother. Sather never thinks this way and it becomes more evident when I read stuff like this. Its not that i dont like Wolski, I like him - but it would have showed me a lot if Sather actually recognized the skill set of the man he traded one of the longest tenured Rangers for and his ability to man the point was actually one of the reasons he brought him in.

Throw in all the failed projects, "human interest stories", and complete bust signings Glen has brought in here over the past 10+ years and you have half of your answer why this team faces the same problems over and over again...The common denominator is lack of talent evaluation and how it fits into a team model.

Glen Sather really hasnt built this current team. The scouting staff at the draft table and the players who took it upon themselves to become pros have. Think about it. Read the stuff about Stepan manning the point in college as well... how come this information wasnt relayed to the coaching staff???
Does any of this really surprise you? I've maintained the belief since 2007 and 2008 that Glen Sather does not watch games, or at least carefully. There is no other way to explain the Wade Redden signing, or even the Gomez and Drury signings. There is no way someone who understands the current state of the game and the league could have watched Redden play in his final two seasons as a Senator and not see, clear as day, that he was not suited to be anything more than a marginal player in the National Hockey League of today.

How can you possibly field a great team when the man who is ultimately in charge makes personnel decisions based on name recognition, which seems to be the driving force behind Sather's moves?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:29 AM
  #72
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Does any of this really surprise you? I've maintained the belief since 2007 and 2008 that Glen Sather does not watch games, or at least carefully. There is no other way to explain the Wade Redden signing, or even the Gomez and Drury signings. There is no way someone who understands the current state of the game and the league could have watched Redden play in his final two seasons as a Senator and not see, clear as day, that he was not suited to be anything more than a marginal player in the National Hockey League of today.

How can you possibly field a great team when the man who is ultimately in charge makes personnel decisions based on name recognition, which seems to be the driving force behind Sather's moves?
Not in the least, but when i see things like this I cant help but talk about it because it irks me to the core.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:31 AM
  #73
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
 
TrollololBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Didnt want to create a new thread about this, but it kinda falls into the mix of this thread.

When I read this quote on Grosses blog it sent up red flags.





http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/r...he_power_play/

Simple quotes right? Wrong. What does it tell me? does Glen Sather even research these players before he signs / trades for them? Wheres the scouting staff on this? Wolski manned the point his entire junior career and was pretty successful at it. Arent these things you should KNOW about a player you are picking up and relaying that to your coaching staff when he arrives?!? Here we are three weeks from when he came here and they are jsut finding this out now?

These arent things the coaching staff should figure out in practice or if a player themselves brings it up in discussion.

Remember when the Rangers got Boyle? Sather said he did a great job of shutting down Anisimov in the AHL playoffs the prior year... they never even PLAYED against eachother! I mean seriously - what is this guy doing? Just picking names out of hat or going onto TSN.com and looking up stats to see who might fit in? Thats NOT the way you build a team, its lazy and it shows me theres very little if any intelligent foresight going into signings and deals, other than having to fit a player under the cap (and he manages to screw that up too)

For me, assembling a team has to be extremely analytical because you would like for all the parts to compliment eachother. Sather never thinks this way and it becomes more evident when I read stuff like this. Its not that i dont like Wolski, I like him - but it would have showed me a lot if Sather actually recognized the skill set of the man he traded one of the longest tenured Rangers for and his ability to man the point was actually one of the reasons he brought him in.

Throw in all the failed projects, "human interest stories", and complete bust signings Glen has brought in here over the past 10+ years and you have half of your answer why this team faces the same problems over and over again...The common denominator is lack of talent evaluation and how it fits into a team model.

Glen Sather really hasnt built this current team. The scouting staff at the draft table and the players who took it upon themselves to become pros have. Think about it. Read the stuff about Stepan manning the point in college as well... how come this information wasnt relayed to the coaching staff???


That's depressing. How the hell do we get rid of Sather? It feels like it will never end.

Hopefully Torts goes up to him and says "WHY THE **** DIDN'T YOU TELL ME HE PLAYED THE POINT?" etc

TrollololBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 10:36 AM
  #74
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Not in the least, but when i see things like this I cant help but talk about it because it irks me to the core.
You, me and the rest of us, man. It's just hard to actually believe, that someone in such an enviable position, someone with a job that is so prestigious (relative to it's field, at least) is so incompetent and so unwilling to invest enough of themselves in it to do the job well. But then again, we have politicians, so I guess it's only more of the same...

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2011, 11:41 AM
  #75
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You, me and the rest of us, man. It's just hard to actually believe, that someone in such an enviable position, someone with a job that is so prestigious (relative to it's field, at least) is so incompetent and so unwilling to invest enough of themselves in it to do the job well. But then again, we have politicians, so I guess it's only more of the same...
Its not that i dont think hes putting an honest effort in... I know that he wants to succeed here- its just that I think he's stubborn, old-fashioned and does more reacting than actually thinking things through completely. . And hes not paying nearly enough attention to the details IMO, like simple communication or scouting. I think that all manifests itself into issues like the one i pointed out.

Its really a philosophical difference in the approach of General Managing that i have a really big problem with, his close-door policy with the media and fans, and his complete ignorance of player evaluation. Like you mentioned, so many of his faults can be summarized when you look that Redden deal.

HockeyBasedNYC 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 01:26 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.