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

So, is everybody surprised that Sather

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-06-2005, 12:51 PM
  #26
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen
There is a central theme expressed all over this site and by many Rangers fans in general. It attributes all of the Rangers' woes under Sather to his building around free agents instead of building from within.

That was not the problem here. The problem was the free agents Sather went after, his abominable coaching choices, the coaches implementing systems that worked against their free agents, rather than playing to their strengths (see Holik) etc.

Over the time frame of Sather's tenure some other teams did exceedingly well playing the free agent game. In fact, it was responsible for quite a few Cup wins. My understanding is that that is the goal. To win the Cup.

Confusing Sather's failures with the notion of going after free agents is missing the point.
Although
When you have scenarios where you're coming out of training camp with 23 or even more regulars with one way contracts you've essentially set the parameters of what the team is going to be and who's going to be on it. Young players often have not gotten the chance they've deserved here. On the other hand vets have been allowed to make mistake after mistake without repercussion. Anybody who has watched this team over the past several years knows this has happened. Sather's
decisions to year after year fill up every empty slot he could with a free agent has
been a disaster.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 12:59 PM
  #27
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
I don't think the Rangers overpaid for the players they got. Two of them are one year contracts. They are here just to fill a position, They are hoping a younger player will show they can take their job away. If they can't there's no pressure for them to do it. Look at the disaster that other teams are doing, locking in players at rediculous salaries for 3-5 years. That is crazy.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 01:00 PM
  #28
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,268
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99
I don't think the Rangers overpaid for the players they got. Two of them are one year contracts. They are here just to fill a position, They are hoping a younger player will show they can take their job away. If they can't there's no pressure for them to do it. Look at the disaster that other teams are doing, locking in players at rediculous salaries for 3-5 years. That is crazy.
Marik Malik for 3 years @2.5 isn't overpaying?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 01:18 PM
  #29
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Not to mention Rucinsky going from $1.65 mil pre-cap to $3 mil post-cap.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 01:43 PM
  #30
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I'm not sold that he did. Sounds like Sather was turned down by more than a few guys. Leetch, Forsberg, Naslund and, perhaps, Neidermeyer.

Forsberg and Niedermayer. Leetch said he was never contacted during his interview with Sid and Joe on FAN the other day.


I kind of agree. It's not like they didn't try for a couple of big names. It's just that no one's interested and why should they be? This team is going in a different direction.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 01:46 PM
  #31
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Marik Malik for 3 years @2.5 isn't overpaying?

Well Sing, it is. But when you look at what the Devils paid for Mazel Tov (3.6 per) and ditto the Flyers for Rathje, it's not just our club.

You also might have to realize that in order for them to get any free agents, they might have to offer more just to attract them.

Malik was a decent signing cause we didn't have a stay-at-home type. But I wouldn't have given him three years.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 01:50 PM
  #32
dumpsathernow*
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 612
vCash: 500
"Marik Malik for 3 years @2.5 isn't overpaying?"

Not when you see what Malakhov got from Mr. Genius

I would have liked to see it a bit cheaper but I don't think it is so expensive that if Malik plays well here a team won't be offering up something for him at the deadline.

I remember teams all thought we overpaid for DeVries and teams were hot after him during the trade deadline. Yes he's better than Malik but he also made more. Injuries are a major factor to contending teams and makes them look at a salary like Malik and say, "Wow. We can handle that. Take a pick."

dumpsathernow* is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 02:00 PM
  #33
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyrangerfan
"Marik Malik for 3 years @2.5 isn't overpaying?"

Not when you see what Malakhov got from Mr. Genius
True, but somehow Lamoriello makes it all work out beautifully in the end while Sather does the opposite. You can set your clocks to their relative consistencies.

chosen is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 02:16 PM
  #34
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
This begs the question: if Lou Lamoriello jumped off a bridge, would it be a good hockey decision?

Not everything the Devils do is the right thing. Malakhov was not worth $3.5 mil under the old CBA, and he definitely isn't worth $3.6 mil under a hard cap. This was a bad, bad signing and just because the Devils did it does not make it a good signing that will work out, nor does it make it okay for us to spend $2.5 mil on a 3rd pairing d-man.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 02:49 PM
  #35
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
This begs the question: if Lou Lamoriello jumped off a bridge, would it be a good hockey decision?
On the surface, of course not. All I'm saying is that somehow it always seems to work out well for Lamoriello's staff and badly for Sather's. At some point it stops being a coincidence.

chosen is offline  
Old
08-06-2005, 02:50 PM
  #36
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
This begs the question: if Lou Lamoriello jumped off a bridge, would it be a good hockey decision?

Not everything the Devils do is the right thing. Malakhov was not worth $3.5 mil under the old CBA, and he definitely isn't worth $3.6 mil under a hard cap. This was a bad, bad signing and just because the Devils did it does not make it a good signing that will work out, nor does it make it okay for us to spend $2.5 mil on a 3rd pairing d-man.

Exactly. Neither was signing Dan McGillis.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 06:43 PM
  #37
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,268
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
Well Sing, it is. But when you look at what the Devils paid for Mazel Tov (3.6 per) and ditto the Flyers for Rathje, it's not just our club.

You also might have to realize that in order for them to get any free agents, they might have to offer more just to attract them.

Malik was a decent signing cause we didn't have a stay-at-home type. But I wouldn't have given him three years.
Malakhov only got two years.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 07:53 PM
  #38
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Malakhov is better...

offensively and he's more physical, as well, he's better defensively than Malakhov. The age difference is immaterial to me since both wouldn't be Rangers at the end of their respective contracts.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 08:07 PM
  #39
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
With losing Neidermayer and the questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
This begs the question: if Lou Lamoriello jumped off a bridge, would it be a good hockey decision?

Not everything the Devils do is the right thing. Malakhov was not worth $3.5 mil under the old CBA, and he definitely isn't worth $3.6 mil under a hard cap. This was a bad, bad signing and just because the Devils did it does not make it a good signing that will work out, nor does it make it okay for us to spend $2.5 mil on a 3rd pairing d-man.
surrounding Stevens' and Hale's health, the devils are jammed up on the backline. They have no prospects ready. Martin & Hale were suppose to bridge the gap, but now Hale is questionable and Stevens is older and coming off a bad concussion, or flu and Neids is out of the picture. Overall the devils are more and more looking outside their organization for player personnell decisions. Certainly not a good sign.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 08:09 PM
  #40
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
He got 2 years? U R kidding right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Malakhov only got two years.
One year at $3.6M is far too much, adding a second is obscene! Who in their right mind pays him that kind of money at his age? Tell me you have no problem with that. I understand NJ was in a bind, but the money and the extra year is bad.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 08:13 PM
  #41
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,268
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
One year at $3.6M is far too much, adding a second is obscene! Who in their right mind pays him that kind of money at his age? Tell me you have no problem with that. I understand NJ was in a bind, but the money and the extra year is bad.
Doesn't change the fact that Malik for three years at 2.5 is a horrible signing. SOS. Same Ole Sather.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 10:11 PM
  #42
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Doesn't change the fact that Malik for three years at 2.5 is a horrible signing. SOS. Same Ole Sather.

You're wrong on this one Sing. We had ZERO! Zero stay-at-home D-men. You have to a guy like that.

And Malik is not some scrub. He tied with St. Louis for the +/- lead (+35) in '03-04.


Sorry man. But if the stupid Flyers can pay 3.5 over FIVE YEARS for Rathje and the idiotic Devils (who never do anything wrong) can overpay an injury prone headcase like Mazel Tov 3.6 over two years, than our team can pay Malik 2.5 over three.


You just like to kill Sather and Maloney every chance you get.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 10:16 PM
  #43
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
FWIW, with regards to the initial posts in this thread, the Flyers were never officially over the cap. They were only over the cap inasmuch as if all the qualifying offers to the RFAs had signed their offers (thus applying those amounts to the payroll) then they WOULD have been over the cap.

Technically, as it was that no RFA had officially signed, the Flyers payroll was never over something like 33 million.

i am dave is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 11:29 PM
  #44
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
You're wrong on this one Sing. We had ZERO! Zero stay-at-home D-men. You have to a guy like that.

And Malik is not some scrub. He tied with St. Louis for the +/- lead (+35) in '03-04.


Sorry man. But if the stupid Flyers can pay 3.5 over FIVE YEARS for Rathje and the idiotic Devils (who never do anything wrong) can overpay an injury prone headcase like Mazel Tov 3.6 over two years, than our team can pay Malik 2.5 over three.


You just like to kill Sather and Maloney every chance you get.
You cannot compare Rathje and Malik. Rathje was the #2 in San Jose. Malik was the #5 in Vancouver. Rathje was making over $2 mil in San Jose. Vancouver fans were complaining about qualifying Malik at $1.2 mil. Rathje is light years ahead of Malik. And even if you believe that other teams have made bad signings, how does that make it okay that we made a bad signing? Shouldn't we be trying to be better than the other teams?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-07-2005, 11:33 PM
  #45
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
Shouldn't we be trying to be better than the other teams?
Well no. If we want Kessel we should be trying to be worse.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-08-2005, 09:49 AM
  #46
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,268
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
You're wrong on this one Sing. We had ZERO! Zero stay-at-home D-men. You have to a guy like that.

And Malik is not some scrub. He tied with St. Louis for the +/- lead (+35) in '03-04.


Sorry man. But if the stupid Flyers can pay 3.5 over FIVE YEARS for Rathje and the idiotic Devils (who never do anything wrong) can overpay an injury prone headcase like Mazel Tov 3.6 over two years, than our team can pay Malik 2.5 over three.


You just like to kill Sather and Maloney every chance you get.
I did not kill them for signing Nieminen, Straka or Rucinsky. I don't understand it and don't love it but I haven't killed them it.

I still don't get people who respond to someone saying that this is a bad signing by saying "the Devils did this" or "the Flyers did this." That's got nothing to do with anything. Bad signings or not, they are both Cup contenders (at least the Flyers are, the Devils I'm not sure about). And that has nothing to do with the Rangers.

The bottom line: I could have accepted 2 years at 2.5 per. Wouldn't have loved it but I would have accpted it. But the third year is just awful. And this signing is even worse when you add in not buying out Kaspar to the mix.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 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 11:29 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.