HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

A Walsh type President/GM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2011, 10:38 PM
  #51
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
And so it looks like this is where the anti-Sather fan first, Rangers fan second ceases to even make his case and I feel like I'm this guy.




Again, what was our complaint about Sather pre-lockout? It was that we traded away all our youth, didn't develop from within. Now here are some names:

Lundqvist
Girardi
Staal
Sauer
McD
Dubi
Cally
Anisimov
Stepan
MZA
Gilroy
Boyle
Prust
W2

If that list doesn't convince you we're committed to developing youth, you're (whoever isn't convinced) hopeless.
But in our case, Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose because we sucked when Sather got here, and we still suck.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2011, 10:48 PM
  #52
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRSchrute217 View Post
My point is that the team started a TRUE rebuild when they decided to let Jagr, Shanahan and Nylander go, and bring in stopgaps like Naslund for a year while the kids were brought in to play.

Dubinsky and Callahan should just about be at their primes. Anisimov, Stepan and Boyle are improving, and once we get guys like Kreider, Thomas, Grachev, Hagelin, etc. in we're gonna be even better off.

Basically, the thing I'm trying to get at here is the Rangers are in a better spot now than they have been in years, so I'd rather them do it right and win a cup in 2-3 years than rush anything by signing guys like Gagne or other overpriced FA's in order to try to win now. If you're gonna do it, do it right.

That's not to say I don't want Richards though, I do. I think he'll help, is still in his prime, and the #1 C that we don't have in the system.

Id like to mention this rebuild people love to talk about is great and the Rangers have some potential nice prospects, but potential is only potential. Its a young mans league, idk if guys like Dubi, Cally, Anisimov and esp Boyle have much room for improvment. If that were the case Ovi should have got 150 points this year and next 170. Im not saying guys dont mature and get better but we cant expect those guys u listed to improve from there seasons this year. We are desperately lacking skill, will the prospects get that done next year, if not u have to find people to fill in. As a fan u dont want to watch a season of **** esp when that does not equal success the next year or the year after that. You want to build a good winning team and identity and by saying letting Jagr go was the start of a rebuild is kinda dumb when they signed Gomez, Drury, Naslund and Redden. I would have rather the young guys grow with Jagr than with Dru or Gomez.

satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 05:54 AM
  #53
NYRSchrute217
Registered User
 
NYRSchrute217's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
My ass. We were primed in 2008 and should've at least made a conference finals appearance, if not go all the way.
That 2008 team lost to Pittsburgh in 5. And I meant in terms of position of the organization, not finish. That was a great team, no denying that, but it was do or die. Last year of Jagr, Straka, Shanny, etc.

NYRSchrute217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 06:32 AM
  #54
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrabyk View Post
Id like to mention this rebuild people love to talk about is great and the Rangers have some potential nice prospects, but potential is only potential.
Very good post.

I also fail to see why people insist on identifying when the rebuild started. The fact is collecting young talent is something you should be doing whether you pick first or win the Cup.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 09:25 AM
  #55
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Very good post.

I also fail to see why people insist on identifying when the rebuild started. The fact is collecting young talent is something you should be doing whether you pick first or win the Cup.
Exactly. People act like Sather had this genius idea to build through the draft, when the truth is the best teams ALWAYS build through the draft, and more often than not you see them advancing in playoff series.

And then there is us.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 08:40 PM
  #56
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Exactly. People act like Sather had this genius idea to build through the draft, when the truth is the best teams ALWAYS build through the draft, and more often than not you see them advancing in playoff series.

And then there is us.
This thread has been repeated in many different forms, but this post and the post before it are horrifyingly mistaken. Pre-lockout, teams built a base and core through the draft. When they reached a certain level of success, they moved young talent and draft picks in an attempt to put them over the top (see 2004: Sydor for Svitov). The Rangers did the same exact thing with one major problem. They never reached that level of success in the late 90s and that absolutely is the fault of the GM. In an ongoing process starting in 1994 and lasting until 2004, Smith and Sather bankrupted any youth coming through the NYR system as a organizational policy and philosophy. Didn't do the team much good, with the notable exceptions of 1994 and 1997. A "rebuild" is when your team is bankrupt of youth and filled with ineffective veterans. A "rebuild" is when your team shifts from an organizational philosophy of "bringing in the pieces to win from the outside" to "developing the pieces for eventual success from within."

So you can claim all you want that you should always collect young talent, but it's simply not the way business was done for long-term success until the implementation of the salary cap. You collected young talent, and then you used your young assets to add to the team. And don't even bother bringing up the Detroit Red Wings. They managed to draft great talent in later rounds in the last decade, pre-lockout, but they are an aberration and not an example. The exception that proves the rule, if you will.

For all the criticism of Sather finally seeing what many people saw in the latter half of the 90s, I don't understand why it is never "I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," but is instead "he should be fired, I don't care if he's leading us in the right direction." I guess my viewpoint on this is colored by the fact, obvious to all of us who pay attention, that Sather isn't going anywhere. I, for one, am happy that the organizational policies and philosophy shifted in 2004. Call it a rebuild. Call it whatever you want. That's when it happened.

You know, one thing I'd like to add. Some people here have a serious blindness towards the difference between ends and means. The Rangers were in no better position after the 1st round this year than they were in 2009. Some might say worse, although I'd be slightly inclined to disagree with that. The DIFFERENCE is the way they got to the playoffs. The types of players they used. The style of play that they used. Ignoring that is either blindness or is being disingenuous. Not sure which, but it's pretty much the root of this debate.


Last edited by Tawnos: 05-11-2011 at 08:48 PM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 08:57 PM
  #57
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Quick comparative exercise. Top 10 playoff scorers drafted by their teams in 2 years. 1 before the lockout, 1 most recent completed season.

03-04: Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards
09-10: Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Mike Richards, Claude Giroux, Sidney Crosby, Johan Franzen

From 20% to 60% in 5 seasons. Tell me again that the way to build a playoff successful organization hasn't changed.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 09:07 PM
  #58
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Quick comparative exercise. Top 10 playoff scorers drafted by their teams in 2 years. 1 before the lockout, 1 most recent completed season.

03-04: Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards
09-10: Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Mike Richards, Claude Giroux, Sidney Crosby, Johan Franzen

From 20% to 60% in 5 seasons. Tell me again that the way to build a playoff successful organization hasn't changed.
To me the ideology of building a successful franchise isn't the issue. It's not that the Rangers aren't doing what you're supposed to do...they're just not good at it.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 09:13 PM
  #59
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
To me the ideology of building a successful franchise isn't the issue. It's not that the Rangers aren't doing what you're supposed to do...they're just not good at it.
They haven't been doing it for long enough to know that they aren't good at it.

I'll tell you this though. I'm a little worried about the long-term success of this team. If things continue this way, I feel like we're going to have a couple of years of great success and then start another decline into mediocrity. You would have hoped that somewhere in the 7 years of running the organization this way, there would be some true elite talent developing in the system. We might still have that, in truth. Depends on Kreider and DelZotto. But it's not there in any kind of obvious way. We will peak with pieces added to the core that we have, but we won't necessarily sustain because the elite talent in the organization, aside from Lundqvist, isn't or won't be a long-term thing.


Last edited by Tawnos: 05-11-2011 at 09:19 PM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 09:26 PM
  #60
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
They haven't been doing it for long enough to know that they aren't good at it.

I'll tell you this though. I'm a little worried about the long-term success of this team. If things continue this way, I feel like we're going to have a couple of years of great success and then start another decline into mediocrity. You would have hoped that somewhere in the 7 years of running the organization this way, there would be some true elite talent developing in the system. We might still have that, in truth. Depends on Kreider and DelZotto. But it's not there in any kind of obvious way. We will peak with pieces added to the core that we have, but we won't necessarily sustain because the elite talent in the organization, aside from Lundqvist, isn't or won't be a long-term thing.
Yeah exactly there's no elite talent that anyone can see as of now; that's why we're not good at it.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 11:03 PM
  #61
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
This thread has been repeated in many different forms, but this post and the post before it are horrifyingly mistaken. Pre-lockout, teams built a base and core through the draft. When they reached a certain level of success, they moved young talent and draft picks in an attempt to put them over the top (see 2004: Sydor for Svitov). The Rangers did the same exact thing with one major problem. They never reached that level of success in the late 90s and that absolutely is the fault of the GM. In an ongoing process starting in 1994 and lasting until 2004, Smith and Sather bankrupted any youth coming through the NYR system as a organizational policy and philosophy. Didn't do the team much good, with the notable exceptions of 1994 and 1997. A "rebuild" is when your team is bankrupt of youth and filled with ineffective veterans. A "rebuild" is when your team shifts from an organizational philosophy of "bringing in the pieces to win from the outside" to "developing the pieces for eventual success from within."

So you can claim all you want that you should always collect young talent, but it's simply not the way business was done for long-term success until the implementation of the salary cap. You collected young talent, and then you used your young assets to add to the team. And don't even bother bringing up the Detroit Red Wings. They managed to draft great talent in later rounds in the last decade, pre-lockout, but they are an aberration and not an example. The exception that proves the rule, if you will.

For all the criticism of Sather finally seeing what many people saw in the latter half of the 90s, I don't understand why it is never "I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," but is instead "he should be fired, I don't care if he's leading us in the right direction." I guess my viewpoint on this is colored by the fact, obvious to all of us who pay attention, that Sather isn't going anywhere. I, for one, am happy that the organizational policies and philosophy shifted in 2004. Call it a rebuild. Call it whatever you want. That's when it happened.

You know, one thing I'd like to add. Some people here have a serious blindness towards the difference between ends and means. The Rangers were in no better position after the 1st round this year than they were in 2009. Some might say worse, although I'd be slightly inclined to disagree with that. The DIFFERENCE is the way they got to the playoffs. The types of players they used. The style of play that they used. Ignoring that is either blindness or is being disingenuous. Not sure which, but it's pretty much the root of this debate.
Seriously, one of the most insightful posts I've read here in a while. Articulated exactly what I've been trying to say for a while now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Quick comparative exercise. Top 10 playoff scorers drafted by their teams in 2 years. 1 before the lockout, 1 most recent completed season.

03-04: Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards
09-10: Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Mike Richards, Claude Giroux, Sidney Crosby, Johan Franzen

From 20% to 60% in 5 seasons. Tell me again that the way to build a playoff successful organization hasn't changed.
It's incredible seeing it actually put out like that. I always had that inkling but when you see the actual players like this it's truly telling.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 06:21 AM
  #62
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
]For all the criticism of Sather finally seeing what many people saw in the latter half of the 90s, I don't understand why it is never "I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," but is instead "he should be fired, I don't care if he's leading us in the right direction."
I'm just not sure they're going in the right direction. A better direction, sure. But Sather is not a team builder. And while we can look at the youth playing there are still serious flaws. And the #1 method to correct the most glaring need is UFA with Richards. And the way to get (alleged) top talent with him has always been through UFAs (Gomez, Drury, Gaborik, Redden).
At the end of the day, its taken 11 years to get to this point. 7 is you want to use 2004 as some line of demarkation. And, while I like the individual players, I'm not all that impressed with the collective team. They are fun to watch because they play hard. But that's about it right now.

Lastly, I don't care if he saw that "we were right". This is his job. And if it took him 11 years or 4 years to realize that you need to have a farm system, that's even more damning because we don't do this for a living. So, for me, it's not I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," it's "he should have been fired years ago" and/or "I don't see him as the guy who can lead this franchise forward."

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 10:16 AM
  #63
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I'm just not sure they're going in the right direction. A better direction, sure. But Sather is not a team builder. And while we can look at the youth playing there are still serious flaws. And the #1 method to correct the most glaring need is UFA with Richards. And the way to get (alleged) top talent with him has always been through UFAs (Gomez, Drury, Gaborik, Redden).
At the end of the day, its taken 11 years to get to this point. 7 is you want to use 2004 as some line of demarkation. And, while I like the individual players, I'm not all that impressed with the collective team. They are fun to watch because they play hard. But that's about it right now.

Lastly, I don't care if he saw that "we were right". This is his job. And if it took him 11 years or 4 years to realize that you need to have a farm system, that's even more damning because we don't do this for a living. So, for me, it's not I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," it's "he should have been fired years ago" and/or "I don't see him as the guy who can lead this franchise forward."
Totally agree. Sather has done nothing to prove he can build a winner here...11 years, 7 years, 5 years...either way you spin it, he's had plenty of time.

I'm not even arguing that he should go, because that's silly...he's not going anywhere. Sometimes I wonder if Dolan even knows/cares that he has a hockey team.

But I'm just resigned to the fact that with Sather we will be spinning our wheels for the next 10-20 years or so...

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 04:10 PM
  #64
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I'm just not sure they're going in the right direction. A better direction, sure. But Sather is not a team builder. And while we can look at the youth playing there are still serious flaws. And the #1 method to correct the most glaring need is UFA with Richards. And the way to get (alleged) top talent with him has always been through UFAs (Gomez, Drury, Gaborik, Redden).
At the end of the day, its taken 11 years to get to this point. 7 is you want to use 2004 as some line of demarkation. And, while I like the individual players, I'm not all that impressed with the collective team. They are fun to watch because they play hard. But that's about it right now.

Lastly, I don't care if he saw that "we were right". This is his job. And if it took him 11 years or 4 years to realize that you need to have a farm system, that's even more damning because we don't do this for a living. So, for me, it's not I'm happy he has seen that we were right in the first place," it's "he should have been fired years ago" and/or "I don't see him as the guy who can lead this franchise forward."
Right, well I don't think anyone here is seriously stating that this team is going to be a contender all on it's own like Chicago or Pittsburgh is. If they are, well that's just willful blindness in it's own way. The group needs help. Sometimes, though, that's what happens. I mean, look at San Jose as an example. I'm sure a lot of us looked at San Jose around 2004 and though "wow, here is a group that is pretty young (with top players like Marleau, Cheechoo, Sturm, Stuart, Hannan) and just made the WCF. They're really going places." Yet that group wasn't really enough to get it done on their own. This became pretty apparent to management about 20 games or so into the following season of 2005-06. So they traded some major components in Sturm and Stuart in order to get Joe Thornton and plug a major MAJOR hole in their lineup. Now, it still hasn't gotten them any further than the WCF, but my point still stands. There are plenty of examples of organizations who built a good core of young players, but that core just wasn't enough and outside help had to be brought in. In fact, I haven't gone too far in looking at it, but my general impression of the 1997 Red Wings is one of exactly that. Brendan Shanahan and Larry Murphy were brought in that year. The Russian contingent a couple of years earlier, if I remember correctly.

I don't know how to argue with the "he should've been fired years ago" point, because the fact is that we know the situation. That's why I specifically stated that my opinion is colored by the fact that I know Sather isn't going anywhere. Yes, I'm as resigned to it as anyone else is, but I prefer to look at both sides of what's actually happening, rather than dwelling on dreams of different management. We haven't seen this particular cycle work it's way through yet and I'm willing to watch what happens.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 04:22 PM
  #65
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Right, well I don't think anyone here is seriously stating that this team is going to be a contender all on it's own like Chicago or Pittsburgh is. If they are, well that's just willful blindness in it's own way. The group needs help. Sometimes, though, that's what happens. I mean, look at San Jose as an example. I'm sure a lot of us looked at San Jose around 2004 and though "wow, here is a group that is pretty young (with top players like Marleau, Cheechoo, Sturm, Stuart, Hannan) and just made the WCF. They're really going places." Yet that group wasn't really enough to get it done on their own. This became pretty apparent to management about 20 games or so into the following season of 2005-06. So they traded some major components in Sturm and Stuart in order to get Joe Thornton and plug a major MAJOR hole in their lineup. Now, it still hasn't gotten them any further than the WCF, but my point still stands. There are plenty of examples of organizations who built a good core of young players, but that core just wasn't enough and outside help had to be brought in. In fact, I haven't gone too far in looking at it, but my general impression of the 1997 Red Wings is one of exactly that. Brendan Shanahan and Larry Murphy were brought in that year. The Russian contingent a couple of years earlier, if I remember correctly.

I don't know how to argue with the "he should've been fired years ago" point, because the fact is that we know the situation. That's why I specifically stated that my opinion is colored by the fact that I know Sather isn't going anywhere. Yes, I'm as resigned to it as anyone else is, but I prefer to look at both sides of what's actually happening, rather than dwelling on dreams of different management. We haven't seen this particular cycle work it's way through yet and I'm willing to watch what happens.
I understand and agree that he's not going anywhere. That's not my argument. And I further have resigned myself to the fact that Sather will likely hand-pick is replacement.

I have a hard time (obviously) giving him a lot of credit because so much seems to happen as a result of not doing things right the first time. And you never move forward like that.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 08:01 PM
  #66
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand and agree that he's not going anywhere. That's not my argument. And I further have resigned myself to the fact that Sather will likely hand-pick is replacement.

I have a hard time (obviously) giving him a lot of credit because so much seems to happen as a result of not doing things right the first time. And you never move forward like that.
I can see that. There are some of us, though, who are trying to give credit where it IS due. You'll get no argument from me that the Gomez, Drury and Redden signings were terrible. At the very least, only sign one of Gomez/Drury. You'll get no argument from me that the presence of Prust and McDonagh on this team are the direct result of Sather trying to fix mistakes. Hell, wouldn't a 25 goal scorer (Kotalik's intention) and a top line center (Gomez's intention) be better for this team than Prust and McDonagh? There are some major failures made.

It absolutely sucks that Sather hasn't managed to draft any truly elite talent since Lundqvist, but I have a hard time pinning the blame on him in any substantial manner. Where the disagreement lies is in whether one considers that a failure or not. There are failures and there are FAILURES. There is an awful lot of Sather drafted NHL-level talent on this team right now. Given that we are more on the San Jose track and less on the Detroit track, where do we go from here? Whether or not you think Sather is the man for the job, what do you think we should do? And do you think it's more useful to judge the moves when they happen and allow your disdain for Sather color your opinion or do you just judge the moves for what they are, potential and risk, and where they fit into the plan Sather is following?

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 09:02 PM
  #67
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
The start of the rebuild was letting Jagr Amd Shanny go? Are you SERIOUS?

I thought the LEETCH trade was supposed to be the start? And to touch on that, we got absolutely NOTHING BACK. Sather bit the bullet on that trade and came up snake eyes. Nothing. Crap trade. Our icon was traded to get us youth and the players we got back SUCKED. Just another blunder by sather

Stop giving this guy excuses for his garbage. We have a team of grinders. A coach that can't figure out leaving a line alone for more than half a game could be GOOD for all parties involved

I nauseated with the amount of people that say sather has dome a good Job. If we didn't get LUCKY Amd draft henrik, we would be SCREWED! what's that? You think Dubinsky is the answer? A kid who has way too big am ego? Callahan ? Lord Knows I love Callahan but he is. Chilly grinder that pots 25 for us a year steady. Good character/uptempo guy. Girardi? Oh right UNDRAFTED.

YEAH Sather has done a terrific job! 11 years NO CUP. NO CUL FINAL. NO CHANCE NOW LOOKING FORWARD TO A CUP CHANCE. We STILL ARE LACKING PIECES. that's 11 years later and YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ALL THE PIECES!?! Are you KIDDING ME?

Riiiight. Keep your eyes closed and listen to your All mighty leader, Glenn frikkin sather!

I say he has done a TERRIBLE JOB. Terrible. We have an old world goalie that we got lucky picking him. No skill there for the scouting staff nor sather. Sauer is still young but I'll give sather credit there And mcDonagh a throw in on the trade for gomez. I'll give credit to sather Amd the same for STAAL. Mcillrath? Are you kidding me. With so much skill still on The board at 10 we pick a hulking kid who plays tough hockey? For a team FULL OF CHIPPY GUYS. we NEED SKILL, offense!

I say sather STILL didn't have a frikkin clue as to what he is doing. I'm not behind him. I have been. Fan since 1983. Besides the 94 cup ( which we traded for all the pieces to have us win the Cup) Amd 1997 (good team just injuries hurt us too much) and I'm 2008 we did good

Sad, on one drinking hand I can count the great ranger teams. Our presidents have never done the right thing and draft well, BUILD a team. We either signed ufa players, traded for old players. Good teams that go through crap yeRa like Washington, Pittsburg, anaheim, San Jose. They turn it around in 4-5 years. Draft well, male KEY TRADES for the "right player(s)" and then have a GREAT team.

Rangers ? We are always a laughing stock. But yeah, we have such leadership And management LOL RIIIIIIIGHT

gotmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 10:09 PM
  #68
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,298
vCash: 500
Who has ever said that Sather has done a good job on the whole? Some of us think he's done much better recently, especially since when Shanahan and Jagr were let go, but no one is claiming that the whole of the 11 years has been anything remotely good. Inference and implication are argued against CONSTANTLY in these conversations when no one ever even says the things you respond to.

Letting those guys go signaled a major change in the state of the organization. Mainly that the youth we finally started stockpiling in 2004 was ready to step onto the stage as important players.

And as always, if you're going to criticize a guy for his mistakes, make sure you credit him for his successes. Otherwise, you just look like all you care about is your anger.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 08:51 AM
  #69
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
And as always, if you're going to criticize a guy for his mistakes, make sure you credit him for his successes. Otherwise, you just look like all you care about is your anger.
This is probably the biggest sticking point between the two factions. Sather fans point to the fact that we haven't traded away draft choices as a 'success'. The other side defines success as success on the ice, which has not come.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:09 AM
  #70
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
As many mistakes as Sather has made, this team is currently two or three players away from being a contender. If Frolov had worked out as a secondary scoring option we'd be one closer.

Sather's biggest issue in recent years hasn't been his trades. (Granted many have been to correct mistakes) His biggest issue has been taking risks that are too big instead of making more reserved choices.

Example: Gagne/Jagr are big time risks that could payoff. I'd rather see us go after Leino for secondary scoring.


Last edited by pzilla3: 05-13-2011 at 09:14 AM.
pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:19 AM
  #71
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
As many mistakes as Sather has made, this team is currently two or three players away from being a contender. If Frolov had worked out as a secondary scoring option we'd be one closer.
The problem being those two or three players are the same two or three players we've needed for the better part of his tenure in NY. These problems remain, and the organizational philosophy seems to be to buy those guys. Yet here we are with Redden and Drury on the books, an elite winger that can't stay healthy, and a team that seems to be treading water.

I'll admit that I'm pleased to see that Sather has been investing more resources in scouting for the draft. I'm pleased that he's reluctant to trade those assets away. I'm also thrilled to see those assets turning into the foundation for the team. However, he continues to be frivolous with the checkbook and every July 1st I spend my day mixing excitement with that sick feeling in my stomach of "Jesus, what is he going to do next?"

So, until he demonstrates that he can restrain himself from throwing money at problems over and over again, I'm just never going to be a member of the Sather fan club. There's a huge difference in my mind between "He's getting better" and "He's a great GM." That's never going to change.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:19 AM
  #72
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
As many mistakes as Sather has made, this team is currently two or three players away from being a contender. If Frolov had worked out as a secondary scoring option we'd be one closer.

Sather's biggest issue in recent years hasn't been his trades. (Granted many have been to correct mistakes) His biggest issue has been taking risks that are too big instead of making more reserved choices.

Example: Gagne/Jagr are big time risks that could payoff. I'd rather see us go after Leino for secondary scoring.
All of which can be surmised in one phrase: talent evaluation.

They may be two or three players away from being a contender, but they are two of three of the hardest things to find.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:25 AM
  #73
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
All of which can be surmised in one phrase: talent evaluation.

They may be two or three players away from being a contender, but they are two of three of the hardest things to find.
Absolutely true. Let's just see if the right players are pursued.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:29 AM
  #74
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem being those two or three players are the same two or three players we've needed for the better part of his tenure in NY. These problems remain, and the organizational philosophy seems to be to buy those guys. Yet here we are with Redden and Drury on the books, an elite winger that can't stay healthy, and a team that seems to be treading water.

I'll admit that I'm pleased to see that Sather has been investing more resources in scouting for the draft. I'm pleased that he's reluctant to trade those assets away. I'm also thrilled to see those assets turning into the foundation for the team. However, he continues to be frivolous with the checkbook and every July 1st I spend my day mixing excitement with that sick feeling in my stomach of "Jesus, what is he going to do next?"

So, until he demonstrates that he can restrain himself from throwing money at problems over and over again, I'm just never going to be a member of the Sather fan club. There's a huge difference in my mind between "He's getting better" and "He's a great GM." That's never going to change.
Even marginally better success in the first round would have this team in a much better place.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 09:46 AM
  #75
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem being those two or three players are the same two or three players we've needed for the better part of his tenure in NY. These problems remain, and the organizational philosophy seems to be to buy those guys. Yet here we are with Redden and Drury on the books, an elite winger that can't stay healthy, and a team that seems to be treading water.

I'll admit that I'm pleased to see that Sather has been investing more resources in scouting for the draft. I'm pleased that he's reluctant to trade those assets away. I'm also thrilled to see those assets turning into the foundation for the team. However, he continues to be frivolous with the checkbook and every July 1st I spend my day mixing excitement with that sick feeling in my stomach of "Jesus, what is he going to do next?"

So, until he demonstrates that he can restrain himself from throwing money at problems over and over again, I'm just never going to be a member of the Sather fan club. There's a huge difference in my mind between "He's getting better" and "He's a great GM." That's never going to change.
I'm in no way saying I'm a member of his fan club. It certainly could be worse though. (See: Mike Milbury)

You can make the argument that it's the same 2 or 3 players we've needed for quite some time, true. But the supporting cast and the core of the team is much stronger than it has been in past teams. Both in skill and character.

That's why I'm confident in the direction this team is going in. At least until Hemsky or Kovalev wind up on the roster.

pzilla3 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 03:12 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.