HFBoards

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

Sather and the Homegrown Rebuilding of the Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-22-2011, 11:52 AM
  #251
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 500
The problem is that fans don't expect reasonable foresight, they expect ridiculous things.

A second rounder has a 20% chance of being at least a 4th liner.

The rangers in recent years hit 50% and all these players are top-6 forwards or top-4 defensemen.

That is a job well done. If you get more players of higher quality than other professional scouts, that's excellent.

If you hired a store manager and he was selling 2.5 times more than other local stores (and your own store under prior management), and he gave you higher profits per sale, would you fire him? Yell at him? Tell him he is not doing a good job?

This type of logic reminds me of every crazy client I have. Some come in demanding crazy things: I want the case against me dismissed on the spot without trial and without a plea bargain... "but you are my lawyer and I am paying you... I don't care about court procedure, I don't care how it works in all the cases because I don't care about others. I want my case dismissed now... so what if I am guilty and it is video-taped, I am paying you money, so you should just have my case dismissed on the spot, even before the next court appearance."

I see this type of reasoning on this forum too. Yeah, who cares if Clarke, Gorton and others are pulling Anisimov, Sauer, Stepan, Dubinsky, Callahan, Hagelin, Thomas, etc outside of the first round. Who cares! That one superstar they did not draft is the only thing we should pay attention to!

They are paid to draft every superstar, even if no team ever did that!

I wonder how you would like it if your boss or teacher applied the same standard to you.

"I know this student is a better writer than almost anyone else in freshman high school English class, but his writing is not on par with the Guy who won the Nobel Prize in literature, so I will fail him."


Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Yes, it is. But GMs and scouts get paid to have foresight. They get paid to make predictions about how players will turn out and they get paid to be RIGHT.

Is there luck involved? Of course. Is it entirely their fault if a prospect doesn't work out? Nope. But none of that changes the fact they these people are paid to produce results.

And Sather has not produced results. You can argue anything else you want about this team, but you can't argue the fact that this team has had very little success during Sather's tenure.

If a GM, coach or player doesn't produce results, you get rid of that person and replace him with someone you think will produce results. It's as simple as that. It isn't alway fair, but life isn't always fair.

I'm as hopeful for the future as anyone, but I don't forget the past either. I don't forget all the mistakes that Sather has made and all the bad to mediocre teams he's constructed. If this team squeaks into the playoffs again and loses in the first round, will it be time for Sather to go then, or will you still point to our "bright" future? At what point do you hold Sather accountable for his failures?

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 01:30 PM
  #252
TonyTheGr8
Window shut..for now
 
TonyTheGr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Morris County, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
When we are one of the best teams in the league this year I expect full apologies from all you Sather haters
LMAO..apologize? Seriously? For what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Apologize for wanting him to do a better job and having to wait 12 years for him to finally do it? Yeah...kiss my ass, Glen. He should be apologizing to us for making us wait so long. Being one of the best teams in the league is the least he could do as far as I'm concerned. Christ, in the time it's taken this team to do...ANYTHING WHATSOEVER...I've gotten married, had kids, with one of them quickly approaching junior high age. Sorry if my patience has run a little thin, Glennie.
Haha..I've graduated college, gotten married, divorced and re-married in the same time frame. I'm done with patience..I want results!

TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 01:53 PM
  #253
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyTheGr8 View Post

Haha..I've graduated college, gotten married, divorced and re-married in the same time frame. I'm done with patience..I want results!
Hahaha...nice! A toast to Lost Times:

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 02:15 PM
  #254
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,040
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
And nobody at least not me who you're addressing disregarded the bad from years ago. Are you seriously implying that I disregard the bad moves that he made in the past when talking about Sather's entire tenure here? Stuff 12 years back is ridiculous to bring up regarding this years team. I mean that the moves made 12 years ago would not affect what this team is as much or as sensibly as the moves made in 2006-2008. Aside from hank whichw s an all time lucky pick this whole team is based on moves that started in 2004 with most of the moves coming post lockout. That includes moves that hampered us like the unholy trinity of signings as well as moves that helped like dumping Gomez. I mean good lord maybe we should go all the way back to 94 when do you stop reaching in the past? To an extent yea you look to the past but you don't go 12 years back that's insane.

See the part I bolded. You miss the point entirely. This has been acknowledged 1000 times over. Looking at recent moves and this team coming up for this year is vastly different from looking pre 2005 at the team or even going into 2009. The outlook is logically much brighter. Outlook, potential these are not black and white things here. A team like this could very easily not reach its potential and fall apart but at least for me personally I am happy that we have a team that appears to rationally have a chance to be very good. Again nowhere in there do I say anything about the team or Sather being gods. I simply am happy with the direction we have gone in the last 3 years away from not only handing out huge contracts but huge contracts to bad players while not developing talent in house. Now we find guys where the consensus is "goood signing" or "This guy can actually play the role he's played for" and we also develop our guys so they come up and contribute. With the exception of Grachev, Tyutin and Korp I've liked and most people have liked our moves involving kids.

But I am NOT dismissing the fact that Sather could have already built a team like this much earlier if he hadn't sucked so much. I also fully recognize we still have freakin Wade Redden signed to this team and that Sather can strike with awful and crippling decisions at a moments notice...but he didn't do it last year nor this year and he could have easily.

And to the italicized....WHAT!?? Seriously if this team goes and wins the cup this year does that suddenly mean that they magically earn the right to be considered contenders for next year but were never contenders for this year? Last year we were the utmost outside of shots to even make it to the ECF or playoffs. This year if you feel we could surprise and contend for a SCF that's reasonable. It's a stretch to say we ARE contenders but to say we MAY be contenders...well to argue with that you're just nitpicking at this point. Well you'd need crystal ball to see into the future to guarantee that they are not contenders. And you literally follow up MAY with LIKELY which is two ways of saying the same thing. I mean c'mon now geez the minute difference b/t MAy and LIKELY... Do we really want to go into degrees or percentages of uncertainty.

I'll buy the arguement that we could have had a team like this in 2005 or 2009 had the right moves been made but to argue about the difference b/t this years team specifically as far as MAY vs LIKELY is nonsense.

And again are you saying this team is still YEARS away? Really this team is 4 years away you know this? 3 years? Why can't this team contend next year? If the team plays like last year with the addition of BR and Gabs not to mention if we get better play from Artie, Step, Sauer, McD and if Erixon is better than any of our 3rd pair last year I mean why wouldn't we be able to win a playoff round this year? If they advance even more in their development why wouldn't we have at least a chance to contend next year? I don't get why you seem to be implying we don't even have a chance to contend at all that's just completely bogus. But then again do we want to fully put a numebr on how we feel percentage wise about our teams chances? Are we bookies now do we want to nitpick over odds? That's where this arguement keeps running into trouble guys coming in and giving definitive, nonsensical statements like that we are still years away.
Your post specifically stated that 12 years ago has no bearing on today. IMHO you seemed to be disregarding those choices made then. To sit there and say that what he failed to do then has no bearing on this team today is being disingenous at best. In stead of pursuing playoff revenue and what not, everyone under the sun knew a rebuild was needed and he decided not to move in that direction. Had he made the smart and obvious decision to rebuild this team would be much further along in the process than where we are today.

I'm not going to argue that the future isn't much brighter. I agree wholeheartedly that it is. My gripe is that where we are now as an organization, we should have been at in 05-06 And where teams that are considered legit contenders are today, we should be there with them. As it is, we still have no legit first line LW, we have no seasoned Puck Moving Defenceman, we have a solid player in Sauer, but until he can prove that last season was not a fluke we have no nasty crease clearing defencman either. The #1 center that we needed is now finally in place, but he's on the wrong side of 30, so realistically speaking, in 4 years he will have to be replaced and guess what? We have no one in the system that projects to be able to do that today.

I'm sorry, but you can hypothosize about contending all you want. To many warts on this team and not enough proof that contender and Rangers should be used in the same sentance other than formulating a joke.

I love the Rangers and will be as pleased as punch if they get to the 2nd round of the PO's, but I am not expecting anymore than that. However one round win does not a contender make.

Don't need a crystal ball to understand that what ails this team is 1) not in the system 2) not ready yet (from within the system).

Looking at this Rangers team, objectively, I'd say that we are at least 2-3 years away from contending for a cup.

Unless we get amazing growth from the players you mentioned in terms of overall production, we are a team fighting for 4th/5th/6th.

See, I guess the difference for me is that I have a hard time relying on If's.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 04:15 PM
  #255
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 500
Can we agree that Slats was a bad GM until the sell-off in March 2004, but did a respectable job since then? Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he also did some good things.

Did he sign Gomez? Yes. Did he rehabilitate it? Yes.
Did he sign Drury? Yes. Did he also draft Stepan and Anisimov? Yes.

And so on.

Overall, the team has gotten much, much better. Like I said before, had he been a newbie GM hired in March 2004 for his first ever GM job, we would all be singing his praises.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 04:24 PM
  #256
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyTheGr8 View Post
Haha..I've graduated college, gotten married, divorced and re-married in the same time frame. I'm done with patience..I want results!
and your ripping sather for lack of foresight and making bad decisions?


unrelated: did you tweet into the game last night? if it wasn't you theres a dude running aroung using your name on twitter

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 04:39 PM
  #257
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Can we agree that Slats was a bad GM until the sell-off in March 2004, but did a respectable job since then? Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he also did some good things.

Did he sign Gomez? Yes. Did he rehabilitate it? Yes.
Did he sign Drury? Yes. Did he also draft Stepan and Anisimov? Yes.

And so on.

Overall, the team has gotten much, much better. Like I said before, had he been a newbie GM hired in March 2004 for his first ever GM job, we would all be singing his praises.
The Drury, Gomez, and Redden signings are so egregiously bad, and so far outweigh the drafting of solid 2nd/3rd line players that its tough to take your point seriously.

Sather, all these years later, still needed to throw silly money at an offensive player to bolster the team - it just so happened this was a much better fit.

But are you seriously willing to give Sather the benefit of the doubt that he wouldnt have unloaded that cash at the best available free agent even if it wasnt the right fit? Like hes done so many times in the past?

Im certainly not.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 07:26 PM
  #258
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Like I said before, had he been a newbie GM hired in March 2004 for his first ever GM job, we would all be singing his praises.
Ummmmm....NO.

Neil Smith was a newbie GM who inherited a team in 1989 so badly decimated by Trader Phil Esposito that Scotty Bowman wouldn't take the job when it was offered to him...and five years later Smith brought us the Stanley Cup.

And Sather wasn't a newbie GM in 2000 or 2004. He had previously mocked us from Edmonton, implying that anyone could win in New York.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2011, 10:27 PM
  #259
TonyTheGr8
Window shut..for now
 
TonyTheGr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Morris County, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
and your ripping sather for lack of foresight and making bad decisions?


unrelated: did you tweet into the game last night? if it wasn't you theres a dude running aroung using your name on twitter
Lol..yeah, that was me. Pretty cool, huh?

Bite me for that first comment btw!


Last edited by TonyTheGr8: 09-22-2011 at 10:48 PM.
TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 12:52 AM
  #260
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 RangerEsq View Post
Can we agree that Slats was a bad GM until the sell-off in March 2004, but did a respectable job since then? Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he also did some good things.
The problem with comments like this is that they are deceptive in nature. But how can you deceive those of us that saw this crap with our own eyes.

He didn't just make mistakes. He made 2-3 moves that are easily among the worst roster moves in the history of the league. Among the worst in all of team pro sports. Obviously, the fact that the league now has a salary cap changes the magnitude of player personnel moves. But the fact that this change was recent doesn't make it reasonable to abandon logic and common sense. But they were abandoned in 2007 and 2008 (not to mention the plethora of times prior to that).

Yes, he managed to weasel his way out of 2 of them and waited the other out, more or less. But how does he weasel out of Redden if he isn't working for the Rangers and doesn't have Dolan's money behind him? Buying out Chris Drury isn't quite as easy, either. To say that the franchise wasn't harmed by these maniacal errors in judgment, however, is not correct, IMO. A lot of things might have been different had those mistakes not been made, and the franchise could be in a better position today.

You have to make a concerted effort to execute the responsibilities of your job as poorly as Glen Sather did when he made those decisions. You really have to go out of your way to ignore so many different factors.The fact that the franchise is in a relatively good state right now will never change the fact that those mistakes were made, nor will it ever erase the fact that those signings were so ill-conceived, so poorly thought out, so improperly reasoned, and just so unbelievably ****ing stupid.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 07:18 AM
  #261
TonyTheGr8
Window shut..for now
 
TonyTheGr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Morris County, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Can we agree that Slats was a bad GM until the sell-off in March 2004, but did a respectable job since then? Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he also did some good things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
The problem with comments like this is that they are deceptive in nature. But how can you deceive those of us that saw this crap with our own eyes.

He didn't just make mistakes. He made 2-3 moves that are easily among the worst roster moves in the history of the league. Among the worst in all of team pro sports. Obviously, the fact that the league now has a salary cap changes the magnitude of player personnel moves. But the fact that this change was recent doesn't make it reasonable to abandon logic and common sense. But they were abandoned in 2007 and 2008 (not to mention the plethora of times prior to that).

Yes, he managed to weasel his way out of 2 of them and waited the other out, more or less. But how does he weasel out of Redden if he isn't working for the Rangers and doesn't have Dolan's money behind him? Buying out Chris Drury isn't quite as easy, either. To say that the franchise wasn't harmed by these maniacal errors in judgment, however, is not correct, IMO. A lot of things might have been different had those mistakes not been made, and the franchise could be in a better position today.

You have to make a concerted effort to execute the responsibilities of your job as poorly as Glen Sather did when he made those decisions. You really have to go out of your way to ignore so many different factors.The fact that the franchise is in a relatively good state right now will never change the fact that those mistakes were made, nor will it ever erase the fact that those signings were so ill-conceived, so poorly thought out, so improperly reasoned, and just so unbelievably ****ing stupid.
Lol..in other words RangerEsq...NO, we can't!

TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 08:39 AM
  #262
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Can we agree that Slats was a bad GM until the sell-off in March 2004, but did a respectable job since then? Did he make mistakes? Sure. But he also did some good things.
Respectable isn't good enough, and I'd be hesitant to even call it that considering the massive blunders he's made since the lockout.

I'm not going to praise Sather simply because he's been better since the lockout than he was during the train wreck years before that. I praise Clark and Gorton because they actually seem like they know what they are doing, and have shown some proficiency in their jobs. But Sather? Nope.

Get back to me when a Sather-built team actually accomplishes something. Then and only then will I give Sather credit. Teams don't win on paper.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 09:42 AM
  #263
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Get back to me when a Sather-built team actually accomplishes something. Then and only then will I give Sather credit. Teams don't win on paper.
...or in an internet forum.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 09:49 AM
  #264
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Ummmmm....NO.

Neil Smith was a newbie GM who inherited a team in 1989 so badly decimated by Trader Phil Esposito that Scotty Bowman wouldn't take the job when it was offered to him...and five years later Smith brought us the Stanley Cup.

And Sather wasn't a newbie GM in 2000 or 2004. He had previously mocked us from Edmonton, implying that anyone could win in New York.
Smith also traded for a player called Mark Messier, arguably one of the greatest leaders in professional sports... EVER!

Sather had nothing even remotely close to the assets Smith had in which to trade for a 5x cup winning champion of the caliber of a Messier and a support staff.

"Big Deal Neil" traded boatloads of talent to get Mark and the support players around him to win. Not only that, Smith had an ALL-Star goalie and OFD in which to work with. Gartner, Nicholls, Amonte...


Your Smith/Sather comparison fails.

apples to apples

*funny how you'll ridicule and mock GMs who use the "trading formula" to build a team when they lose...

But you're championing Smith, using the trading formula, because he won.

Sather is and idiot and a buffoon, yet Smith is genius - using the same method.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 10:24 AM
  #265
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Your post specifically stated that 12 years ago has no bearing on today. IMHO you seemed to be disregarding those choices made then. To sit there and say that what he failed to do then has no bearing on this team today is being disingenous at best. In stead of pursuing playoff revenue and what not, everyone under the sun knew a rebuild was needed and he decided not to move in that direction. Had he made the smart and obvious decision to rebuild this team would be much further along in the process than where we are today.

My post specifically stated a LOT more than simply 12 years has no bearing on today. Try reading the whole thing before challenging people for no reason. Maybe you just had trouble understanding idk so AGAIN I will say then why not reach back to 94 when we sold off the farm? How far back do you go before it reaches ridiculousness? You wanna talk post lockout that's fair and makes sense but at this point we are now I would say we're beyond our horrible 2001-2003 drafting luck So from 2004 till now with our drafting signings and moves YOU INCLUDE THE GOOD AND THE BAD like Dubs, Cally, Artie, Stepan, McD, Staal.....Gomez, Dru, Redden, trading Gomez, signing Gabs and BR, retaining our guys....when you consider all that it makes a helluva lot more sense then reaching back to 1999 I mean geez dude this was clearly explained and you totally ignored the point. This is why people get frustrated it's like half of you refuse to read. I also said I ACKNOWLEDGE we could have built a team like this ealier had Sather not screwed up. Seriously how is all of this disregarding Sather's entire tenure here? The problem is and you've done this to me before you don't read the whole thing or you just choose to focus on one part of a sentence instead of the whole thing and you completely miss the point. Please read I am NOT explaining this same thing a third time it's ridiculous.

I'm not going to argue that the future isn't much brighter. I agree wholeheartedly that it is. My gripe is that where we are now as an organization, we should have been at in 05-06 And where teams that are considered legit contenders are today, we should be there with them. As it is, we still have no legit first line LW, we have no seasoned Puck Moving Defenceman, we have a solid player in Sauer, but until he can prove that last season was not a fluke we have no nasty crease clearing defencman either. The #1 center that we needed is now finally in place, but he's on the wrong side of 30, so realistically speaking, in 4 years he will have to be replaced and guess what? We have no one in the system that projects to be able to do that today.

Hence the whole our guys can reach their potential but very well could fail to. Did you really not see me say this? Did you not see me clearly agree with this point already? if someone says we should have been a team like this much earlier than now? I agreed to that point.

I'm sorry, but you can hypothosize about contending all you want. To many warts on this team and not enough proof that contender and Rangers should be used in the same sentance other than formulating a joke.

This makes sense how? A team with two elite forwards, an elite Defensive Defenseman and an elite goaltender surrounded by a cast of tough, gritty guys and guys who put up 40-60 points? This is not a POSSIBLE CONTENDER IN THE MAKING? See those capitalized words? See how I did NOT say we are a contender? See the difference? Contender in the making? means we are not there yet but building towards it? Means stuff can still go wrong? I'm honestly trying to be as clear as possible here I don't understand how you fail so completely to understand that i said these things already.

I love the Rangers and will be as pleased as punch if they get to the 2nd round of the PO's, but I am not expecting anymore than that. However one round win does not a contender make.

Great all I said was we have a reasonable chance to make the 2nd round so again why is most of your post necassary?

Don't need a crystal ball to understand that what ails this team is 1) not in the system 2) not ready yet (from within the system).

What's your point? No team is perfect. It's not amatter of filling every hole if you feel personally we can;t win without those holes filled that's your opinion but we certainly in my eyes could develop into contenders without those holes filled ina year or two...again this is me saying we COULD NOT WILL
Looking at this Rangers team, objectively, I'd say that we are at least 2-3 years away from contending for a cup.

Lol...All this and all you end up doing is basically agreeing with what I said?...Dude...1 year or two what the hell's the difference there? Point is we likely have some more experience and developing to do.

Unless we get amazing growth from the players you mentioned in terms of overall production, we are a team fighting for 4th/5th/6th.


See, I guess the difference for me is that I have a hard time relying on If's.
Ok so lemme get this straight you see us winning a round this year and that';s without the growth I'm talking about right? Growth that we COULD POSSIBLY get? Hence why I said only if we get all that growth do we have a chance to contend. There is no difference. When did I say I was reliant on anything? I simply am voicing my opinion on what coulkd happen with this team. I voiced we COULD contend if a bunch of stuff happen but....wait y'know what lemme ask this. Why is it ok for you to sit there and say "If they don't develop...if this doesn't work....if this guy doesn't make it..." and thats perfectly sensible to you but when someone says "If these guys don't work out we won't be contenders but if they do oh boy watch out." and you try to argue with them as if they're speaking nonsense? I never said I was relying on anything.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 10:30 AM
  #266
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Respectable isn't good enough, and I'd be hesitant to even call it that considering the massive blunders he's made since the lockout.

I'm not going to praise Sather simply because he's been better since the lockout than he was during the train wreck years before that. I praise Clark and Gorton because they actually seem like they know what they are doing, and have shown some proficiency in their jobs. But Sather? Nope.

Get back to me when a Sather-built team actually accomplishes something. Then and only then will I give Sather credit. Teams don't win on paper.
Credit for what though? For building a contender? Well that's fair. But what about crediting him for getting out of his own way if only for the last 2 or 3 three years. Credit him for allowing his scouting dept to build a philosophy and team. Credit him for getting rid of Gomez and picking up some huge assets via trade. You also credit him with the 10 mil+ in cap still wasted oN Dru and Redden. See? It's not all black vs white good vs bad

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 10:33 AM
  #267
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Smith also traded for a player called Mark Messier, arguably one of the greatest leaders in professional sports... EVER!

Sather had nothing even remotely close to the assets Smith had in which to trade for a 5x cup winning champion of the caliber of a Messier and a support staff.

"Big Deal Neil" traded boatloads of talent to get Mark and the support players around him to win. Not only that, Smith had an ALL-Star goalie and OFD in which to work with. Gartner, Nicholls, Amonte...


Your Smith/Sather comparison fails.

apples to apples

*funny how you'll ridicule and mock GMs who use the "trading formula" to build a team when they lose...

But you're championing Smith, using the trading formula, because he won.

Sather is and idiot and a buffoon, yet Smith is genius - using the same method.
OK, when you call Bernie Nicholls 'boatloads of talent' that Smith traded for Messier, you lose all credibility. You just go ahead think that.

Please describe the 'boatloads of talent' Smith traded.

If you would be happier if Smith had kept that 'boatloads of talent', and not won the Stanley Cup...well, that's you.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 10:42 AM
  #268
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Credit for what though? For building a contender? Well that's fair. But what about crediting him for getting out of his own way if only for the last 2 or 3 three years. Credit him for allowing his scouting dept to build a philosophy and team. Credit him for getting rid of Gomez and picking up some huge assets via trade. You also credit him with the 10 mil+ in cap still wasted oN Dru and Redden. See? It's not all black vs white good vs bad
See, that's the beauty of sports...it IS all black vs. white. If Sather's team succeeds this year, perhaps wins two playoff series in one year, for the first time in Sather's 12 year tenure, he gets credit.

If Sather's team does not succeed this year, spins it's wheels into another fight to the finish run for the playoffs and then one playoff series victory at best...he does not get credit.

Bill Parcells said 'You are your record', not 'You are what they say you are in internet forums'.

Sather will be his record this year.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 10:59 AM
  #269
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
OK, when you call Bernie Nicholls 'boatloads of talent' that Smith traded for Messier, you lose all credibility. You just go ahead think that.

Please describe the 'boatloads of talent' Smith traded.

If you would be happier if Smith had kept that 'boatloads of talent', and not won the Stanley Cup...well, that's you.

This post is the epitome of deflecting discussion

not arguing, and it's not tangential. I'm addressing the incompatibility of your comparison between the Smith era and the Sather era, and gave reasons why.

rather than address the reasons, you subtly infer that my intention is to argue, and change the topic.

Once again, this is just another version of your patented response:

"Don't put words in my mouth... this is a straw man argument"

rinse, repeat.

I never said Sather won anything yet, and I'm sure no one else is actually stating that in this thread either. Yet you continually address those who hold a differing opinion than yours, as holding to this viewpoint.


This is the epitome of a straw man argument. To manufacture an opposing viewpoint that is not true of the person in which you are debating, in order to show your position as superior, factual, true, etc.

pot meet kettle.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 11:11 AM
  #270
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
This post is the epitome of deflecting discussion

not arguing, and it's not tangential. I'm addressing the incompatibility of your comparison between the Smith era and the Sather era, and gave reasons why.

rather than address the reasons, you subtly infer that my intention is to argue, and change the topic.

Once again, this is just another version of your patented response:

"Don't put words in my mouth... this is a straw man argument"

rinse, repeat.

I never said Sather won anything yet, and I'm sure no one else is actually stating that in this thread either. Yet you continually address those who hold a differing opinion than yours, as holding to this viewpoint.


This is the epitome of a straw man argument. To manufacture an opposing viewpoint that is not true of the person in which you are debating, in order to show your position as superior, factual, true, etc.

pot meet kettle.
LOL pot meet kettle is right. Jeesh.

Lots of words, but you forgot to identify the 'boatloads of talent' Smith traded to win the Stanley Cup. That was your argument, not mine.

Go. If you have to google it to find out...that says a lot.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 11:20 AM
  #271
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
LOL pot meet kettle is right. Jeesh.

Lots of words, but you forgot to identify the 'boatloads of talent' Smith traded to win the Stanley Cup. That was your argument, not mine.

Go. If you have to google it to find out...that says a lot.
what I actually wrote was:

Big Deal Neil" traded boatloads of talent to get Mark and the support players around him to win. Not only that, Smith had an ALL-Star goalie and OFD in which to work with. Gartner, Nicholls, Amonte...

not just Bernie Nichols. It was him along with the OTHER PLAYERS I mentioned, ALONG WITH RICHTER, Leetch, etc.

Why don't you try quoting my statement in their entirety? Lot harder to misconstrue then huh?

I understand. if you did that it would make it harder for you to build your


S T R _ W M _ N.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 11:44 AM
  #272
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
what I actually wrote was:

Big Deal Neil" traded boatloads of talent to get Mark and the support players around him to win. Not only that, Smith had an ALL-Star goalie and OFD in which to work with. Gartner, Nicholls, Amonte...

not just Bernie Nichols. It was him along with the OTHER PLAYERS I mentioned, ALONG WITH RICHTER, Leetch, etc.

Why don't you try quoting my statement in their entirety? Lot harder to misconstrue then huh?

I understand. if you did that it would make it harder for you to build your


S T R _ W M _ N.
Your 'boatloads of talent' argument is taking on water fast.

Gartner? Nicholls? Seriously?

Amonte and Weight (you must have missed him on google) went on to have nice careers, but if we have Weight that year and not Tikkanen, we probably don't have a Cup.

Sometimes you have to give up assets in order to improve your team.

I'm not even the biggest Neil Smith fan, I'm not happy you're making me defend him, and I don't think he was a genius. I could be wrong, but I do think he brought us a Stanley Cup.

Can I ask you a question? Were you alive/old enough to pay attention in 1994? Do not mean that in a derogatory way, just curious. If you did not get to live through that...I apologize. It was pretty wonderful, and worth each and every trade.

But when comparing Smith to Sather...there is no comparison.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 11:49 AM
  #273
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,040
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Ok so lemme get this straight you see us winning a round this year and that';s without the growth I'm talking about right? Growth that we COULD POSSIBLY get? Hence why I said only if we get all that growth do we have a chance to contend. There is no difference. When did I say I was reliant on anything? I simply am voicing my opinion on what coulkd happen with this team. I voiced we COULD contend if a bunch of stuff happen but....wait y'know what lemme ask this. Why is it ok for you to sit there and say "If they don't develop...if this doesn't work....if this guy doesn't make it..." and thats perfectly sensible to you but when someone says "If these guys don't work out we won't be contenders but if they do oh boy watch out." and you try to argue with them as if they're speaking nonsense? I never said I was relying on anything.
At this point, even with the expected growth of the kids you mentioned, I don't see us getting past the 2nd round.

Your comment "We could contend IF a bunch of stuff happened"

Really? REALLY?

IF the Queen had balls, she would be King. But she doesn't and she's not.

I look at this team and I accept them for what they are. An incomplete team that is green and still very soft on defence highly deficient in the scoring department from the LW. Some of the scoring issues should be corrected with the addition of Richards, but expecting consistent production from guys that have not shown the ability to be consistent in the past is not something I am cofortable with.

Finally, going back past 1999 makes no sense. Going back to 1999 makes perfect sense. Reason being is that going back to 1999 means we are speaking of one constant person at the leadership position. Sather.

It's fair to discuss post lock out, but not pre lockout when the same guy was running things? It makse sense for you, but not for anyone else because a GM should be judged on his tenure at the helm. Not 2 parts of one tenure. That makes no sense.

You can think all you want that those brutal selections of Jessiman and Montoya are no longer in our rearview mirrior, you are entitled to think that. You couldn't be more wrong, but you seem to be OK with that as well.

We all want the same things, Rangers success, but I have not seen enough from Sather, his staff as a whole OR the on ice product in the last 7 years to be anything but skeptical.

Color me jaded.

I said it then, and I still believe it in my heart today that the Rangers made a major mistake in allowing Sather to head up the rebuilding efforts. He helped put us in the mess we were in pre lock out and had not earned the right to be the point person on the rebuilding effort.

It's because of Sather and his incompetent tenure here that I have no faith that we have the parts on the team and in the system that can carry this franchise to where is needs to and should be.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 12:02 PM
  #274
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Credit for what though? For building a contender? Well that's fair. But what about crediting him for getting out of his own way if only for the last 2 or 3 three years. Credit him for allowing his scouting dept to build a philosophy and team. Credit him for getting rid of Gomez and picking up some huge assets via trade. You also credit him with the 10 mil+ in cap still wasted oN Dru and Redden. See? It's not all black vs white good vs bad
Actually, it is black or white. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what moves worked and what moves didn't work. What matters is winning. Can you honestly tell me that Sather's teams have won enough in the time that he has been here to justify the fact that he's still here? Go back to the post I made on page 4 and see how the team's accomplishments, just since the lockout, compare with other teams in the league. At best, the Rangers place 15th in the league over that time.

Is that good enough for you? It's not for me. I'd actually like a chance at a cup some day. If Sather were fired tomorrow and Gorton or Clark promoted in his place, do you honestly think that would be bad for the Rangers?

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 12:19 PM
  #275
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
what I actually wrote was:

Big Deal Neil" traded boatloads of talent to get Mark and the support players around him to win. Not only that, Smith had an ALL-Star goalie and OFD in which to work with. Gartner, Nicholls, Amonte...

not just Bernie Nichols. It was him along with the OTHER PLAYERS I mentioned, ALONG WITH RICHTER, Leetch, etc.

Why don't you try quoting my statement in their entirety? Lot harder to misconstrue then huh?

I understand. if you did that it would make it harder for you to build your


S T R _ W M _ N.
The difference is that the things Smith did actually resulted in a championship. The things Sather has done have amounted to nothing so far.

The methods don't matter, only the results. Neil Smith has 2 president's trophies, at least 2 division titles, 2 conference finals appearances and a stanley cup to his credit. Sather is so far behind he's running backwards.

GAGLine is online now   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 08:10 AM.

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.