HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Sather and the Homegrown Rebuilding of the Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-23-2011, 01:04 PM
  #276
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 GAGLine View Post
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.
Actually 3 division titles (1989-90).

Sather is so far behind Smith you could fit the solar system in between the 2 of them.

TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 02:47 PM
  #277
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,249
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyTheGr8 View Post
Actually 3 division titles (1989-90).

Sather is so far behind Smith you could fit the solar system in between the 2 of them.
Sather is so far behind Neil Smith, he's actually standing in front of him.

How deep was that?


pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 03:03 PM
  #278
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 pld459666 View Post
Sather is so far behind Neil Smith, he's actually standing in front of him.

How deep was that?

Lol..that was very deep, and I actually understood it, so I guess that means I'M deep!!

TonyTheGr8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 03:31 PM
  #279
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
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.
First off, you said, "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?" Well, he does have Dolan's money behind him. He always had Dolans money behind him. That's part of the deal when you're hired as the Rangers GM. It's silly to say all things being equal, except for this part then he'd suck. Who knows if he would have given out some of those contracts if he didn't have Dolan's money behind him? It's a pointless question to ask since we can never know. So using the resources given to him, in this case lots of money, isn't a sign of anything bad. In fact it's good. Under-utilizing resources is bad.

Now talking about some of the worst deals in the NHL or any pro sport, I don't know if you just don't keep any sort of tabs on other NHL or pro sports teams but there are some bad contracts out there. It's silly to act like Sather is the only guy ever to give out a bad deal.

Now lets consider how the deals worked out:

Gomez: gave us a 70 point season and a 58 point season before then getting us McD and the cap space to sign Gaborik. You want to go back in time and never sign Gomez? I don't.

Drury: gave us a 58 pt year, then a 56 pt year then had two bad years, the last of which he was plagued by injury. definitely not worth what we paid him, but he did give us some production. and he did provide huge leadership for these young guys as well as some cover to allow them to develop at their own pace. cally always credits dru with both the development of his game and his leadership. I don't think cally would want us to go back in time and undo that deal. do you?

Redden: yeah he sucked. he's in the minors though and being a good sport about it. he's helping the young guys. no he's not worth the money, but I'm not the one paying him. he's off the cap, who really cares about this deal? Undo it? sure, but if I had this time machine that's way down on my to do list.

So where's the big problem that won't let you get excited about all the positive going on here? Or is it you just don't like to be happy? I'm siding with the latter.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 03:36 PM
  #280
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Aside from the Redden signing, I do feel that the scale of the Gomez and Drury moves is exaggerated. In reality, they aren't even amongst the 5 worst roster moves in the last 15 years for THIS team, much less among the worst in league history.

Edit in: before anyone asks...

Kurri trade
Brendl trade
Lindros trade
Holik signing
Keane/Skrudland signings

all rank ahead of the Gomez and Drury signings in terms of how bad they were.


Last edited by Tawnos: 09-23-2011 at 03:43 PM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:03 PM
  #281
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Aside from the Redden signing, I do feel that the scale of the Gomez and Drury moves is exaggerated. In reality, they aren't even amongst the 5 worst roster moves in the last 15 years for THIS team, much less among the worst in league history.

Edit in: before anyone asks...

Kurri trade
Brendl trade
Lindros trade
Holik signing
Keane/Skrudland signings

all rank ahead of the Gomez and Drury signings in terms of how bad they were.
It's not fair to put the Brendl trade in that category--at the time it was considered a very good trade by just about everyone in the hockey world. Brendl had real potential--it's just that, like many prospects, he never developed that potential.


Last edited by Brooklyn Ranger: 09-23-2011 at 04:15 PM.
Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:05 PM
  #282
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
First off, you said, "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?" Well, he does have Dolan's money behind him. He always had Dolans money behind him. That's part of the deal when you're hired as the Rangers GM. It's silly to say all things being equal, except for this part then he'd suck. Who knows if he would have given out some of those contracts if he didn't have Dolan's money behind him? It's a pointless question to ask since we can never know. So using the resources given to him, in this case lots of money, isn't a sign of anything bad. In fact it's good. Under-utilizing resources is bad.

Now talking about some of the worst deals in the NHL or any pro sport, I don't know if you just don't keep any sort of tabs on other NHL or pro sports teams but there are some bad contracts out there. It's silly to act like Sather is the only guy ever to give out a bad deal.

Now lets consider how the deals worked out:

Gomez: gave us a 70 point season and a 58 point season before then getting us McD and the cap space to sign Gaborik. You want to go back in time and never sign Gomez? I don't.

Drury: gave us a 58 pt year, then a 56 pt year then had two bad years, the last of which he was plagued by injury. definitely not worth what we paid him, but he did give us some production. and he did provide huge leadership for these young guys as well as some cover to allow them to develop at their own pace. cally always credits dru with both the development of his game and his leadership. I don't think cally would want us to go back in time and undo that deal. do you?

Redden: yeah he sucked. he's in the minors though and being a good sport about it. he's helping the young guys. no he's not worth the money, but I'm not the one paying him. he's off the cap, who really cares about this deal? Undo it? sure, but if I had this time machine that's way down on my to do list.

So where's the big problem that won't let you get excited about all the positive going on here? Or is it you just don't like to be happy? I'm siding with the latter.
LOL so many words to prove Sather hasn't been THAT BAD.

It's not that people don't want to be positive. I'm as hopeful as anyone that this is the year things turn around and we make a strong playoff run.

But Sather doesn't get credit until we do. You don't win in an internet forum, you win on the ice.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:22 PM
  #283
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
It's not fair to put the Brendl trade in that category--at the time it was considered a very good trade by just about everyone in the hockey world. Brendl had real potential--it's just that, like many prospects, he never developed that potential.
I remember hating the trade at the time it was made. And it's not about the fact that we made a major deal for a high end prospect. We gave up waaaaay too much. You don't give up a top-tier defensive forward, a potential #1 goalie and a first round pick for a prospect. In comparison, Tampa traded their 5th overall the next season for Kevin Weekes and a prospect. The Brendl pick I'm sure had more value than that, but they still overpaid on the deal.

But fine, if you take out the Brendl trade and put in the Redden signing, Gomez and Drury still don't make the top 5.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:32 PM
  #284
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I remember hating the trade at the time it was made. And it's not about the fact that we made a major deal for a high end prospect. We gave up waaaaay too much. You don't give up a top-tier defensive forward, a potential #1 goalie and a first round pick for a prospect. In comparison, Tampa traded their 5th overall the next season for Kevin Weekes and a prospect. The Brendl pick I'm sure had more value than that, but they still overpaid on the deal.

But fine, if you take out the Brendl trade and put in the Redden signing, Gomez and Drury still don't make the top 5.
If I remember correctly, the Rangers were going to lose Cloutier in an upcoming expansion draft. In any case to me, it's the one orange out of all the apples on your list. You get more mileage out of replacing it with the Redden signing.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:49 PM
  #285
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
It's not fair to put the Brendl trade in that category--at the time it was considered a very good trade by just about everyone in the hockey world. Brendl had real potential--it's just that, like many prospects, he never developed that potential.
It's completely fair, and speaks to the crux of this whole argument. GMs are judged on RESULTS, not intentions. No one gives a **** if the move looked good when we made it. We care how it turned out. And it turned out poorly. As I've said many times before, GMs get paid to be have foresight. They get paid to be right. Sather hasn't been right nearly often enough.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 04:58 PM
  #286
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
It's completely fair, and speaks to the crux of this whole argument. GMs are judged on RESULTS, not intentions. No one gives a **** if the move looked good when we made it. We care how it turned out. And it turned out poorly. As I've said many times before, GMs get paid to be have foresight. They get paid to be right. Sather hasn't been right nearly often enough.
Yes, the end result is what matters, but there is a real difference between drafting a prospect,trading for a proven player or signing a UFA. Did Brendl turn out to be a bad pick--yes, but that was not obvious when he was drafted. On the other hand, trading for Bure--who had had multiple (major) injuries to both knees and Lindros, who had had something like 7 concussions, or signing Keane, a checking center and expecting that he will excel on the top two lines were all disasters just waiting to happen.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 05:21 PM
  #287
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
All good discussion and I agree. When you judge a GMs job overall, results are by far the most important thing. I'm never going to argue that, because how can you? (well, there have been attempts to do that in this thread, but none by me) Again, it's the difference between judging things on a small scale vs on a large scale.

However, my point in bringing up those moves was only to combat the exaggeration of how bad the Gomez and Drury signings really were in the scheme of things. They weren't THAT bad, but that doesn't make them good. The point wasn't to plug them into the discussion about Sather in general. I will say this, if you throw a trade like trading a HOF offensive defenseman in a deal for a less effective goal scorer and a tough D into the equation, Smith made a ton of bad deals over the last 5 years of his tenure. There is a legitimate reason he got fired. Sather should have been fired for the same thing, but he wasn't and we have to live with it.

Look, I have a tendency to compartmentalize things to begin with. That's why I'm able to judge individual elements of Sather's tenure without plugging them into the whole. I'm not critical of not compartmentalizing. They're just different ways of thinking. I just wish we could get away from the "yeah but there are no results!" and "but there's hope!" arguments.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 05:24 PM
  #288
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
LOL so many words to prove Sather hasn't been THAT BAD.

It's not that people don't want to be positive. I'm as hopeful as anyone that this is the year things turn around and we make a strong playoff run.

But Sather doesn't get credit until we do. You don't win in an internet forum, you win on the ice.
I divided the question of "Sather good/bad?" and just focused on disproving the bad there. I feel like we've covered the good ad nauseum by now. Do you really need to hear what Sather has done well again?

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 05:39 PM
  #289
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Do you really need to hear what Sather has done well again?
You could fit it on the head of a thimble.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 05:57 PM
  #290
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
You could fit it on the head of a thimble.
A really big thimble.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 06:09 PM
  #291
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 Kel Varnsen View Post
First off, you said, "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?" Well, he does have Dolan's money behind him. He always had Dolans money behind him. That's part of the deal when you're hired as the Rangers GM. It's silly to say all things being equal, except for this part then he'd suck. Who knows if he would have given out some of those contracts if he didn't have Dolan's money behind him? It's a pointless question to ask since we can never know. So using the resources given to him, in this case lots of money, isn't a sign of anything bad. In fact it's good. Under-utilizing resources is bad.
He misused those resources, and then used more of the resources to get out of 2 of the mistakes. Or are you happy with the fact that we have negative cap space for 2 years because of the buy out of Drury's contract?

Quote:
Now talking about some of the worst deals in the NHL or any pro sport, I don't know if you just don't keep any sort of tabs on other NHL or pro sports teams but there are some bad contracts out there. It's silly to act like Sather is the only guy ever to give out a bad deal.
When did I act like Sather was the only guy to give out a bad deal? But I don't see very many instances, especially in the NHL, that match those deals in sheer stupidity. I can think of about 2-4 examples that are in the same category. Nothing else even comes close. Gomez and Redden contracts are right up there with the worst contracts given out in the NBA. Right up there with some of the Layden and Thomas Knick moves.

Quote:
Gomez: gave us a 70 point season and a 58 point season before then getting us McD and the cap space to sign Gaborik. You want to go back in time and never sign Gomez? I don't.
Yeah. Definitely. I'd like to back in time and not sign Gaborik, either, which is something that may not have happened if the Gomez signing doesn't happen. McDonagh is a very nice piece to come out of with it, but we could have had even nicer pieces of our own if those signings were never made and this team didn't put together multiple seasons of mediocrity. A 70 point and 58 point season where he played some of the most disgusting hockey I've ever seen in my life, put together 2 of the most statistically inefficient seasons in league history, absolutely disappeared for weeks at a time, and routinely got out played by Nikolai Zherdev, all the while needing different line mates every few games since his stupid ass couldn't figure out how to play well consistently with anyone.

Not have to live through 2 seasons of feeling like I want to smash a brick through my television every other night because this out of shape, lazy mental midget wasted more offensive zone opportunities per game than any player to wear a Ranger sweater in the nearly 20 years that I've been watching this team? Yeah, you bet your ass I would go back in time and not make that signing.

Quote:
Drury: gave us a 58 pt year, then a 56 pt year then had two bad years, the last of which he was plagued by injury. definitely not worth what we paid him, but he did give us some production. and he did provide huge leadership for these young guys as well as some cover to allow them to develop at their own pace. cally always credits dru with both the development of his game and his leadership. I don't think cally would want us to go back in time and undo that deal. do you?
Yeah, I know all about it. I've been making those points about Drury for 2-3 years. And I don't think of him as quite as bad a signing as Gomez or Redden, because he's actually a good hockey player. But again, the direction the team could have gone had they not been signed could have helped them be in an even better position than they are in today. Because as of this moment, we still don't have any franchise players in our prospect pool. There was potential for that to be different had these moves not been made.

Quote:
Redden: yeah he sucked. he's in the minors though and being a good sport about it. he's helping the young guys. no he's not worth the money, but I'm not the one paying him. he's off the cap, who really cares about this deal? Undo it? sure, but if I had this time machine that's way down on my to do list.
See the point above regarding the direction the team could have gone in as opposed to the essentially waste of 2-3 seasons. But there's something else. I don't know about you, but I'm not proud of the fact that the Rangers made what should be a crippling mistake and get to weasel their way out of it because of an economic advantage. Personally, I think it takes away a little something from whatever success this team has going forward. I'd like them to win because they out played and out managed other teams, not because they can erase their AWFUL mistakes when other teams cant.

Quote:
So where's the big problem that won't let you get excited about all the positive going on here? Or is it you just don't like to be happy? I'm siding with the latter.
I've expressed my excitement for the following season numerous times and in numerous threads. Just because we have two different ideas of what entertaining hockey is, I don't like to be happy? 2008-09 and 2009-10 are the two least enjoyable seasons of Rangers hockey that I've watched since I started watching the Rangers in 1993. 2007-08 is up there, as well. Nothing will ever change that. You know what makes me happy? Entertaining hockey. For 2-3 years, I got virtually none of that. Instead, I got one of the dumbest hockey players I've ever seen with one of the worst shots I've ever seen take 240 shots a season and a guy who looks like he'd rather be doing anything but playing hockey, fumbling the puck in his own zone and getting beat by any player of average skating ability every time down the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Kurri trade
Brendl trade
Lindros trade
Holik signing
Keane/Skrudland signings

all rank ahead of the Gomez and Drury signings in terms of how bad they were.
WHAT??? Don't get me wrong, those were all awful moves, but how can any of those signings be worse? They were made when there was no salary cap. I hated the Holik signing right from the get go, but at least Holik was a good player. He was just miscast (like Drury). Holik is a much better player than Gomez or than Redden was by the time he got here.

I hated the Lindros trade, but the fact is we didn't give up all that much to get him, and for one season, he actually played quite well. Much better than Gomez ever played for this team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
However, my point in bringing up those moves was only to combat the exaggeration of how bad the Gomez and Drury signings really were in the scheme of things. They weren't THAT bad, but that doesn't make them good. The point wasn't to plug them into the discussion about Sather in general. I will say this, if you throw a trade like trading a HOF offensive defenseman in a deal for a less effective goal scorer and a tough D into the equation, Smith made a ton of bad deals over the last 5 years of his tenure.
What exaggeration? What moves in this league, since the lockout, even come close to being as bad? DiPietro, Campbell...what else? Gomez, Redden, and to a lesser extent, Drury, forced this franchise into 3 years of easily avoidable mediocrity. The franchise could have spent 2-3 years simply plugging young players into the lineup and amassing lottery picks, increasing the chances that their organization might hold some future superstars. Instead, they picked up terrible players, put players in awful and incorrect situations, and played (yes, I know this is subjective) some of the worst, most uninteresting, and most boring hockey I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. Not just boring, but infuriating. Oh, and ticket prices went up accordingly to match the big free agent signings.

Yeah, maybe they aren't as bad as the Zubov trade, but at least you could kind of see Smith's thinking. Robitaille was Robitaille, and he wasn't that old.


Last edited by NYR Sting: 09-23-2011 at 06:27 PM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2011, 07:01 PM
  #292
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Again with the hyperbole. Time dulls your senses to these things. Gomez and Drury were both useful players for this team who were not worth their contracts. Holik was basically a useless player for this team. Keane and Skrudland were useless players for this team. Within the confines of the salary cap, there wasn't a single improvement that Gomez presented us from making. The only improvement Drury prevented us from making was not being able to sign Kovalchuk. And yes, we were mediocre instead of terrible. What sticks in your craw is not those moves in particular, but the fact that you would rather see a bad team than even a mildly competitive team. As if somehow that mediocre phase would never happen. It's too bad you didn't get to wallow through the years of bottom feeding teams that you so badly desired. really, it is.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2011, 01:32 AM
  #293
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 Tawnos View Post
Again with the hyperbole. Time dulls your senses to these things.
Sorry, but calling Gomez a useful player is the epitome of hyperbole, and time has nothing to do with it, because as much as I loathe that move today, it doesn't even compare to how angry it made me when it actually happened. That's about as angru as I've ever been over something sports related.

Quote:
Gomez and Drury were both useful players for this team who were not worth their contracts. Holik was basically a useless player for this team. Keane and Skrudland were useless players for this team.
Keane and Skrudland were useless, but calling Holik useless is inaccurate. Holik and Drury actually have a lot in common. They are two of the better defensive forwards to ever play this game, they are two of the better third line centers in the history of the league, and they were both way overpaid and placed in roles they were all wrong for by this team. Holik did not play poorly for this team. He simply couldn't do what this team unfairly asked of him.

There aren't many words that are less applicable to Gomez than useful. Over the last 20 years, Gomez is arguably the most inefficient top 6 forward the league has seen. He's a completely one dimensional player. He's incredibly streaky and inconsistent, a giant indicator that he is not a smart or committed player, and in his 11 year career, this supposed playmaking center has found consistent chemistry with ONE player. This man, who has undoubted world class skating ability and phenomenal hands and passing skills, is an absolute turnover machine who turns the puck over on the rush at the other teams blueline more than any player I've ever seen. He also has a reputation for showing up to camp out of shape and for being lazy.

The most important job that an offensive player has, in addition to scoring or being a part of a scoring effort, is making the most of his time with the puck. Teams need to control the puck in the other team's zone to win, to force the other team to work, to draw penalties. But Gomez doesn't do that. He wastes offensive zone opportunities because he's not a smart player. He makes really, really bad decisions in the offensive zone. He does more to hurt his team than he does to help, because the assist he contributes on any given night isn't worth nearly as much as the dozen opportunities a game that he simply throws in the garbage.

I'm going to break out my favorite statistic ever from a post I made after the 09 season.

2005-06, NJ: 244 shots on goal, 13.5 shooting %
2006-07, NJ: 248, 5.2 %
2007-08, NYR: 242, 6.6 %
2008-09, NYR: 271, 5.9 %

2008-09 shots on goal leaders

1) Ovechkin - 528/56 goals
2) E. Staal - 372/40 goals
...
10) Malkin - 290/35 goals
...
13) Perry - 283/32 goals
...
15) Kovalchuk - 275/43 goals
16) Gomez - 271/16 goals
...
19) Nash - 263/40 goals
...
22) Healtey - 258/39 goals

2008-09 SOG PER GAME Leaders

1) Ovechkin - 6.7 SOG per game
...
9) Lecavalier - 3.8 SOG per game
...
T-14) Malkin (35 goals), Iginla (35 goals), Gomez (16 goals), Kovalchuk (43 goals), D. Sedin (31 goals), Franzen (34 goals), Phaneuf (11 goals) - 3.5 SOG per game

Of the top 75 in shots on goal last season, everyone from Ovechkin on down to Modano, only two players had a shooting percentage lower than Gomez's 5.9%: Dion Phaneuf and Rob Blake.


Quote:
Within the confines of the salary cap, there wasn't a single improvement that Gomez presented us from making. The only improvement Drury prevented us from making was not being able to sign Kovalchuk.
You say "the only" as if it's no big deal. Personally, I'd LOVE to have Kovalchuk on my team, and I'd rather have him than Gaborik, because he's a more dynamic, bigger, stronger, and less injury prone player. And there were plenty of improvements that we could have made. We could have signed other, more useful, and more economically viable players instead, and, as you said, the team could have been bad instead of mediocre, meaning we could have had higher draft picks, and as a result, improved our team.

Quote:
And yes, we were mediocre instead of terrible. What sticks in your craw is not those moves in particular, but the fact that you would rather see a bad team than even a mildly competitive team. As if somehow that mediocre phase would never happen. It's too bad you didn't get to wallow through the years of bottom feeding teams that you so badly desired. really, it is.
Actually, you've got it all wrong. Yes, I would have preferred to see a "bad" team. Yes that would have been better for this franchise's future. But that's not what really sticks in my craw, as you put it. It is these moves in particular. More than any of those other moves in the past, these moves in particular got to me, because every single factor that one would consider prior to making these moves, all of the logic...it all points to one thing: all three of these players, for different reasons, were terrible fits for this team. To even suggest that either Gomez or Drury were good potential linemates for Jagr, which the Rangers tried to convince the fanbase of, was simply preposterous. Drury was successful in Buffalo as a third line center who played on a stacked PP unit with a bunch of skill players. This team expected him to be a top six center on a team severely lacking in skill players. Redden, in his last seasons in Ottawa, was obviously unmotivated, uninvolved, and most importantly, extremely slow. Redden also found great success playing on, again, an absolutely STACKED PP unit. Like Drury, on that PP unit, he was the least talented player on the ice.

And then you get to Gomez, who was never a player of great importance for great Devil teams, who the Devils rightly recognized as an incredibly flawed player (as detailed above) who benefited greatly from the system they ran and the incredible depth they had during their hey day. A player who needs a myriad of things to happen around him for him to be a positive for his team, instead of a negative. Practically none of those things were possibilities with the Rangers. Efficiency is one of the most important things in any pursuit in life, and sports are no different. Efficiency wins hockey games. So why would you ever want a player known most of all for his inefficiency on your team, no matter the cost? Why would you want him on your team for 4 million, much less 7? I wouldn't want him on my team for the league minimum. He hinders your team's chances of winning because he's not a good player. He's all flash, no substance.

What is too bad is that not only did I have to be a fan enduring sheer stupidity from the management, I had to endure sheer stupidity on the ice. It wasn't great having to resent a guy who was one of my favorite players ever in Drury, either.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2011, 02:02 AM
  #294
Zuccarello Awesome*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 500
Oh my god. Posts too long. Does not compute. Must sleep.

Zuccarello Awesome* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2011, 08:40 AM
  #295
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Nooo sports are actually not black and white at all. They are to some people. Again the definitive and wrong statements thrown in for no apparent reason. I listed all of these good and bad things from the last few years while fully acknowledging how bad father was his first half. U conveniently seem to have ignored all of those points. Literally I mention all the grey and u looked at it, turned to me and said there is no grey. Wen a GM is around as long as him it's expected that many fans will demand success or nothing however those same fans should also b able to realize that others would rather microanalyzer each and every move to ascertain eat direction the team is headed overall. I apologize for the typos im on an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
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.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2011, 09:32 AM
  #296
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Nooo sports are actually not black and white at all. They are to some people. Again the definitive and wrong statements thrown in for no apparent reason. I listed all of these good and bad things from the last few years while fully acknowledging how bad father was his first half. U conveniently seem to have ignored all of those points. Literally I mention all the grey and u looked at it, turned to me and said there is no grey. Wen a GM is around as long as him it's expected that many fans will demand success or nothing however those same fans should also b able to realize that others would rather microanalyzer each and every move to ascertain eat direction the team is headed overall. I apologize for the typos im on an iPhone.
The problem is that you and several others are so busy debating the merits of each individual tree that you can't see the forest. Whether Gomez was a good signing, a bad signing, or somewhere in between doesn't matter.

The question isn't what moves has Sather made. The question is, what has this team ACCOMPLISHED during Sather's tenure. And the answer, again, is very little. Even post lockout, the team has at best been middle of the pack. We haven't even once managed to win home ice advantage.

Let me put it to you this way. There are 30 teams in the league and 16 teams make the playoffs. In the 10 seaons Sather has been here, that's 160 playoff teams. The Rangers only account for 5 of those. That's just slightly below average. (160 / 30 = 5.33)

Has the team been better since the lockout? Absolutely. But they went from "not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a lottery pick" to "good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to do anything in the playoffs". The second is undoubtably better than the first, but it's not near enough to what was expected when Sather became the GM. I don't even see how there can be an argument that Sather has been anything but a failure during his time here.

That things look on paper to be improving doesn't change that. Again, get back to me when we actually see the results. Then and only then will Sather get credit. I still won't trust him, but I'll give him credit for building 1 good team out of 11.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2011, 08:25 AM
  #297
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The problem is that you and several others are so busy debating the merits of each individual tree that you can't see the forest. Whether Gomez was a good signing, a bad signing, or somewhere in between doesn't matter.
The question isn't what moves has Sather made. The question is, what has this team ACCOMPLISHED during Sather's tenure. And the answer, again, is very little. Even post lockout, the team has at best been middle of the pack. We haven't even once managed to win home ice advantage.

Let me put it to you this way. There are 30 teams in the league and 16 teams make the playoffs. In the 10 seaons Sather has been here, that's 160 playoff teams. The Rangers only account for 5 of those. That's just slightly below average. (160 / 30 = 5.33)

Has the team been better since the lockout? Absolutely. But they went from "not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a lottery pick" to "good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to do anything in the playoffs". The second is undoubtably better than the first, but it's not near enough to what was expected when Sather became the GM. I don't even see how there can be an argument that Sather has been anything but a failure during his time here.

That things look on paper to be improving doesn't change that. Again, get back to me when we actually see the results. Then and only then will Sather get credit. I still won't trust him, but I'll give him credit for building 1 good team out of 11.

Nooo the problem is we are analyzing each individual tree to get a more accurate prediction for what lies in the forest which NONE of us can see but you people like to act like you can see what's grown in the forest when you can't see it while simultaneously telling everyone else not to take a guess about what's there. You seem to be advocating the wrong notion that fans should not be allowed to analyze and estimate their team's chances which is all that's happenning here. I personally am not guaranteeing anything and I've done more than enough to acknowledge the reasons why we have a possibility to fail miserably to. My point is stop being an overbearing creep and if fans have logical and good reasons for looking forward to the season than either debate us or leave us alone...but to imply fans should never estimate their teams worth before the season starts is just stupid. Again it's not even like I offer a guarantee that this team will achieve success and it's not like I ignore who's behind the wheel and I certainly am not ignoring the possiblity that he screws it all up again so really whats your problem with what I said? Last season i thought we'd be real bad but I didn't act like a jerk and force people to give up their hope for a good season. You and guys like pld who I'm convinced just doesn't read seem to be trying to force people to give up hope instead of debating us with logic and reason. THATS the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
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?
But again win what? The cup? Every year your team doesn't win the cup it's not a success? You know damn well that at some points you have to look at progress at success. You don't go from worst to first. You build your way there. And again you seem to be entertaining the false notion that I'm saying Sather stilld eserves to be here b/c your point makes no sense based on what i actually said. Sather does not deserve to be here still but I'm objective enough to take the last few seasons and moves on their own merit as if he just got here. If any other GM pulled off the trades and moves and setup the team we have now then my thoughts would be almost exactly the same: Good looking team. has a chance to contend or fail miserably. Not guaranteed to become a contender at all yet but I'm super excited.

Only with Sather I add the caveat "Our GM has screwed it all up before and can do it again."


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 09-26-2011 at 08:40 AM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2011, 08:57 AM
  #298
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
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.
Your comment "We won't contend if a bunch of stuff doesn't happen."

Why do you need these things explained to you? It's very easy. Before a season fans, prognosticators, analysts, TV Shows, etc all look at the team as constructed for the year and make predictions about how the team is going to do IF a bunch of things happen. Why this comes as a shock to you i don't know. All I am doing is speculating on the chance of success while acknowledging a chance for failure definitely exists. Ironic because while I am estimating chance of failure IF a bunch of stuff happens (As millions of people around the world do before every season) you are estimating chances of failure IF a bunch of stuff doesn't happen. Yet in your self involved world it's ok for you to estimate failure but you act as if the notion of estimating success is some mythical beast.

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.

Oh really you mean a team with holes that they could overcome or could fail to overcome? That's kinda what i'm talking about when I say "CHANCE" to contend and "CHANCE" to fail. There's a lot of good with this team and a lot of question marks and bad..

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.

So you see no difference then from 2000-2004 compared to 2005-2008 compared to 2009-now? You are totally blind then.

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.

I said you can discuss both but one would seem to make a little more sense. People do this thing called learning from mistakes. People do this thing called making improvements. My suggestion is that while I personally have not fully bought in it appears Sather is learning and improving from old mistakes. He can still screw up though. Ever hear the term what hagve you done for me lately? By your standard we should judge Messier's 2nd half with this team the same as his first half..legendary. Or take the common sense approach and look at each individual segment of his tenure by its own merit while also remaining aware of his whole tenure. Again though back to the what have you done for me lately I still say Sather has not done enarly enough for me lately. I just acknowledge he's done something which is better than the nothing he used to do.

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.

Since no 1 team can succeed or fail based on one draft almost a decade later I think it's kinda reasonable to look at all of the moves made today and think that the impact of 1 draft 8 years ago is negated just a liiiittle bit.

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.
Why would I color you anything you have a right to your own opinion. I've only said 10000 times I understand that not everyone will agree we have built a good team and that's fine. it's just my logical conclusion. Thinking we have too many holes is ALSO very logical though so i have nothing against your opinion. The problem is you fail miserably to entitle me to mine. It's your illogical dismissal of anything good because of what happenned in 2003 that bothers me.

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.
K and this last part is your logical opinion. But you should be gracious enough to figure out that others have a different logical viewpoint.

JimmyStart* 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 04:25 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.