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

Glen Sather and his Staff - Botta

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-12-2012, 10:52 AM
  #26
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
It also takes time to build a staff of people who you can trust. Like the article says, the GM oversees everything, but he doesn't make those decisions by himself.
The decisions that were made are inexcuseable. You shouldn't need a couple of top notch assistant GM's, consultants & scouts to tell you that building a team around mercenaries & falling angels, while having no plan for development of youth, & hiring some truly terrible coaches to guide the ship, is not a wise plan.

Frankly, it's remarkable how much this organization has changed with the same guy at the helm. I'm not sure what to make of it.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 11:14 AM
  #27
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
It also takes time to build a staff of people who you can trust. Like the article says, the GM oversees everything, but he doesn't make those decisions by himself.
There is no excuse for his trades. No excuse for horrid drafting and no excuses why his tenure so far has netted two second round playoff exits and nothing else.

We all feel good about what is going on, but that does not erase the embarassment of an organization that he turned the Rangers into in the not so distant past.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 11:17 AM
  #28
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,050
vCash: 500
Sather recognized the mistakes of the Smith era. However, he constructed a new set of mistakes, consisting of poor coaching hires, poor personnel decisions and brutal drafting. Aside from getting extremely lucky on the selection of Lundqvist, (a choice made from input of Smith's scouting staff), NO depth was accumulated from the drafts of 2001-3, and while Montoya and Korpikoski have begun to prove themselves as NHL players, the draft of 2004 proved to be a case of quite a few missed opportunities. Given the incompetency of his reign in the pre-lockout years, Sather did not warrant a 2nd chance to rebuild in 2004. Yes, things are finally on track, and there are competent people in all areas of the organization, and for that, Sather deserves credit. But, he also earned the scorn heaped upon him from his performance from 2000-04.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 11:36 AM
  #29
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
There is no excuse for his trades. No excuse for horrid drafting and no excuses why his tenure so far has netted two second round playoff exits and nothing else.

We all feel good about what is going on, but that does not erase the embarassment of an organization that he turned the Rangers into in the not so distant past.
Again, the Rangers were as low as they ever were when he came here.

I know the organizations extreme lack of success over the past century somehow makes Neil Smith a folk hero for his part in the '94 cup, but I do not understand how people can convince themselves that he did not absolutely destroy the Rangers before he left. The post-cup signings were horrendous, the trades were brutal and the drafting was even worse. The only guys he drafted after '91 that could even loosely be considered impact players were Savard and Norstrom, who he traded away, and maybe Kim Johnsson. That included 4 top 10 picks.

If MSG somehow assembled a crack team consisting of every great GM throughout history, the Rangers probably still do not get back in the playoffs until after the lockout. That is how bad it was.

Sather has earned the crap he has gotten over the years, but lets not fool ourselves here about the state of the team when Neil Smith left.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 11:48 AM
  #30
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,961
vCash: 500
Silence is Power

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 11:50 AM
  #31
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I know the organizations extreme lack of success over the past century somehow makes Neil Smith a folk hero for his part in the '94 cup, but I do not understand how people can convince themselves that he did not absolutely destroy the Rangers before he left.
Not saying that Smith did not make his share of mistakes, but can you name another GM that presided over a Rangers Cup winning team? Yes,he made his share of mistakes, but he also brought in good talent, and THEN sold his and the organization's soul.
Quote:
The post-cup signings were horrendous, the trades were brutal and the drafting was even worse. The only guys he drafted after '91 that could even loosely be considered impact players were Savard and Norstrom, who he traded away, and maybe Kim Johnsson. That included 4 top 10 picks.
Not the road to go on, when discussing Sather's tenure that followed Smith. Think of those trades, signings and lack of drafting anything that resembled a player.
Quote:
Sather has earned the crap he has gotten over the years, but lets not fool ourselves here about the state of the team when Neil Smith left.
That is still no excuse for compounding the mistakes and makign the situation THAT much worse.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 12:29 PM
  #32
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Smith may have handcuffed the team for years to come but ANY and EVERY NYR fan was and would've been fine with that, since it yielded results.

Sather has had no such bottom line. He's had every opportunity to make this team a winner and is only now finding MODERATE success.

If this squad wins the Cup I'll change my tune (I'll be signing like a bird in fact), until that happens he's still a too little, too late GM for me. As GAG stated above, without the Cap and the latest CBA we'd still be signing aging vets and unless Sather would've stilll hired Clark, we'd still have no farm system.

Don't get me wrong, I love the direction we're in now... I'm just not able to sweep everything else under the rug yet.

Riche16 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 12:35 PM
  #33
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,961
vCash: 500
This is sports, not the fate of nations. It's all about what's working now and sticking to that. The past is irrelevant.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 01:25 PM
  #34
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Not saying that Smith did not make his share of mistakes, but can you name another GM that presided over a Rangers Cup winning team? Yes,he made his share of mistakes, but he also brought in good talent, and THEN sold his and the organization's soul.
That says more about the sad past of the Rangers than anything about Neil Smith.

Full credit goes to Smith for his part in the early 90's. Doesn't change what he did to the team before he left.


Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Not the road to go on, when discussing Sather's tenure that followed Smith. Think of those trades, signings and lack of drafting anything that resembled a player.
Actually as bad as Sather was in drafting/trading when he first got here, he absolutely crushes Neil Smith in the late 90's. The 2001 draft alone is pretty much better than the 96, 97, 98, and 99 drafts (which featured 3 top 10 picks) combined.

And that is a sad, sad, sad statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
That is still no excuse for compounding the mistakes and makign the situation THAT much worse.
Sather has gotten his fair share of abuse on this board, in the media and by the fans at the Garden. They even had a rally about firing him. I doubt ANYONE has excused what he has done in the past.



I guess I will just never understand the undying love for Neil Smith. His tenure with the Rangers pretty much mirrors Sathers post Gretzky time in Edmonton. A cup. A conference final. A handful of playoff appearances. Except when Sather left Edmonton they were a playoff team. And I doubt anyone would consider Sather's time in Edmonton in the 90's as anything better than mediocre at best.

I mean look at peoples opinion of Messier. The guy was as big a part of winning the cup as anyone. That didn't stop him from being crapped on relentlessly for years on this board. Why wasn't he immune to criticism? How many Ranger players have captained a team that has won a Presidents trophy and a Cup?

BTW welcome back to the board TB.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 01:41 PM
  #35
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I guess I will just never understand the undying love for Neil Smith.
Not sure that it is about the undying love, as it is recognition. He is pretty much persona non gratta at the Garden. Heck, even Kennan was welcomed back with open arms. People tend to forget about the good things that Smith did, before the Cup. In the end, both him and Kennan get to take part in credit of doing something that no one else has done in 72 years.
Quote:
BTW welcome back to the board TB.
Thanks. Lots seemed to have changes and some things, not at all.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 02:12 PM
  #36
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitto79 View Post
good article. Chemistry is a big reason for the teams success which is why I think we can rule out a Bobby Ryan deal this yr.......it would mean moving a Dubi or Anisimov plus.....

Its going to be a rental for picks and/or prospect which is fine with me. Let Kreider ,Miller , Thomas fight for a roster spot next yr too.

Keep building from within its working!
Darn right! I would also hate to move a roster player(aside from WW, EC, etc) or any of those prospects that I would classify as "untouchable."(Kreider, Miller, Mcilrath). Thomas is another story though; not completely sold on him.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 02:18 PM
  #37
NYRKING30
Registered User
 
NYRKING30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The salary cap is the best thing to happen to the Rangers since 94. It forced the organization to build the right way.
agreed here, that changed his and the rest of our organization's philosophy. i also would give a ton of credit to gorton, schony, clark and the rest of the staff as well. most of all=JOHN TORTORELLA. 3 years ago sather bought what torts sold. 3 years later the team has bought what torts sold. credit is due all around from the coach to the gm.

NYRKING30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 03:25 PM
  #38
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Not sure that it is about the undying love, as it is recognition. He is pretty much persona non gratta at the Garden. Heck, even Kennan was welcomed back with open arms. People tend to forget about the good things that Smith did, before the Cup. In the end, both him and Kennan get to take part in credit of doing something that no one else has done in 72 years.

Thanks. Lots seemed to have changes and some things, not at all.
Welcome back as well TB. Been too long.

What's changed is that the Rangers finally decided to stick to the over used declaration of building from within. It's working now and it always would have worked. Sather has received much deserved criticism for all the bone headed moves he made from 2000 up thru the Redden signing. It will keep happening and I suppose to an extent it should, but it's been done to death, IMO. I'd rather focus on the here and now.

What has not changed is that a lot folks are unwilling give the guy any credit at all. It's really a desire to hold on to some really old bones. I can see them watching the clock tick off the final seconds as we win a Cup and posting something along the lines of "I'll never forgive Sather for signing Redden". You just know if we're lucky enough to see the former, we'll be laughing our selves silly seeing the latter.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 03:33 PM
  #39
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
Welcome back as well TB. Been too long.

You just know if we're lucky enough to see the former, we'll be laughing our selves silly seeing the latter.
It has. Lots of good posters are missing from here. Maybe a good Purinton debate will bring them back?

We will, but only after we had years of tears. Look, does he get credit now? Sather gets credit for moving the organization into the right direction. He still only has 2 end round playoff exits to hang his hat on. Most of us, who inhabited this board during teh dark ages, can never really forget those years. It was one thing to be a bad team. It was quite another to be the joke of professional sports. Who could forget the befuddled look on Ron Low's face when he was behind the bench? I enjoy what I see now. The team is what we always wanted (more or less) and a team that we can be proud of. And Sather should take some credit for that as well. But he has a lot of work to do to make someone forget the past. But, that said, we can and should enjoy what is right here,right now.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 03:42 PM
  #40
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
11 years. That's how long it took for him to get it right. 1 years. How many of Sather's peers have had a 11 year leash to screw up as many times as they could, constantly get bailed out by it thanks to a financial advantage over much of the competition, and far more resources to work with in other areas than most teams, as well.

We have a very good hockey team that is only going to get better in the years to come, but 11 years is a very, very long time to wait for that to happen. And when you consider how exactly those 11 years progressed, the levels of incompetence that were put on display, it makes giving Sather credit very difficult to do. It's hard to give credit to someone who needed more than a decade to figure out that you don't surround your own incompetence with even greater incompetence in a sad display of endless cronyism and nepotism.

Heck, if Bob Gainey didn't agree to make one of the stupidest transactions in NHL history, who knows how good this team would be right now? You can't dump both Gomez and Redden in the minors.

Thanks to Slats for finally cleaning up his own mess, but no one should ever forget how big a mess he created or how pathetically long it took him to stop repeating his own moronic mistakes.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 04:11 PM
  #41
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
See below.


Last edited by Tawnos: 01-12-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 04:12 PM
  #42
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
Personally speaking, Neil Smith, in my opinion, did not get near the leeway he should have gotten.

The signings in 1999 were done to bridge a gap from when the kids would have been ready to take over. He got one year and was canned.

I believe that Neil Smith would have done a good job of turning the Rangers around.
Keep in mind that Neil Smith had a very very good reputation with identifying young talent AND working with them as evidenced by winning a minor league championships for the Islanders in 81-82 and with the Wing Org in 85-86 and again in 88-89 before coming to the Rangers.

Additionally he was at the helm for drafting Sergei Nemchinov, Alexei Kovalev, Doug Weight, and Sergei Zubov, Mike York, Nik Sundstrom, Todd Marchant

Also, much like Sather with Cherry, NS had his own top notch draft pick not work out due to injury, Stefan Cherneski back in 1997. A shattered knee cap did him in.

I think if NS was allowed to rebuild the Rangers (as that was the direction he was headed) we would not have endured the last 11 years of Sathers failures.

NS gutted the franchise to win. He did so with the best of intentions. And I'm sure he did so with the full and complete blessings of Dolan. He should have been given the same leeway in 2000 that Sather got post lockout.

I believe we would be in the same position today, but we would have gotten there back in 2005

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 04:13 PM
  #43
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
11 years. That's how long it took for him to get it right. 1 years. How many of Sather's peers have had a 11 year leash to screw up as many times as they could, constantly get bailed out by it thanks to a financial advantage over much of the competition, and far more resources to work with in other areas than most teams, as well.

We have a very good hockey team that is only going to get better in the years to come, but 11 years is a very, very long time to wait for that to happen. And when you consider how exactly those 11 years progressed, the levels of incompetence that were put on display, it makes giving Sather credit very difficult to do. It's hard to give credit to someone who needed more than a decade to figure out that you don't surround your own incompetence with even greater incompetence in a sad display of endless cronyism and nepotism.

Heck, if Bob Gainey didn't agree to make one of the stupidest transactions in NHL history, who knows how good this team would be right now? You can't dump both Gomez and Redden in the minors.

Thanks to Slats for finally cleaning up his own mess, but no one should ever forget how big a mess he created or how pathetically long it took him to stop repeating his own moronic mistakes.
I get what you and TB are saying Sting. It's just that life is too damn short not to enjoy the goods when you have them. Grinding molar dust over what Sather did or didn't do is just letting the bad be the enemy of the good. I'm not going to rush out and by a bronze bust of Sather to rest my Stetson on, but you have to give the guy credit for getting out of his own way at least. I simply want to enjoy whats good while it lasts. Just my opinion.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2012, 04:26 PM
  #44
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
@Sting

Post like this drive me nuts. It's a process. One that doesn't happen overnight. 11 years to get this right? This particular incarnation of the Rangers has been in motion and the goal for nearly 7 years. Everything that's happened since '06 has been to keep the team "competitive" while all of this has been going on. (Side note: 04-05 probably would've been a horrible season on the level we've almost never seen from this organization since the early 60s. 05-06 was surprisingly good and convinced the executive team on this competitive rebuild course, probably a money decision) Rebuilds of this nature are slow.

We're talking about a organization whose future was bankrupt in 2004. That team had 3 young homegrown players play half the season or more. Two were 4th line forwards and one was a #7 defenseman. Only four Rangers prospects in the org in 2004 became long-term NHL regulars (Tyutin, Lundqvist, Zidlicky, Moore).

Many people believe that letting the team be bad and getting high draft picks is the best way to rebuild. I can't say I disagree, necessarily. I can say that such a course was unlikely to ever happen with the Rangers. Not in an organization that has missed the playoffs something like 4 times in the last 40 years, outside of that 8 year drought.

So, in light of the fact that we were unlikely to see a bottom feeder rebuild from this team, how long should one expect to take a bankrupt organization and turn it into a competitor? When they do work, bottom feeding rebuilds take about 4-5 years on average. As I mentioned, competitive rebuilds are slower. Is 7 years really that big of a surprise? Logically, it should not be.

But this has still been a rebuilding team. Yeah, the playoff record isn't great since the lockout. But was it really supposed to be? We overpaid for some players. Drury was never a $7m forward, even with his intangibles. Gomez was never a $7.3m forward. (Oh, and enough of this "Sather lucked into that trade because Gainey is an idiot." I doubt Gainey just gave Sather those players. I bet Sather sold Gainey on the trade) Redden was never a $6.5m forward. The thing is that these all ended up being stopgaps. They all ended up being replaced by players we drafted. The thing that Sather really lacked was the foresight to keep those deals shorter, or in Redden's case, not to make it at all. It wasn't the size of the contracts that was the problem, it was the length.

Getting back to the 11 years thing. If there was a moment that Sather should have been fired, it was before the lockout. Since then, this has been his plan. Dolan gave him the green light to do it and Dolan is not going to fire a guy when the guy has been able to point to progress the entire time. He didn't suddenly start getting it right this season. The process has been correct for the majority of Sather's tenure at this point.


Last edited by Tawnos: 01-12-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 11:41 AM
  #45
wafflepadsave
Registered User
 
wafflepadsave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
11 years. That's how long it took for him to get it right. 1 years. How many of Sather's peers have had a 11 year leash to screw up as many times as they could, constantly get bailed out by it thanks to a financial advantage over much of the competition, and far more resources to work with in other areas than most teams, as well.

We have a very good hockey team that is only going to get better in the years to come, but 11 years is a very, very long time to wait for that to happen. And when you consider how exactly those 11 years progressed, the levels of incompetence that were put on display, it makes giving Sather credit very difficult to do. It's hard to give credit to someone who needed more than a decade to figure out that you don't surround your own incompetence with even greater incompetence in a sad display of endless cronyism and nepotism.

Heck, if Bob Gainey didn't agree to make one of the stupidest transactions in NHL history, who knows how good this team would be right now? You can't dump both Gomez and Redden in the minors.

Thanks to Slats for finally cleaning up his own mess, but no one should ever forget how big a mess he created or how pathetically long it took him to stop repeating his own moronic mistakes.
It has taken this many years to assemble enough voices in the room to collectively tell him No! And go sit in the corner until you can forget about Souray

wafflepadsave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 12:39 PM
  #46
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
@Sting

Post like this drive me nuts. It's a process. One that doesn't happen overnight. 11 years to get this right? This particular incarnation of the Rangers has been in motion and the goal for nearly 7 years. Everything that's happened since '06 has been to keep the team "competitive" while all of this has been going on. (Side note: 04-05 probably would've been a horrible season on the level we've almost never seen from this organization since the early 60s. 05-06 was surprisingly good and convinced the executive team on this competitive rebuild course, probably a money decision) Rebuilds of this nature are slow.
Right back at ya. Can you show me how many of Sather's peers were afforded 7 years, much less 11? Rebuilds of this nature don't really happen, because it doesn't make much sense to subject your fanbase to absolutely dreadful hockey the likes of which this team played for about 4 years. I appreciate your putting the word competitive in quotation marks, because calling this team over that span competitive is highly subjective. IMO, this team was largely awful, with 1-2 players a season dragging it into mediocrity at best.

Quote:
Many people believe that letting the team be bad and getting high draft picks is the best way to rebuild. I can't say I disagree, necessarily. I can say that such a course was unlikely to ever happen with the Rangers. Not in an organization that has missed the playoffs something like 4 times in the last 40 years, outside of that 8 year drought.

So, in light of the fact that we were unlikely to see a bottom feeder rebuild from this team, how long should one expect to take a bankrupt organization and turn it into a competitor? When they do work, bottom feeding rebuilds take about 4-5 years on average. As I mentioned, competitive rebuilds are slower. Is 7 years really that big of a surprise? Logically, it should not be.
I'm not willing to simply forget about those 7 years as if they were nothing. I'm a diehard fan. I don't miss a game. Watching this team for the majority of those 7 years (not to mention the four that preceded them) was torture. It may not have been for you, but it was for me.

The fact that such a process (one that, as you said, is not necessarily the best process in such a situation anyway) is inherently lengthy does not mean that it must be filled with boring hockey. It doesn't mean the team has to contain players who are lazy, uncommitted, uninspired, etc. You can rebuild competitively and not place the future of your team in serious danger by committing to moves that are mind numbingly bad and that you have no guarantee of getting out of, even if Sather did.

Quote:
But this has still been a rebuilding team. Yeah, the playoff record isn't great since the lockout. But was it really supposed to be? We overpaid for some players. Drury was never a $7m forward, even with his intangibles. Gomez was never a $7.3m forward. (Oh, and enough of this "Sather lucked into that trade because Gainey is an idiot." I doubt Gainey just gave Sather those players. I bet Sather sold Gainey on the trade) Redden was never a $6.5m forward. The thing is that these all ended up being stopgaps. They all ended up being replaced by players we drafted. The thing that Sather really lacked was the foresight to keep those deals shorter, or in Redden's case, not to make it at all. It wasn't the size of the contracts that was the problem, it was the length.
In my eyes, this is where your argument loses whatever credibility it had. First of all, the notion that the problem was length of contracts is an easy excuse that let's Sather off the hook for the fact that clearly, he has absolutely no idea how to analyze the sport (or, that the people he initially thought were the right people to help him don't). If Sather doesn't offer up length in those contracts, those players don't sign here. And the fact that he was willing to offer that length signifies that his plan wasn't simply to have these guys here for 2-3 years.

You most certainly can sign stop gaps as you rebuild, if that's what you want to do. The issue is that Sather, or wheover he originally brought in to help him, signed three players to three of the worst contracts in pro sports, TOTALLY misjudging not only the abilities of these players, but the roles that these players should fill, and the factors that allow these players to be the most useful.

Chris Drury was a third line center power play specialist. There were a number of reasons why he was a big offensive contributor in Buffalo and Colorado. The Rangers had NONE of those factors on their team, never were able to provide any of them for Drury, paid him like a superstar, and then spent most of this time here playing him in the wrong role. Any competent analysis of Scott Gomez's career should lead to one stark conclusion: he is one of the least efficient, least consistent, lowest IQ, and most overrated players of his generation, and one who has a history of failing to properly utilize the great natural talents that he does have and struggles to find chemistry with most players as a result. It should also lead you to conclude quite easily that he's a HORRIBLE fit to play on a line with Jaromir Jagr. You don't even need an analysis of Wade Redden to know that even before the Rangers signed him, he was done. Everything that had made him a boon in the pre-lockout NHL made him a burden following it. All you needed to know that was a pair of eyes and some video footage.

And while their contracts weren't quite as bad, the same type of blatant idiocy and disregard for logic when constructing a roster and evaluating personnel was displayed in the moves that brought Kotalik, Brashear, and Boogaard to this team, as well.

Below, you say that he had a plan. He may have had a plan, but throughout that plan, he continued to make mistakes of the epic variety, routinely putting the health of the franchise in danger. I don't believe buying out Chris Drury and pushing him into retirement was part of the plan. I don't believe trading Scott Gomez was part of the plan. And, yes, I do believe Sather lucked out BIG TIME, because Bob Gainey was under a bunch of pressure to acquire a playmaking center. Given that Montreal has difficulty attracting top free agents, and some ridiculously uninformed lowered expectations regarding McDonagh, he succumbed to that pressure and displayed that, like Sather, he clearly has no idea how to evaluate talent. I don't think Sather convinced him of anything, I just think he's as out of touch with the game as Sather is, and made the same mistakes that Sather made in signing Gomez, finding himself in love with statistics while failing to put them into context and do any homework. Maybe he simply didn't have his heart in the job after the tragic loss of his daughter only a couple of years earlier. Either that, or Bob Gainey had a vindictive agenda against the Montreal Canadiens and sought to destroy them from within. Back to the point, I don't believe burying Wade Redden in the minors was part of the plan, and if it was, why should he get credit for doing something that the majority of his peers simply can't do because of financial realities governing their situations?

Quote:
Getting back to the 11 years thing. If there was a moment that Sather should have been fired, it was before the lockout. Since then, this has been his plan. Dolan gave him the green light to do it and Dolan is not going to fire a guy when the guy has been able to point to progress the entire time. He didn't suddenly start getting it right this season. The process has been correct for the majority of Sather's tenure at this point.
There's no if about Sather being fired. He should have been fired 10 times over at this point. I'm not going to absolve him of the plethora of massive mistakes he's made just because he took advantage of the advantages that he has over the majority of his peers (and he has quite a few), and because he ended up being lucky enough that he was able to peddle his biggest mistake off on an equally large nincompoop, and make his second largest mistake disappear like an organized crime syndicate gets rid of people who can't keep quiet. Heck, the fact that Brad Richards was available this summer as a free agent was incredibly fortuitous for Sather, as well. Say what you will about Richards' play this season, but this team is a lot closer to the 8th seed than they are the 1st without Richards.

I continue to believe what I have for a number of years now regarding Sather. For his job performance spanning from about 1991-2009, give or take a year, he is one of the worst front office executives in the history of modern major professional team sports. He has virtually every competitive advantage he can ask for, he has free reign to do whatever he wants, he never has to answer for any mistake, despite making some of the biggest mistakes ever in his field, and he's lucky enough to ply his trade in a market where even the media and the fans largely don't hold him accountable. The only thing I'm willing to give him credit for is that, finally, he got out of his own way and hired a bunch of people who know what they're doing...only after he spent years hiring his friends, most of whom didn't know what they were doing.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 12:49 PM
  #47
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Personally speaking, Neil Smith, in my opinion, did not get near the leeway he should have gotten.

The signings in 1999 were done to bridge a gap from when the kids would have been ready to take over. He got one year and was canned.

I believe that Neil Smith would have done a good job of turning the Rangers around.
Keep in mind that Neil Smith had a very very good reputation with identifying young talent AND working with them as evidenced by winning a minor league championships for the Islanders in 81-82 and with the Wing Org in 85-86 and again in 88-89 before coming to the Rangers.

Additionally he was at the helm for drafting Sergei Nemchinov, Alexei Kovalev, Doug Weight, and Sergei Zubov, Mike York, Nik Sundstrom, Todd Marchant

Also, much like Sather with Cherry, NS had his own top notch draft pick not work out due to injury, Stefan Cherneski back in 1997. A shattered knee cap did him in.

I think if NS was allowed to rebuild the Rangers (as that was the direction he was headed) we would not have endured the last 11 years of Sathers failures.

NS gutted the franchise to win. He did so with the best of intentions. And I'm sure he did so with the full and complete blessings of Dolan. He should have been given the same leeway in 2000 that Sather got post lockout.

I believe we would be in the same position today, but we would have gotten there back in 2005
Disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Neil Smith got plenty of leeway. He made awful trades, proved to be an awful drafter and his free agent signings were horrendous.

The fact that he was behind a decades worth of drafts and Mike York, Nik Sundstrom, and Todd Marchant are "noteworthy" should tell you something.

His last two years were the worst. What part of him drafting Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark and signing Maclean, Fedyk, Fleury, Kamensky, Quintal, Hatcher, Lefebvre makes you think another decade of him would have been anything but an absolute disaster?

There is probably a reason he has never gotten another GM job outside of a month with the Islanders.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 01:43 PM
  #48
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Neil Smith got plenty of leeway. He made awful trades, proved to be an awful drafter and his free agent signings were horrendous.

The fact that he was behind a decades worth of drafts and Mike York, Nik Sundstrom, and Todd Marchant are "noteworthy" should tell you something.

His last two years were the worst. What part of him drafting Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark and signing Maclean, Fedyk, Fleury, Kamensky, Quintal, Hatcher, Lefebvre makes you think another decade of him would have been anything but an absolute disaster?

There is probably a reason he has never gotten another GM job outside of a month with the Islanders.
The Minor League championships that he won with the Islanders and Red Wings lead me to believe that he had an eye for young talent and an ability to work with them.

Now, you mention Malhotra, didnt work out, but you tactfully forget that Colorado offered 3 of their 4 first rounders in that same draft year to take Manny Malhotra. Neil Smith was not the only GM high on the kid. The problem was more that he was rushed to the NHL and forced down Mucklers throat who didn't like that so he did nothing to nurture the kid's talent.

Lets go back to Lundmark and Brendl. Lundmark was being touted as the next Jeremy Roenick during his draft year. And Pavel had a questionable work ethic, but his talent was undeniable and had the Rangers not taken him at 4, he would have never lasted past 5.

The signings made sense as Dolan was the guy that was in the locker at the end of the 98-99 season talking about bringing in guys during free agency. Fleury was the best available player on the market and ONLY got a 3 year deal. The only real questionable deals out of the 6 that summer was Stephane Quintal and Val Kamensky. The others filled needs and served a purpose.

The fact that Dolan ENDORSED THE SIGNINGS under the understanding of what it was for (building a gap) and then fired Smith when they didn't make the PO's.

Additionally, you can thank NS and HIS Staff for Lundqvist.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 03:31 PM
  #49
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
@ Sting... I get it. You like to focus solely on the negative aspects of the last 7 years, or at least of nearly everything involved with the Rangers.

Of course, you also say you're not going to ignore the last 7 years. I agree with you. I don't ignore the last 7 years, either. You just ignore large parts of the last 7 years, while I try to look at the whole picture.

Rebuilds of this nature don't really happen? Tell that to Detroit. Tell that to San Jose. Tell that to Philadelphia. All of those teams have rebuilt competitively (no quotations) in the last decade. If you'd prefer, you can call it "re-tooled with youth." It's the same thing: phase out the vets and phase in the youth. The difference is that the Rangers were doing it from a starting point of nothing, whereas those teams did it from a starting point of already being competitive.

As for the rest of it, I understand where you're coming from. I really do. If you were to ask me if I've been a "happy Rangers fan" for the last 7 years, I would say not at all. If you were to ask me if I would prefer someone else running the Rangers, I would say "absolutely." To me, there's a lot of dichotomy involved when looking at Glen Sather. I wouldn't say I like it that way. You say (or at least imply) that Sather's early tenure is unforgivable. Personally, I don't need to forgive the guy. He is the GM of the Rangers. I want to see the GM of the Rangers succeed. I don't care who he is.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2012, 04:54 PM
  #50
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
@ Sting... I get it. You like to focus solely on the negative aspects of the last 7 years, or at least of nearly everything involved with the Rangers.
If that makes it easier for you to fail to address the points I made, so be it. To me, it just seems like you're painting me in very broad strokes because it makes dismissing my argument more convenient for you.

Quote:
Of course, you also say you're not going to ignore the last 7 years. I agree with you. I don't ignore the last 7 years, either. You just ignore large parts of the last 7 years, while I try to look at the whole picture.
Please don't predictably paint me as some kind of Grinch or Scrooge, as others have tried in the past, if you're not going to take into account everything I have to say. You know, I was posting here about how the Rangers can and will likely end up getting Brad Richards as early as the middle of 2010, if not earlier. Not just can and will, but should, because as I said even then, the Rangers were in position to be a very good team, thus making such an acquisition reasonable. I have no difficulty "admitting" or enjoying the fact that the Rangers are good right now. I'm incredibly positive about this team today. Please, I implore you, find someone, anyone, who has been talking about how great Henrik Lundqvist or Ryan Callahan are longer than I have. Or about how smart a player Derek Stepan is, or how criminally underrated Michael Sauer is. It's easy to pick and choose what I have to say, but I'm not picking and choosing what Sather has done. I'm simply trying to put it into context. The big picture, as you say. I'm very, very happy about where the Rangers are right now. Thrilled. I've had largely nothing but positive things to say about the team, the coach, etc. this season. But all of this (if not more) could have been achieved just as quickly, if not sooner, in a far less reckless and illogical manner.

Quote:
Rebuilds of this nature don't really happen? Tell that to Detroit. Tell that to San Jose. Tell that to Philadelphia. All of those teams have rebuilt competitively (no quotations) in the last decade. If you'd prefer, you can call it "re-tooled with youth." It's the same thing: phase out the vets and phase in the youth. The difference is that the Rangers were doing it from a starting point of nothing, whereas those teams did it from a starting point of already being competitive.
No, Tawnos. The difference is that the Rangers started from nothing in large part thanks to Glen Sather. The difference is that those teams were in a position to retool on the fly, and did so by making, by and large, well-considered, timely transactions that often brought in the right players, at the right price, and for the right roles. The difference is that those teams brought in elite talent, while the Rangers brought in role players, has-beens, and lazy, overweight dolts, paid them more money than those teams paid for elite talent, and put the future of this plan/process that you want to give Sather such credit for in dire risk. Just because it worked out with them does not mean that it was always destined to. All it would have taken was for Bob Gainey to NOT be interested in trading for Scott Gomez, and this team would be in a much, much different place today. Because if Glen Sather were the GM of the Columbus Blue Jackets, he would have signed Wade Redden just the same, he just wouldn't have been able to afford to bury him in the minors.

Quote:
As for the rest of it, I understand where you're coming from. I really do. If you were to ask me if I've been a "happy Rangers fan" for the last 7 years, I would say not at all. If you were to ask me if I would prefer someone else running the Rangers, I would say "absolutely." To me, there's a lot of dichotomy involved when looking at Glen Sather. I wouldn't say I like it that way. You say (or at least imply) that Sather's early tenure is unforgivable. Personally, I don't need to forgive the guy. He is the GM of the Rangers. I want to see the GM of the Rangers succeed. I don't care who he is.
Then, again, you don't get it, or understand where I'm coming from at all. I don't care about seeing the GM of the Rangers succeeding. I want the Rangers to succeed, and in my eyes, the Rangers have been a pathetic failure for about a decade. Not because they didn't win a Stanley Cup, but because they never had a snowball's chance to. Because the way in which their teams were constructed for a number of consecutive seasons were an insult to their fanbase. Not because they weren't good, but because they were a special kind of bad. Because they took an already drawn out process, overseen by the buffoon who made such a process necessary, and routinely put it and the team's future at risk, not to mention the ability for fans to enjoy the team. Today's success does not change that, especially when it's very easy to see how today's success may not even be here had it no been for a couple of, frankly, lucky events. I'm a pretty difficult person to offend. You can say more or less whatever you want to me about my ethnic background, my appearance, my social status, etc. It doesn't really bother me. But when you try to insult or attack my intelligence, that's something I don't care for. 7/1/07, 7/1/08...these days might as well have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki to me as a Rangers fan. It was as if the team was saying, "not only are we so stupid that we're going to make the same horrifying mistakes again, just much, much worse, but clearly you're even more of a moron, because now we're going raise ticket prices and sit here and tell you how phenomenal this is going to be."

I'm glad the team is good now. I haven't had as much fun watching Rangers hockey as I have this season since I was a child. As happy as that makes me, it also makes me remember why it has been such a long time, and that only a few short years ago, I had never had less fun watching Rangers hockey.

NYR Sting 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 07:53 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.