Sting, I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion enough times for me to know where you stand on these issues. Don't act like what you wrote was anything new from you. At least not to those of us who pay attention around here. I know you have positive things to say about certain aspects of the team. Just not about Sather. It's fine. I was bored, which is why I wrote the diatribe I did. There was nothing new from me in there either.
And, FYI, if the GM for the Rangers is successful, that means the team is successful. The two things are inextricable from each other.
Sting, I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion enough times for me to know where you stand on these issues. Don't act like what you wrote was anything new from you.
That's fine, but you could have just said that without resorting to the, frankly, very annoying "negativity" spiel. That's not exactly original, either, nor is it accurate. You responded to me in this thread, not the other way around, no?
Quote:
And, FYI, if the GM for the Rangers is successful, that means the team is successful. The two things are inextricable from each other.
FYI, with the exclusion of 2006-07 (when all of 3 players still with the team actually played and "benefited from the playoff experience"), the Rangers and their GM avoided success like the plague from 2000-01 through 2010-2011.
I wasn't criticizing the lack of new thought there. I was just saying that you shouldn't be surprised when I don't bother to respond to the same thoughts that have been hashed and re-hashed countless times with the same thoughts as always.
And if you look back at the first post on this page, I did mention that there wasn't new from me in my posts either.
This is some fun though. Of course, I'm bored at work again. Just like I was when I wrote my dissertation earlier in this thread.
I wasn't criticizing the lack of new thought there. I was just saying that you shouldn't be surprised when I don't bother to respond to the same thoughts that have been hashed and re-hashed countless times with the same thoughts as always.
And if you look back at the first post on this page, I did mention that there wasn't new from me in my posts either.
This is some fun though. Of course, I'm bored at work again. Just like I was when I wrote my dissertation earlier in this thread.
Same here, man. Bored, waiting for some freedom, and reminiscing about seasons past. I'm just not a big fan of this reputation for negativity. I don't think it's warranted. I'm very opinionated where this sport is concerned, and I happened to become a regular poster here right at the time when I couldn't have disagreed more with much of what the franchise was doing. I'm plenty positive, when positivity is warranted. But no worries. At least things are going well now, and they should only get better in the near future.
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.
Smith's horrific drafting record pretty much negates anything else he might have done before he was with the Rangers. Or at least makes it irrelevant to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
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.
I did not forget anything. Malhotra was a bust. He never lived up to the promises Neil Smith made. Not that it was too surprising, considering his complete lack of offensive ability. That is the reality, regardless of what Pierre Lacroix may or may not have offered for our pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
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.
And they were busts, just like Malhotra. Almost all players drafted in the top of the first round are "touted". Its a good GMs job to figure out who will be players. Its also a GMs job to figure out when NOT to go "all in" on a draft. Neil Smith managed to make his move on a draft that will go down in history as one of the worst. The only draft in history where the team with the #1 pick not only traded it, but traded out of the first round entirely. The '99 debacle is almost as ridiculous as '03. Well done Neil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
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.
Dolan endorsed the signings? That is a "Pro" now?
The Rangers were a non playoff team and about to lose their best player to retirement. They were a lock for a lottery pick. So in what universe is trading their 1st rounder and a handful of young players while signing a bunch of veterans with baggage a good idea?
Of course Dolan endorsed the signings. Dolan is a dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
Additionally, you can thank NS and HIS Staff for Lundqvist.
If Neil Smith wanted credit for the draft he should not have gotten himself fired. Not sure I can put it any nicer than that. If you want credit for a pick you better at least be a member of the organization if not sitting at the table. Most of the bad pre-lockout picks were made by mopes left over from the Smith era. Are we going to give Smith credit for those too? Image someone suggesting that? The board would explode.
Smith drafted some busts and so has Sather, not sure what point some on here are trying to make. Smith to me drafted more top line talents than Sather has. Both have made HORRIBLE free agent signings and some decent ones too.
The difference? Smith won and it didn't take him 11 years to do it.
