HFBoards

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

Glen Sather Appreciation Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-29-2012, 10:57 AM
  #251
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
No, but singing his praises when, in fact he DID offer a "stupid" package, seems a little off.
There's been no real confirmation of what package was or wasn't offered. Sure there is some speculation, and some speculation with sources, but nothing is 100% confirmed out there.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:00 AM
  #252
JayQueensNY88*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
But if Sather's package was accepted, it would have been just that. Overpaying. A lot. The problem was that Howson's asking price was not just overpaying. What he asked for was probably too much for a healthy Crosby or Ovechkin. But what Sather DID offer was a HUGE overpayment. You cannot simply overlook that.
i didnt want Nash and still dont..yes,Sather offered up alot,too much..Nas and his cap hit are what make it all the worse.

JayQueensNY88* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:03 AM
  #253
MSG the place to be*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,783
vCash: 500
Glen - Get in front of a microphone and tell me how giddy you are about McD, MDZ, Step, Hags, etc. Tell me what you think of Brad Richards' first 60 games as a Ranger. Give me the lowdown.

I'm sure Jim Cerny would love to do a sitdown.

MSG the place to be* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:04 AM
  #254
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
If that was the package. And that is a pretty big if.
All the reports had said that it was a massive package and if I have no reason to doubt what Howson asked for, why would I doubt what Sather's final offer was?

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:18 AM
  #255
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
All the reports had said that it was a massive package and if I have no reason to doubt what Howson asked for, why would I doubt what Sather's final offer was?
Because everyone is going off of what Larry Brooks said. The organization already hinted that was not what was offered. The NHL network said the upped offer included Bickel and a conditional first rounder. Never said anything about Miller. To me that is a huge difference.

Sather standing pat might have meant he passed on a deal he should have made. Or it might mean he really did offer way to much for Nash. We have no idea so I don't see the point of bumping this thread to praise him or vice versa.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:27 AM
  #256
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,781
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I was asking exactly what I posted. Your opinion on the two subjects.

You responded to the one topic. I did not see you comment on the latter one.
What was the latter one?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:31 AM
  #257
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Because everyone is going off of what Larry Brooks said. The organization already hinted that was not what was offered. The NHL network said the upped offer included Bickel and a conditional first rounder. Never said anything about Miller. To me that is a huge difference.

Sather standing pat might have meant he passed on a deal he should have made. Or it might mean he really did offer way to much for Nash. We have no idea so I don't see the point of bumping this thread to praise him or vice versa.
Whats the point? Sather has rarely lost in a trade here.

I think the biggest thing to take away from this is he really had zero reservations about taking on a bloated/messy contract.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 11:32 AM
  #258
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,615
vCash: 500
I have to wonder if Torts would have been on board with surrendering 3 top prospects in Erixon, Thomas, and Miller, plus this year's first rounder which would have turned into a potential prospect. He has been a huge proponent of building from within and adding youth since his first training camp as coach.

When asked about the trade deadline on Monday, he emphasized the importance of not losing any prospects:

Quote:
Following the trade deadline on Monday, John Tortorella said on 1050 ESPN Radio, “We didn’t lose any kids today which I think is very important. We are still in the process and I think we are going in the right direction but we are still in the process.”
http://www.snyrangersblog.com/2012/0...ds-as-rangers/

If the Nash trade went down for the package that Brooks reported, it would be a departure from the philosophy and process that Torts has instilled. While Sather has taken a step back and let others in the organization take over when it comes to drafting, I think he was the one running the ship in trying to land Nash.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 12:16 PM
  #259
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,907
vCash: 500
I don't get why this thread keeps getting regurgitated. Everyone's opinions are already in the Nash thread...why do we have to go through this again?

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 12:27 PM
  #260
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Whats the point? Sather has rarely lost in a trade here.

I think the biggest thing to take away from this is he really had zero reservations about taking on a bloated/messy contract.
No doubt about that. He has a lot of faith in whoever the Rangers "cap guru" is. Probably too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
What was the latter one?
What you thought of the potential trade and the subsequent reaction. You pretty much answered it in your previous post. I was just clarifying. Or I thought I was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl
I don't get why this thread keeps getting regurgitated. Everyone's opinions are already in the Nash thread...why do we have to go through this again?
Agreed. This subject (and thread) tends to bring out the worst in everyone.


Last edited by McRanger: 02-29-2012 at 12:33 PM.
McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 12:31 PM
  #261
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,818
vCash: 500
I appreciate the improvement in Glen's decision-making.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 01:09 PM
  #262
Aileen C*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Lots of Rangers fans look at the 2006-07 team as if it was a piece or two from winning the cup and it wasn't.

That team was out of a playoff spot in February. They fought tooth and nail to make the playoffs and clinched the 7th seed during the second to last game of the season. Most Rangers fans (and neutral fans) were legitimately surprised when the Rangers swept the Thrashers and then pushed the Sabres to 6 games. They went on a nice little run. But were they considered cup contenders going into the 2007 offseason? Certainly not.
They clinched the 6th seed. And that was thanks to Lundqvist and Avery.

Aileen C* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 02:58 PM
  #263
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
I have to wonder if Torts would have been on board with surrendering 3 top prospects in Erixon, Thomas, and Miller, plus this year's first rounder which would have turned into a potential prospect. He has been a huge proponent of building from within and adding youth since his first training camp as coach.

When asked about the trade deadline on Monday, he emphasized the importance of not losing any prospects:

http://www.snyrangersblog.com/2012/0...ds-as-rangers/

If the Nash trade went down for the package that Brooks reported, it would be a departure from the philosophy and process that Torts has instilled. While Sather has taken a step back and let others in the organization take over when it comes to drafting, I think he was the one running the ship in trying to land Nash.
The quote from Torts above is very important. And it's been repeated on numerous occasions. By Torts and every senior person in the ORG.

What's interesting is that the importance of keeping the kids together gets down played fairly often here. Especially when a "Big Name" becomes available.

Big names rarely work out for the Rangers. The kids we keep and bring thru the system appear to have a far better track record. Just my 2 cents.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 03:25 PM
  #264
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It comes down to talent evaluation. And they have gotten shockingly little production from their first round picks.

I don't care if Korpikoski never played for the Yotes or went on to be a perennial 40 goal scorer — he's not producing for the Rangers and neither is the guy they traded him for.
But that has nothing to do with their drafting acumen. You lumped him in with a bunch of people who were flat out bad picks. You can't slag the pick just because they didn't keep him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
The 2004 draft might have turned out to be bad, but again, what value did they get from Montoya — either playing for them or from the trade.
Context matters. The Jessiman pick wasn't just bad because he busted, it was bad because it seems to have been the only possible way to screw up that pick. The Montoya pick was really a no-win situation. Unless you were expecting them to magically go way off the board to find Stafford or Radulov, it's really hard to fault with them there. It was a ****** year to have a high pick, unless you had the one of the top two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Again, iIt comes down to talent evaluation. The fact is, they used a second round pick on a guy who is not even playing hockey anymore. The rest is periphery.
Everybody blows a pick here or there though. Again, context matters. The Rangers' success rate with second round picks lately is way, way, way above average. Faulting them for not having success 100 percent of the time is silly.

You seem to go out of your way to criticize their first round drafting as a whole. Fine. That's looking at the big picture. That's looking at a trend. We can disagree on the degree of that, but the debate isn't overly reliant on a single data point. But to then turn around and single out the Lafleur selection is beyond picky. We probably have more of our own second round or later picks on our roster than anyone else does:

Dubinsky, Callahan, Sauer, Anisimov, Hagelin, and Stepan. Say what you want about the Lundqvist pick and the luck involved. Even without that pick, we've got as impressive a group of post-first round picks as you'll find outside of Detroit (and none of Lidstrom, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg were drafted in the last decade+).

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 03:44 PM
  #265
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,781
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
But that has nothing to do with their drafting acumen. You lumped him in with a bunch of people who were flat out bad picks. You can't slag the pick just because they didn't keep him.
Getting nothing when you trade a first round draft pick is squandering a pick. Fact, they didn't add value to the organization. The rest is semantics.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
Context matters. The Jessiman pick wasn't just bad because he busted, it was bad because it seems to have been the only possible way to screw up that pick. The Montoya pick was really a no-win situation. Unless you were expecting them to magically go way off the board to find Stafford or Radulov, it's really hard to fault with them there. It was a ****** year to have a high pick, unless you had the one of the top two.
The Jessiman was absolutely a bad pick. He was regarded as a project when he was picked at a time then the Rangers had to draft somebody that would play for them.

To the Montoya pick, the fact is he didn't add value to the organization either as a pick or as trade bait. The rest is semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
Everybody blows a pick here or there though. Again, context matters. The Rangers' success rate with second round picks lately is way, way, way above average. Faulting them for not having success 100 percent of the time is silly.
I gave them a pass on Blackburn and Charepanov. That doesn't explain getting nothing from Montoya, Korpikoski and Sanguinetti. And my point is that while they have definitely drafted better of late, their record in the first round is still marginal at best — especially when you look at the likes of the Flyers and the Ducks. I don't think I ever knocked them for not having 100% success rate.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 03:58 PM
  #266
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,095
vCash: 873
I believe the Montoya pick was the right selection.

Blackburn was slow recovering from the nerve damage in his shoulder (that he never recovered from), we had no idea what we had in Lundqvist and no other goalie options in the system.

I can't really fault the pick, he was highly touted at the time and if my memory is correct, wasn't a reach at 6.

It sucks that he tirned into nothing, but that was a need we addressed (or thought we addressed) at the time.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 04:07 PM
  #267
Sticky Fingers
Registered User
 
Sticky Fingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Looking at the trades that went down on the deadline I say we did good. Was there any deal out of those that we could have landed and call a steal? I don't think so. Did we trade away promising players for Nash, no we didn't. Did we ask for the price, of course we did since our biggest need is a winger that can score. That is why, from my point of view, Sather did good this time, by not doing anything.

Sticky Fingers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 04:56 PM
  #268
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Getting nothing when you trade a first round draft pick is squandering a pick. Fact, they didn't add value to the organization. The rest is semantics.





The Jessiman was absolutely a bad pick. He was regarded as a project when he was picked at a time then the Rangers had to draft somebody that would play for them.

To the Montoya pick, the fact is he didn't add value to the organization either as a pick or as trade bait. The rest is semantics.
How is it semantics to separate drafting from trading and signing free agents? They're different actions. You can't fault the drafting for a bad trade. Context is not semantics. Who was available in the draft is not semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I gave them a pass on Blackburn and Charepanov. That doesn't explain getting nothing from Montoya, Korpikoski and Sanguinetti. And my point is that while they have definitely drafted better of late, their record in the first round is still marginal at best especially when you look at the likes of the Flyers and the Ducks. I don't think I ever knocked them for not having 100% success rate.
That line was pretty clearly about you zeroing in on the Lafleur pick and their trend of overall post-first round success.

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:28 PM
  #269
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
I dont appreciate him but I do admit he has madea lot of good moves recently. more good than bad. I wont appreciate him until we have 3 or 4 more years like this one. or obviously if we win a cup this year. Thgat said thank you Sather for working a loophole into Wade's contract so we could bury him, thank you 1000x over for turning Gomez into McD THAT was a complete franchise changer for BOTH teams. Absolutely extraodinary move. Will go down as an all time legendary trade. Thank you for ridding us of roszi and for your very smart RFA plan. Best of all in the last 3 years thank you for not being you.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:54 PM
  #270
RangerFanInJersey
Registered User
 
RangerFanInJersey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 79
vCash: 500
While Sather has been rather incompetent when it comes to free agent signings (Gomez, Redden, Holik a while back), he has been crafty when it comes to trades. He basically pawned Scotty Gomez off on Montreal and asked them to add McD as a throw in along with Chris Higgins. He pretty much fleeced the Habs and look how that's turned out for us. While I liked Wolski's talent, he really had no place on his team, and Slats pulled off a nice salary dump on Florida.

As for this year's deadline, he didn't mortgage the future for Nash. The package that the Jackets were asking for was asinine. There are a handful of players that I'd want coming our way for that package (Malkin, Stamkos, Ovechkin), but Nash is not one of them. Especially not after seeing how he handled the whole situation. Well done Slats for not trading for Nash at their asking price.

RangerFanInJersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 07:56 AM
  #271
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFanInJersey View Post
Well done Slats for not trading for Nash at their asking price.
yes, but if the new Columbus GM picks up the phone and calls Sather at the draft and asks him if the offer that he did put through still stands, are you going to be still handing out kudos? Giving away 5 assets AND taking on a $7.8 cap hit for next 6 years?

As for his trades, yes more recently he has not done bad. Let's also not forget the how many assets were used up in trades for Lindros, Bure, Carter, Jagr. This is NOT all that long ago. Compile his meh record of drafting in teh 1st round and what do you get?

Look, I am as happy as anyone with the way the team is and the organization is. But let us not forget that during his rather long tenure now, the Rangers STILL have not developed a top-line forward and have only made it out of the second round twice. Oh, and have had quite an assortment of hidden millionaires in Hartford.

True Blue 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 05:20 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.