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

Rick Nash+S.Delisle+cond. 3rd to NYR for Dubinsky+Anisimov+Erixon+2013 1st (Part III)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 11:12 AM
  #326
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ramsay View Post
Sooo you would rather be a contender instead of a champion?

In a way I understand what you are trying to say but there is no way to guarantee that being a yearly 'contender' would result in one or multiple cups. As much as many of us are tired of hearing about it as often as we do, 94 will forever remain one of the greatest moments for any ranger fan. You haven't heard a "1940"chant since
So a chant of 1994 in 10 years is going to be any better?

the problem is that we keep living off that one run. 1994 is going on 20 years now.

I'm not happy that we have had ONLY 2 decent shots since then.

The odds of winning it all when being a yearly contender are better than the odds of winning it all when you are a laughing stock franchise. Which the Rangers were for 7+ seasons.

Yes we have made significant strides, that is due in large part because we have not gone out for that quick fix in trading young promising players such as Weight and Amonte for past their prime players or 3rd line pluggers. that spent lass than 2 full seasons with the team (combined)

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:16 AM
  #327
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Cup or no cup, the Weight and Amonte Trades ARE two of the worst deals the Rangers have ever made.
Mike Ridley and Kelly Miller for Bobby Carpenter says hello.

A trade with no tangible success story for the Rangers after it was made - unlike trading Weight and Amonte for players that ultimately contributed to this organizations only cup in the last 72 years.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:25 AM
  #328
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
I find it hard to bash the Amonte/Weight deals because, ultimately, they worked out in what the team needed to accomplish in the nearterm. For any of you that weren't around before '94, it was oppressive.

Winning the cup and breaking "the curse" was an obsession for management and the fans. The lesson of 1992 also led Smith to decide that more toughness, grittiness, and experience was needed to make a championship run. He was right. Im not so sure a team with Amonte, Weight, and Gartner gets the Rangers by the Devils in '94, despite how good it looks on paper.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:25 AM
  #329
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,024
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
So a chant of 1994 in 10 years is going to be any better?

the problem is that we keep living off that one run. 1994 is going on 20 years now.

I'm not happy that we have had ONLY 2 decent shots since then.

The odds of winning it all when being a yearly contender are better than the odds of winning it all when you are a laughing stock franchise. Which the Rangers were for 7+ seasons.

Yes we have made significant strides, that is due in large part because we have not gone out for that quick fix in trading young promising players such as Weight and Amonte for past their prime players or 3rd line pluggers. that spent lass than 2 full seasons with the team (combined)
1994 sounds better than 1940.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:26 AM
  #330
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,024
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Cup or no cup, the Weight and Amonte Trades ARE two of the worst deals the Rangers have ever made.

While it would be nice to win a cup, I would rather take 15-20 good swift kicks at the can than one significant kick and then wait 10+ years before we get another legit shot.

I want to be competitive and in contention EVERY YEAR similar to the wya the Devils and Red Wings are/were and have been the since the early 90's.

One cup in 18 years while being a laughing stock for 7 years if not the ideal way to run an organization.

screw that.

Give me a shot at the cup every year than one cup every 50+ years
This sounds like someone talking with the benefit of having won that Cup.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:28 AM
  #331
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue94 View Post
zubov yes, savard.... ummm what? savard was a mediocre player with below average skating that was traded to move up in the draft to grab a highly touted lundmark. that does not classify at all w the zubov trade. everyone realizes what a mess that deal was and all the behind the scenes crap that contributed to it. in retrospect the savard deal bit us bc he really developed after moving on eventually to atlanta, but its a stretch to bring it up in context with the other moves...
Savard was anything but medicore.

He had an attitude problem for sure, but 45 points in his first full season with the Rangers playing with a cokehead Kevin Stevens and some other bum does not equate to a medicore player.

I agree that this trade was not similar in regards to the other trades, but when you loook at WHY he was traded, you have to take into consideration that the purging of our youth earlier in the 90's forced the Rangers to look to take homerun swings for higher end prospects.

The only good thing came out of that deal was seeing the Czech-Mates playing together for 2 seasons.

Savard was anything but medicore.

Savard was the 2nd best player taken in that 1995 draft behind Iginla.

Pisses me off to this day that the youth for age deals that were made earlier in Smith's tenure at the behest of Keenan and later Dolan forced NS into attempting a quick fix of good solid youth into a very quickly aging team.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:37 AM
  #332
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
This sounds like someone talking with the benefit of having won that Cup.
didn't like the trades when they were made.

The Amonte deal was un-needed.

The Rangers were fast and talented and dispatched the Devils 6 games to 0 during the regular season WITH Amonte and Gartner.

the Devils were a plodding team that could not handle the Rangers speed.

We make those moves, we become, slow, less talented, more predictable and almost get beat by the same Devils we man-handled during the Reg. Season.

They were both very dumb moved.

The Weight trade was made a full year before the cup run and THAT was a bad trade as well.

Esa did nothing for the Rangers in the 15 games after the trade, had a decent season for the Rangers in 93-94 and did pretty much nada in the PO's

No disrespect to Sarge, but Weight was the better 2nd line center option for the 93-94 Rangers Sarge should have been at his rightful spot of 3rd line center making the Rangers a MUCH more difficult team to play against.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:48 AM
  #333
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Satherís early tenure in NY was filled with bad moves, but the end of Smithís were just as bad.
My understanding is that moving players like Gartner, Amonte, Weight, etc. were for people that
fit the mold of Keenenís coaching style. Keenen outright didnít like Amonte. Messier Iím sure had a say
in many moves as well. I donít agree with some of the moves made in route to the 94í cup, but canít argue with
the results. Canít understand why that winning nucleus couldn't be retained longer for repeat performances?

Some of the trades just didnít make sense at all. It was more of a product of a coaching staff that couldnít utilize
specific talent, personality clashes. After all that, Keenen leaves...

Big Deal Neal made the Messier move that brought us glory, but he made a few outright terrible trades
and acquisitions...

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:56 AM
  #334
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Cup or no cup, the Weight and Amonte Trades ARE two of the worst deals the Rangers have ever made.

While it would be nice to win a cup, I would rather take 15-20 good swift kicks at the can than one significant kick and then wait 10+ years before we get another legit shot.

I want to be competitive and in contention EVERY YEAR similar to the wya the Devils and Red Wings are/were and have been the since the early 90's.

One cup in 18 years while being a laughing stock for 7 years if not the ideal way to run an organization.

screw that.

Give me a shot at the cup every year than one cup every 50+ years
I completely agree with you. 100%.

I also don't buy it that we wouldn't have won without grinders like Anderson and Tikkanen, Matteau was pretty clutch though. I still think depth players could've been added somehow without exchanging young talent like Weight/Amonte.


Last edited by Kershaw: 08-21-2012 at 12:03 PM.
Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 11:59 AM
  #335
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post

Some of the trades just didnít make sense at all. ..
In hindsight, they did. The team won the Cup.

I agree about the detrimental long-term implications of those trades, but we'll never know what would have happened. What I do know, is they managed to win it all after those moves were made.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:03 PM
  #336
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,024
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
didn't like the trades when they were made.

The Amonte deal was un-needed.

The Rangers were fast and talented and dispatched the Devils 6 games to 0 during the regular season WITH Amonte and Gartner.

the Devils were a plodding team that could not handle the Rangers speed.

We make those moves, we become, slow, less talented, more predictable and almost get beat by the same Devils we man-handled during the Reg. Season.

They were both very dumb moved.

The Weight trade was made a full year before the cup run and THAT was a bad trade as well.

Esa did nothing for the Rangers in the 15 games after the trade, had a decent season for the Rangers in 93-94 and did pretty much nada in the PO's

No disrespect to Sarge, but Weight was the better 2nd line center option for the 93-94 Rangers Sarge should have been at his rightful spot of 3rd line center making the Rangers a MUCH more difficult team to play against.
I understand your point. I hated the Gartner deal. It just sounds to me that you're talking with the benefit of that won Cup.

The years after that weren't a product of the Weight and Amonte trades. Sure they would have helped but consider:

1) From 1994-1999, they're drafting was dismal with high draft picks such as, Rudolf Vercik (94 2nd round), Jeff Brown (96, 1st round), Wes Jarvis (97, 2nd round), Randy Copely 1(98, 2nd round), David Inman (99, 2nd round) who not only never played a game for the Rangers, never played a game in the NHL.

2) Combine those high picks with tnot even finding serviceable players in the late rounds further depleted a depleted system.

3) The majority of the picks that did play in the NHL played fewer than 100 career games (players such as Vitali Yeremeyev, Alexei Vasiliev, Chrisitan Dube, Ronnie Sundin, Daniel Goneau, Burke Henry, Johan Holmqvist, Johan Lindbom, Jan Mertzig, Johan Witehall, Pat Leahy, Boyd Kane and Pavel Brendl).

4) They became too quick to throw in draft picks in trades.

5) They looked to the trade deadline to be a time to completely reshape the team (Nortstrom, Ferraro, Lafayette, Laperriere and a 4th for Kurri, McSorely and Churla).

6) They never seemed to build an identity as a team (losing Messier to Vancouver and then responding by signing Keane and Skrudland)


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 08-21-2012 at 12:23 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:13 PM
  #337
Thordic
StraightOuttaConklin
 
Thordic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kearny, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Being a contender puts you in contention for being a champion every season, so yes, I'd love to be a contender.
So you'd trade the '94 cup for the Emile Francis era? Nonsense.

Also, for the record, we were a contender throughout most of that era. Cup, 2nd round, 2nd round, ECF. That's a four year window before we imploded. And the 91/92 team was great as well.

Thordic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:15 PM
  #338
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand your point. I hated the Gartner deal. It just sounds to me that you're talking with the benefit of that won Cup.

The years after that weren't a product of the Weight and Amonte trades. Sure they would have helped but consider:

1) From 1994-1999, they're drafting was dismal with high draft picks such as, Rudolf Vercik (94 2nd round), Jeff Brown (96, 1st round), Wes Jarvis (97, 2nd round), Randy Copely 1(98, 2nd round), David Inman (99, 2nd round) who not only never played a game for the Rangers, never played a game in the NHL.

2) Combine those high picks with the likes of not even finding serviceable players in the late rounds further depleted a depleted system.

3) The majority of the picks that did play in the NHL played fewer than 100 career games (players such as Vitali Yeremeyev, Alexei Vasiliev, Chrisitan Dube, Ronnie Sundin, Daniel Goneau, Burke Henry, Johan Holmqvist, Johan Lindbom, Jan Mertzig, Johan Witehall, Pat Leahy, Boyd Kane and Pavel Brendl).

4) They became too quick to throw in draft picks in trades.

5) They looked to the trade deadline to be a time to completely reshape the team (Nortstrom, Ferraro, Lafayette, Laperriere and a 4th for Kurri, McSorely and Churla).

6) They never seemed to build an identity as a team (losing Messier to Vancouver and then responding by signing Keane and Skrudland)
Good post - the collapse after '97 can only be loosely tied to the Amonte/Weight trades.

Instead of spending any sort of time and resources in re-stocking the cupboard after '94, the main focus was manufacturing another championship.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:15 PM
  #339
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
1994 sounds better than 1940.
today it does sure.

It's not going to sound any better in 30 years if we don't win a cup again.

I would venture a guess that most fans that advocate youth for age trades for a shot at the cup can't really tell me that they were understanding of what it meant to be a Rangers fan leading up to 1994.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:20 PM
  #340
Leetch3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
for me the reason i never got too worked up over the amonte and weight trades is due to the endless list of terrible trades, signings, drafting, player development, etc post-1994 that didn't help us win a cup that i don't have time to get into the pre-94 deals that actually led to the cup...both terrible deals but there is just so much to complain about from that era. post-94, neil smith was mike milbury level awful.

but the trades are good lessons in why you refuse to give up kreider, stepan, etc in a deal for a 'win now' player...

and since we will probably have lots of time to kill before the season starts its fun to speculate about the 'what if'...both in terms of what would have changed during the 94 run and what would have changed after that. what moves were made that would have been made if after messier left we had weight & amonte as the #1 line and the ripple effect it would have had

Leetch3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:20 PM
  #341
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thordic View Post
So you'd trade the '94 cup for the Emile Francis era? Nonsense.

Also, for the record, we were a contender throughout most of that era. Cup, 2nd round, 2nd round, ECF. That's a four year window before we imploded. And the 91/92 team was great as well.
A team with Amonte/Weight would probably put us as contenders greater than a small 4 yr window, especially since we could afford to buy talent for them as linemates. Weight/Amonte didn't have that chance in Edmonton/Chicago since they were both low budget teams. Both still put up great careers and if they somehow replicated that with the Rangers, the numbers would be up in the rafters.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:22 PM
  #342
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,024
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
today it does sure.

It's not going to sound any better in 30 years if we don't win a cup again.

I would venture a guess that most fans that advocate youth for age trades for a shot at the cup can't really tell me that they were understanding of what it meant to be a Rangers fan leading up to 1994.
So if the Rangers don't win the Cup in the next 30 years, it's directly related to dealing Doug Weight and Tony Amonte?

Youth for age trades make sense when you have the depth to trade youth. After the Weight and Amonte deals, they never made restocking youth a priority.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:41 PM
  #343
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Neil Smith thought he could ride the four horseman (Messier, Leetch, Graves and Richter) every season after 94' with a random cast of characters surrounding them until the wheels fell off. To top it off he lets Messier walk?

I'm proud of the cup in 94', but that team was the epitome of "one and done", a true Frankenstein monster. the pain of the fallout was intense for us fans. We don't have to resort to those methods any longer.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:47 PM
  #344
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,024
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Neil Smith thought he could ride the four horseman (Messier, Leetch, Graves and Richter) every season after 94' with a random cast of characters surrounding them until the wheels fell off. To top it off he lets Messier walk?

I'm proud of the cup in 94', but that team was the epitome of "one and done", a true Frankenstein monster. the pain of the fallout was intense for us fans. We don't have to resort to those methods any longer.
I agree about Smith's mindset and I think Keenan got in his head also. That said, I don't think they were the epitome of one and done. They got unlucky with the shortened season the following year. And just didn't have the depth — despite that run to the ECF in 97 — to make deep runs.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:55 PM
  #345
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
A team with Amonte/Weight would probably put us as contenders greater than a small 4 yr window, especially since we could afford to buy talent for them as linemates. Weight/Amonte didn't have that chance in Edmonton/Chicago since they were both low budget teams. Both still put up great careers and if they somehow replicated that with the Rangers, the numbers would be up in the rafters.
You keep referring to Amonte and Weight as some sort of seminal moment in the (de-) evolution of the Rangers, but it was really just a symptom of what became a full-blown illness within this organization.

If they hung onto Weight/Amonte and still made the subsequent decisions that the organization made for a decade+, things wouldnt have been much better.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:57 PM
  #346
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
So if the Rangers don't win the Cup in the next 30 years, it's directly related to dealing Doug Weight and Tony Amonte?

Youth for age trades make sense when you have the depth to trade youth. After the Weight and Amonte deals, they never made restocking youth a priority.
I think this is the most important piece of this argument. Far, far too often, youth for age deals are viewed as the Devil around here. As SBOB said, they're fine when you have the depth to make them.

In the early 90's the Rangers had depth. The issue is that afterwards they made zero effort to replenish it.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:58 PM
  #347
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,166
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
So if the Rangers don't win the Cup in the next 30 years, it's directly related to dealing Doug Weight and Tony Amonte?

Youth for age trades make sense when you have the depth to trade youth. After the Weight and Amonte deals, they never made restocking youth a priority.
EXACTLY. And that is the main problem, not dealing Amonte and Weight. Not replenishing the cupboards was the problem.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:59 PM
  #348
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand your point. I hated the Gartner deal. It just sounds to me that you're talking with the benefit of that won Cup.

The years after that weren't a product of the Weight and Amonte trades. Sure they would have helped but consider:

1) From 1994-1999, they're drafting was dismal with high draft picks such as, Rudolf Vercik (94 2nd round), Jeff Brown (96, 1st round), Wes Jarvis (97, 2nd round), Randy Copely 1(98, 2nd round), David Inman (99, 2nd round) who not only never played a game for the Rangers, never played a game in the NHL.

2) Combine those high picks with the likes of not even finding serviceable players in the late rounds further depleted a depleted system.

3) The majority of the picks that did play in the NHL played fewer than 100 career games (players such as Vitali Yeremeyev, Alexei Vasiliev, Chrisitan Dube, Ronnie Sundin, Daniel Goneau, Burke Henry, Johan Holmqvist, Johan Lindbom, Jan Mertzig, Johan Witehall, Pat Leahy, Boyd Kane and Pavel Brendl).

4) They became too quick to throw in draft picks in trades.

5) They looked to the trade deadline to be a time to completely reshape the team (Nortstrom, Ferraro, Lafayette, Laperriere and a 4th for Kurri, McSorely and Churla).

6) They never seemed to build an identity as a team (losing Messier to Vancouver and then responding by signing Keane and Skrudland)
Here's the way I see the above.

Had we kept both Amonte and Weight, I BELIEVE we still win the cup in 93-94.

Following that, the drafting may still have been as you post it, but it's not nearly as detrimental as it turned out to be because we still have the crown jewels playing and making a difference season in and season out. As such I believe the approach to the drafts would have been significantly altered in terms of approach due to org. needs.

Maybe the Rangers don't draft Christian Dube in 95 and look to address a different area of need. Maybe they DO draft Dube and he actually develops properly due to not being rushed to the NHL.

Maybe the Rangers don't look to draft Jeff Brown...conceding that they still take Brown, it's still not as impactful to a team that doesn't trade youth for age.

97 they took Cherneski, Was a great pick as he had Adam Graves clone written all over him. No fault for the Rangers in that pick. the 2nd rounder could have been better.

98 the Rangers should have taken the Colorado offer of 3 first rounders for the Rangers first. That was the opportunity to right alot of previous wrongs. The Copley pick in round two is rendered an afterthought.

99, Inman is not an issue if ONE of Brendl or Lundmark develope right. One busts immediately and the other is yo-yo'd in the system because of a rift between Coach and GM.

The point I am trying to make is that the approach to building this team and the choices made after trading Weight and Amonte became issues because we had no other youth in the system that could ALLOW the picks to develope at a proper rate.

The Rangers problems were two fold, Yes, they did not draft very well. I will be the first to concede that point. But not having the time to bring these kids along meant that you were forced to look to draft kids that you felt were more ready and prepared to make an impact in the NHL Sooner than they should have been expected to. As such, there are more risks taken that what you see from those kids is they best they will become and in most cases that's what happened.

A good example could be this current Rangers team.

Draft a dog like Jessiman in the first round. Yes it sets the team back, but because we do not trade youth it's a hit the system can afford to take.

Don't like that example?

Draft a dog like Sanguinetti in the first round. Doesn't set the Org. or system back at all. Why? No Youth for Age trades.

A great pick like Cherepanov passes way to soon. Set the team back? Not really. Could he have helped? Absolutely, but the Rangers are still contending for a cup.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:05 PM
  #349
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
So if the Rangers don't win the Cup in the next 30 years, it's directly related to dealing Doug Weight and Tony Amonte?

Youth for age trades make sense when you have the depth to trade youth. After the Weight and Amonte deals, they never made restocking youth a priority.
I agree with this 100%.

At the time of those deals, we didn't have the organizational depth to do those deals.

And no, those deal will have no bearing on what the Rangers do for the next 30 years.

The mindset of it being OK to trade youth for age in the manner in which those deals were concluded will have a bearing on what the Rangers do for the next 30 years.

I have no issues with the trade the Rangers made for Nash. I believe we have the organizational depth to make that move. There's no reason to follow this Nash trade up with another 4 kids for one player deal no matter who the player is coming back.

The healthy teams in the league funnel youth into their team on a regular basis. Scouting, drafting and developing well is huge, but retaining that youth and letting them develope into the kinds of players you are looking to acquire is the better route to take when building a team.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 01:10 PM
  #350
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's the way I see the above.

Had we kept both Amonte and Weight, I BELIEVE we still win the cup in 93-94.

Following that, the drafting may still have been as you post it, but it's not nearly as detrimental as it turned out to be because we still have the crown jewels playing and making a difference season in and season out. As such I believe the approach to the drafts would have been significantly altered in terms of approach due to org. needs.

Maybe the Rangers don't draft Christian Dube in 95 and look to address a different area of need. Maybe they DO draft Dube and he actually develops properly due to not being rushed to the NHL.

Maybe the Rangers don't look to draft Jeff Brown...conceding that they still take Brown, it's still not as impactful to a team that doesn't trade youth for age.

97 they took Cherneski, Was a great pick as he had Adam Graves clone written all over him. No fault for the Rangers in that pick. the 2nd rounder could have been better.

98 the Rangers should have taken the Colorado offer of 3 first rounders for the Rangers first. That was the opportunity to right alot of previous wrongs. The Copley pick in round two is rendered an afterthought.

99, Inman is not an issue if ONE of Brendl or Lundmark develope right. One busts immediately and the other is yo-yo'd in the system because of a rift between Coach and GM.

The point I am trying to make is that the approach to building this team and the choices made after trading Weight and Amonte became issues because we had no other youth in the system that could ALLOW the picks to develope at a proper rate.

The Rangers problems were two fold, Yes, they did not draft very well. I will be the first to concede that point. But not having the time to bring these kids along meant that you were forced to look to draft kids that you felt were more ready and prepared to make an impact in the NHL Sooner than they should have been expected to. As such, there are more risks taken that what you see from those kids is they best they will become and in most cases that's what happened.

A good example could be this current Rangers team.

Draft a dog like Jessiman in the first round. Yes it sets the team back, but because we do not trade youth it's a hit the system can afford to take.

Don't like that example?

Draft a dog like Sanguinetti in the first round. Doesn't set the Org. or system back at all. Why? No Youth for Age trades.

A great pick like Cherepanov passes way to soon. Set the team back? Not really. Could he have helped? Absolutely, but the Rangers are still contending for a cup.
You're trying to have the best of both worlds, which is an awfully difficult thing to do in what-if scenarios.

I understand your points about drafting after '94, but at the same time I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe the team would draft much better just because Amonte and Weight were in the lineup. Then again, your entire post here is predicated on the fact that the 94 team would win the Cup with Amonte/Weight, which is the biggest what if of them all. Lets say they didnt, do you think the organization would be preaching youth and patience? Ha, yea right.

This is 18 years later, and the Rangers have finally seemed to get it right, so this is a much easier argument for me...and it boils down to:

Reality - The Rangers traded Weight and Amonte and won the cup

What-if - The Rangers hung onto Weight and Amonte and maybe won the cup, but maybe didnt.

Bleed Ranger 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 01:25 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.