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

Anyone see Jessiman on Sportsdesk?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2005, 10:02 AM
  #51
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
It only took him how many years? At least Smith built up some equity with the organization. I am still trying to figure out what Sather is doing.
? I never said Sather did a rebuild imideiately. All I'm saying is that Sather is doing an actual rebuild while Smith never did.

barrel_master is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 01:27 PM
  #52
GothamRanger
Registered User
 
GothamRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,017
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GothamRanger
Smith - 5 playoff appearances, 1 Stanley Cup
Sather - 0 playoff appearances, 0 Stanley Cup

What is there more to argue about?

GothamRanger is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 01:37 PM
  #53
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Fletch, I agree w/ you 100%. I do not trust Sather to be able to properly develop the few prospects that have a chance of being top 6 material. I think that I would prefer that Jessiman got in a full year in Hartford, but if the kid shows that he is physically and mentally ready for the NHL, then by all means let him make the team. The problem is that if he makes the team, you have to allow for the inevitable rookie mistakes. Too many times, under Sather, have the Rangers allowed a young player to play but when said player makes an error typical of a young player, that player either finds himself not dressed or playing 2 minutes on the 4th line.
If you don't trust "Ranger management"to bring Hugh along properly than blame Tom Renney and his coaching staff not Glenn Sather. And if he flops in Hartford, apart from blaming Jessiman himself, I would blame Shoney and his coaching staff. Again not Sather.

HAPPY HOUR is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 11:26 PM
  #54
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I do not buy for one minute that Dolan prevented Sather from rebuilding in the very beginning. Sather stated that he had full autonomy when he took the job. Dolan knows nothing about hockey. You cannot tell me that Dolan was holding a gun to Sather's to make the Lindros or Bure trades. The "Lion and mouse" quote did not originate in Dolan's mouth. How can you say that Smith could not draft, made bad trades and kept overpaying for guys who didn't want to play here? Isn't that what Sather has done? And Smith's draft record and trade record is 100% that of Sather. How many Adam Graves trades did Sather recoup?


You are nuts. Smith even admitted that Dolan told him to get Fleury or else he was gone. The owner definitely had input.


Smith's drafts include top line players (not just top 2 line, but TOP line) and top pairing defensemen. Can Sather's boast the same thing? And Sather has had 6 drafts.

Smith's first few were good producing guys like Weight, Amonte, Kovalev, Zubov, Marchant, Cloutier and Johnsson. But once the team won the Cup, it started to go the other way. Then the busts started coming and bad luck along with some of the dumbest deals ever made (with everyone's favorite Mark Messier having input).

Sather's staff has been on drafts since 2001. The first draft produced Dan Blackburn, Fedor Tyutin, Garth Murray and Bryce Lampman, all of who made NHL debuts already. Blackburn's injury was unfortunate because he could have been a #1 goalie. Tyutin is a top three defenseman. Murray could be a third or fourth line energy guy. Lampman might break into the D this year as a #6.
Zidlicky was also selected in the same draft. Too bad Slats packaged him to Nashville for Dunham. That was a panic move in reaction to Richter's injury and not wanting to put too much pressure on Blackburn. Hollweg was also grabbed in the eighth. round and he has a chance to be a Ranger. So, even if you take out Blackburn and Zidlicky, it's possible four players from it could wind up Rangers. Pretty good.

2002- not as good. They made the controversial pick of Lee Falardeau in the 2nd round. But after it looked like he'd bust, he left school and turned pro last year and had a good season with Charlotte. He should be centering one of Hartford's top three lines this season and could still wind up a Ranger. Marcus Jonasen just won't turn pro. Probably a waste of a pick. However, Nathan Guenin has proven to be a solid blueliner at Ohio State. He is also tough. Looks like he could have a future. Mike Walsh had a down season with Notre Dame last year. The coach got fired. He's supposed to have potential. Still has time left. Jake Taylor was another solid pick late and already turned pro splitting time in Charlotte and Hartford last year. He is nasty. Joey Crabb has progressed well at Colorado College and enters his senior year. Rob Flynn I don't think was signed. However, in this same draft, they got Petr Prucha in the eighth round. Now he turned pro and should be a Ranger this fall. All in all not bad.

2003 produced Jessiman, Baranka, Dawes and Holt. Everyone is entering their first full pro season. And this draft has the potential to be one of the best ever. Factor in Corey Potter, Phillipe Furer, Dylan Reese and even Jan Marek. This could be a great draft that turned the franchise around when people look back.

It's too early to review last year but already Montoya is pro and early feedback has been good. You had guys like Callahan and Petruzalek playing at the WJC last winter. Graham did well last season as did Olver. Actually most of the guys they picked did.

This year, they traded up for Staal, a smart move. And Sauer could be a steal.


I do not see how. The only good thing is that we are FINALLY having a true rebuild. Sather has set this organization back 4 years.

Would you like to rethink this now?


Zubov, Weight, Amonte.....don't sound like retreads to me.

The problem here is you're citing guys who were NHLers and I'm talking about how pathetic some of our Wolf Pack rosters, which was thin in talent. That's no longer the case.


"But facts are facts."

I could not agree with you more.
Ditto.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-22-2005, 11:33 PM
  #55
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakose
Smith - 5 playoff appearances, 1 Stanley Cup
Sather - 0 playoff appearances, 0 Stanley Cup

What is there more to argue about?
On paper, this looks pretty good. Obviously the Cup sticks out along with a couple of other years. But he sacrificed so much to win and kept making similar deals which hurt the franchise that it took years to recover. The worst had to be '96 when he traded Ray Ferraro, Nathan Lafayette, Ian Laperriere and Mattias Norstrom to the Kings for Kurri, McSorley and Churla. Just an awful deal. Norstrom could have been our next big tough defenseman and Laperriere was a spark plug. And Ferraro played well here. That team was never the same after it.

Even when Neil tried to start fixing his mistakes in '99, he didn't bother to interview Brendl or see him on video and gave away so much to Tampa in that deal that Brendl would have had to panout and score 30-40 goals/yr to justify that deal. How about the Lundmark aspect of it? He was supposed to be a can't miss prospect compared favorably to Yzerman and Roenick. They traded Marc Savard away. All Savard's been since is basically a number one pivot who puts up 60-65 points. Lundmark must put up this year or that deal will be a disaster.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 12:14 AM
  #56
GothamRanger
Registered User
 
GothamRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,017
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GothamRanger
I thought overall Smith did a better job. But his fatal flaw was that he always gave into what the NY mob (fans + media) wanted.

After the cup, we had to get tougher and get a good pure scored so for 96 he traded Zubov and Nedved for Samuelsson and Robitaille. Then everyone was looking for that magic deadline move that would make us more experienced and give us the verteran presence for to win the Cup, and he brought in Kurri, McSorley and Churla in that terrible trade.

It went on and on like that ... we demanded defensive fowards and he brought in Keane and Skrudland. When Messier bolted we demanded a center and Neil turned around and landed Pat Lafontaine.

When things were looking bleak and this team was not playoff material, the *consensus* was to make the team younger, more energetic and rebuild while staying competitive. He traded for energetic players like Harvey and made draft headlines trading for Brendl and Lundmark. He then signed all those damned players (Fleury, Quintal, Lefebvre) and when this all failed he was out. No one was calling for his head, and for the most part it came as a shock to the Rangers community. He got a long with the media and the fans generally seemed to like him. He might have given into the pressure of NY too often.

For better or for worse, he gave the fans what they wanted, so everyone was pleased with what he did and his actions never really looked so extreme. Now we got Sather, who might be the polar opposite of Smith; he is never accessible, and does what he wants, when he wants to regardless of how the fans and media blasts him. I feel he wanted to give an F-U to the whole league by trying to make it look easy in buying any player you want and winning the cup on the fly: I guess he was humbled by the whole experienced and realize that buying success was easier said than done. Now he is looking to rebuild in the more traditional route.

As far as trades have gone, Smith and Sather have made good and bad trades. I think that comes part of the territory of any GM in NHL-- kinda like being a good stockbroker being a good trader is impossible. If everyone knew that a particular GM was good at making trades based on his history, no one would trade with him in fear of losing out- thus no good GMs actually exist. Does anyone know of a team that has consistently made good trades? The only teams that come into mind is Vancouver and Colorado, but only to a slight degree. The only bad trades Smith made were upon hindsight, with exception of the Kurri trade. So shame on Sather for making similar bad trades like trading for Jagr, Lindros, Bure.

I liked Smith better than I like Sather. I think Smith was a better fit in NY and I don't think Smith was given a fair shot to "rebuild". But, I like the team we have now better than any other Smith team '94 aside. HOWEVER, I do beleive that if Smith had been given the amount time and leaway Sather did, we would have a FAR more SUPERIOR team now under Smith than under Sather.

Comparing the good and bad of Smith and Sather is like comparing a democracy vs. a dictatorship.

GothamRanger is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 08:13 AM
  #57
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovy274Hart
Would you like to rethink this now?
No. First of all, as a GM, Sather bears the responsibility for the 2000 draft. You keep trying to dodge that fact. Touting names like Dan Blackburn, Fedor Tyutin, Garth Murray and Bryce Lampman is not really the same thing as Amonte, Zubov or weight. Or even Mike York (another Smith pick). Or even Mark Savard (another Smith pick). Say what you want about Smith, but his drafts produced top (again, not top 2, just TOP) line players and top pairing defensemen. You genereously list Tyutin as a # 3, but he could jus as easily be a #4. Either way, it's 2nd pair defenseman. Don't get me wrong, I'll do backflips if both he and Staal turn out to be 2nd pair d-men. However, it does not hold a candle to Smith's entire body of work while he was here. Look at Smith's 6 drafts and look at Sather's 6 drafts. By the time Smith was done with his 6 drafts, he had players playing on the top 2 lines and top pair d-men. We have not one young player to hang our hats on for being on the 2nd line this current year. No, I would not like to rethink my stance.

"You are nuts. Smith even admitted that Dolan told him to get Fleury or else he was gone. The owner definitely had input"

Fine, are you telling me that it was Dolan behind the Lindros trade all along? And the Bure trade? And the Carter trade? And the Kovalev trade? And the Jagr trade?

"The problem here is you're citing guys who were NHLers and I'm talking about how pathetic some of our Wolf Pack rosters, which was thin in talent. That's no longer the case."

I'll take a think Hartford roster if that means that most of my drafted players are already in the NHL, as opposed to a packed roster from players who are vying to join the "Plumbers of the NHL" union.

Jackson,

"If you are going to compare the two GM's, let's do it with Sather's reign during the same time period with Edmonton"

I could care less what Sather did in Edmonton. I am not juding him by what he did there. I do not root for the Oilers. I root for the Rangers. As such, I am going to judge him by what he has done in NY.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 08:38 AM
  #58
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
i'm not naming names but somebody can't accept the fact that sathers picks aren't that bad. infact they are pretty good. its sad that this person (a big larry brooks fan) roots openly againts this team because he hates the gm. He roots againts any and all sather picks and praises lundmark every step of the way. how sad

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 09:10 AM
  #59
Anthony Mauro
DraftBuzz Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No. First of all, as a GM, Sather bears the responsibility for the 2000 draft. You keep trying to dodge that fact. Touting names like Dan Blackburn, Fedor Tyutin, Garth Murray and Bryce Lampman is not really the same thing as Amonte, Zubov or weight. Or even Mike York (another Smith pick). Or even Mark Savard (another Smith pick). Say what you want about Smith, but his drafts produced top (again, not top 2, just TOP) line players and top pairing defensemen. You genereously list Tyutin as a # 3, but he could jus as easily be a #4. Either way, it's 2nd pair defenseman. Don't get me wrong, I'll do backflips if both he and Staal turn out to be 2nd pair d-men. However, it does not hold a candle to Smith's entire body of work while he was here. Look at Smith's 6 drafts and look at Sather's 6 drafts. By the time Smith was done with his 6 drafts, he had players playing on the top 2 lines and top pair d-men. We have not one young player to hang our hats on for being on the 2nd line this current year. No, I would not like to rethink my stance.
Wait Smith gets a pass on 96, 97(save York), 98, and 99 because he had gotten one or two good players here and there in the past? Those 3-4 drafts were ATROCIOUS. 95 produced Savard and Purinton, nothing to brag about. In 94, Smith was lucky to get Johnsson or else that would've been a travesty as well. Smith had the cup year, other than that he picked up "top line" players that got us nothing but return in trade. Sather has passed on headcases, Smith overlooked character/other problems to take a chance on talent.

You're kidding yourself if you think Sather should have taken a guy like Schremp to gamble on top line talent. The organization was in no shape to be adding headcases like that. That is why you see the lack of top line talent. It is very hard nowadays to add top liners without a top 5 pick.

Its really not fair to **** on Sather this much. At the 2000 and 2001 drafts, he's produced 9 Pro players and 1 star on the way this year. Tyutin, Blackburn, Murray, Lampman, Novak, Moore, Hollweg, Stals and now Lundqvuist. 2002 got Falardeau, Taylor, and now Prucha with Guenin on the way. 2003 has Jessiman, Dawes, Baranka, and Holt on the way. 2004 already has Montoya.

And the Tyutin remark is a beaut, downgrading our own guy like that. You full well know Tyutin is no number 4.


Last edited by Anthony Mauro: 08-23-2005 at 09:17 AM.
Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 09:15 AM
  #60
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Wait Smith gets a pass on 96, 97(save York), 98, and 99 because he had gotten one or two good players here and there in the past?
I am not saying Smith gets a pass for anything. I am simply comparing his first 6 drafts as a Rangers GM to Sather's first 6 as a Ranger GM. The two simply do not compare. Sather cannot tout one prospect that he drafted that we can be confident will play on the 2nd line this year. This was not the case w/ Smith.

"Its really not fair to **** on Sather this much. "

Yes, it is fair. To date, his drafts have produced Tyutin. While I like the goalies, they are still an unknown. Aside from that, who is there? After Smith's first 6 years in office, his players were producing at the NHL level. And producing at a high level of play.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 09:25 AM
  #61
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
true blue... man...

You seem to be picking at individual parts of what people are saying without taking into account what their whole arguements about. I'm fairly certain that there are posts here that are annoyed with the fact that Smith traded away all their young players.

You keep on saying Smith had better drafts... fine... even though I don't agree we'll just say he did. The fact is Smith never did a rebuild and put the Ranger's farm in jeopardy by trading all those said young players for older guys who couldn't contribute as much for as long. Even when he did trade for youth he traded young guys for even younger guys that where unproven.

barrel_master is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 09:31 AM
  #62
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master
true blue... man...

You seem to be picking at individual parts of what people are saying without taking into account what their whole arguements about. I'm fairly certain that there are posts here that are annoyed with the fact that Smith traded away all their young players.

You keep on saying Smith had better drafts... fine... even though I don't agree we'll just say he did. The fact is Smith never did a rebuild and put the Ranger's farm in jeopardy by trading all those said young players for older guys who couldn't contribute as much for as long. Even when he did trade for youth he traded young guys for even younger guys that where unproven.
Those are entirely different arguments. I am simply talking about drafts vs. drafts. If we want to get into a debate about trades, that's a different issue. If we want to get into a debate about merit after x amount of years on the job, that's a different issue. I am simply comparing drafts to drafts. And, IMO, to-date there simply is no comparison.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 01:06 PM
  #63
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Wait Smith gets a pass on 96, 97(save York), 98, and 99 because he had gotten one or two good players here and there in the past? Those 3-4 drafts were ATROCIOUS. 95 produced Savard and Purinton, nothing to brag about. In 94, Smith was lucky to get Johnsson or else that would've been a travesty as well. Smith had the cup year, other than that he picked up "top line" players that got us nothing but return in trade. Sather has passed on headcases, Smith overlooked character/other problems to take a chance on talent.
Bottom line is that from those he produced TWO top 6 forwards, and a guy who is becoming a solid third line center. Labarbera has a chance to be an NHL backup.

Not great, but when one considers the earlier draft choices that actually rounds out to a descent team.

Quote:
You're kidding yourself if you think Sather should have taken a guy like Schremp to gamble on top line talent. The organization was in no shape to be adding headcases like that. That is why you see the lack of top line talent. It is very hard nowadays to add top liners without a top 5 pick.
And why exactly does this team not have a top 5 pick and yet hasn't been a contender for all 5 years under Sather?


Quote:
Its really not fair to **** on Sather this much. At the 2000 and 2001 drafts, he's produced 9 Pro players and 1 star on the way this year. Tyutin, Blackburn, Murray, Lampman, Novak, Moore, Hollweg, Stals and now Lundqvuist. 2002 got Falardeau, Taylor, and now Prucha with Guenin on the way. 2003 has Jessiman, Dawes, Baranka, and Holt on the way. 2004 already has Montoya.
Whoa whoa, now we're talking pro players? Than you're gonna have an even bigger gap with the Smith regime. As for producing, if you mean marginal NHL players and fourth liners than yes Sather wins the cuban cigar.

Trust me when i say you don't want to go down the pro players routine because there have been many AHL players for the rangers over the years.

Now we're also naming kids who haven't proved anything yet and some of which haven't exactly torn up the minor league systems.

The Rangers are finally getting it now and that's not really an issue from my end. The real question is how many times do you have to ram your head into the door before you decide to just turn the freakin handle?

Edge is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 01:10 PM
  #64
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No. First of all, as a GM, Sather bears the responsibility for the 2000 draft. You keep trying to dodge that fact. Touting names like Dan Blackburn, Fedor Tyutin, Garth Murray and Bryce Lampman is not really the same thing as Amonte, Zubov or weight. Or even Mike York (another Smith pick). Or even Mark Savard (another Smith pick). Say what you want about Smith, but his drafts produced top (again, not top 2, just TOP) line players and top pairing defensemen. You genereously list Tyutin as a # 3, but he could jus as easily be a #4. Either way, it's 2nd pair defenseman. Don't get me wrong, I'll do backflips if both he and Staal turn out to be 2nd pair d-men. However, it does not hold a candle to Smith's entire body of work while he was here. Look at Smith's 6 drafts and look at Sather's 6 drafts. By the time Smith was done with his 6 drafts, he had players playing on the top 2 lines and top pair d-men. We have not one young player to hang our hats on for being on the 2nd line this current year. No, I would not like to rethink my stance.
For the last time, Tony Amonte was not, repeat WAS NOT drafted by Smith.

The reality of Smiths drafting is this:

He produced exactly 2 legit first line forwards, Weight and Kovalev, and one legit 2nd liner, Savard. Then comes York and Nemchinov, guys who will spend time on the second or even first line but are more like offensive third line guys. Then after that its the talented defensive guys, Marchant and Sundstrum.

On defense, He drafted Zubov and Johnsson. Then comes Norstrom. Then Cairns and Puriton.

In goal, there is only Cloutier, who is a marginal #1 at best.

That leaves 3 "top six" guys, 2 "top pair" defenseman, one marginal #1 goalie, and then about a half dozen role players. Thats 5 impact skaters in ten years of drafting.

That is, at best, adaquate.

When you factor in the fact that 2 of the 5 came in Smiths first year, and not a single one came after 1995, thats terrible. In 4 drafts after '95, only one player (York) has made any time of mark on the league.

As for Sathers drafting...

There are only 2 drafts that you can judge right now, the 2000 draft and the 2001 draft.

On the 2000 draft: yes Sather was responsible for the picks made. But was Sather responsible for not having a 1st rounder, which would have been a top 10 pick? No, Smith traded it in the '99 draft for the great Pavel Brendl. And I dont see what your problem with the 2000 draft was. Lundqvist looks like he could be a franchise goalie, and Moore looks he may be a decent NHLer, and we'll have to wait and see how Novak does with Florida. It already looks better than Smiths horrid 1999 draft, and we didnt even have a first rounder.

On 2001: Talk about Bias. What makes Tytuin no more than a 3rd Defender? He'll likely never be a number one guy, but I dont see why he couldnt have a career similar to Kim Johnsson. Tyutin showed me more as a 21 year old than Johnsson did in his debut as a 24 year old. Blackburns injury was a shame, as he looked like he had alot of promise. After that there are a few guys who look like they can be good role players, though nothing special.

On the drafts after 2001: Sather has made Goaltending and Defense a priority, with 2 of our 5 first round picks being goalies (the second one being a result of an injury to the first) and one of them being a defenseman. The 2 forwards, Jessiman and Korpikoski, have top six talent, and this year should show us alot in terms of what we can expect of them. Staal has great size and skill, so why hes being relegated to a second pair D-man by you is ridiculous. There are also a group of other guys who may or may not be impact players (Motoya, Dawes, Baranka, Suaer) and some other guys who look like they can be core guys. I dont see why the fact we dont have a slew of offense first forwards in our system is that much of a concern to you, I think it should be obvious after watching the Rangers the last few years that Defense wins games.

Heres the bottom line...

Forget Sathers drafting for the Rangers. You obviously dont think much of the players in our system, and it looks like the main reason for that is dislike of the person who drafted them. That is of course your right, as senseless as it is. But you are dead wrong about Smith. Smith is the reason we are in this mess in the first place. His poor drafting and complete & total neglect of the developing of youth in the years after the cup is the sole reason why Sather even got hired in the first place. Had Smith done his job then (and I repeat as I did in a previous post Smith was NEVER rebuilding) as other GMs were, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

McRanger is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 02:42 PM
  #65
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
He produced exactly 2 legit first line forwards, Weight and Kovalev, and one legit 2nd liner, Savard. Then comes York and Nemchinov, guys who will spend time on the second or even first line but are more like offensive third line guys. Then after that its the talented defensive guys, Marchant and Sundstrum.
So what? The fact remains that he DID produce. How many top liners have Sather's drafts turn out? It is year 6 and I am still waiting for one second liner.

"On defense, He drafted Zubov and Johnsson. Then comes Norstrom. Then Cairns and Puriton."

Thats' 2 top pairing d-men and one in the 4-6 range and one definite 3rd pairing d-man. Sather has given us Tyutin. It's been 6 years, and we have not one top 6 player and one 2nd pairing defenseman. Oh, and a goalie. That's in 6 friggin' years of drafting.

"That is, at best, adaquate. "

Call it what you want, but it towers over what Sather has accomplished in his drafts.

"When you factor in the fact that 2 of the 5 came in Smiths first year, and not a single one came after 1995, thats terrible. In 4 drafts after '95, only one player (York) has made any time of mark on the league."

You need not factor anything. You examine the whole body of work. And within his body of work are real players who were making an impact by the time Smith was on his 6th draft.

"On 2001: Talk about Bias. What makes Tytuin no more than a 3rd Defender? He'll likely never be a number one guy, but I dont see why he couldnt have a career similar to Kim Johnsson."

I am confused. How is that bias? You are the one drawing a comparison to Jonson. I said that, IMO, I hope that Tyutin is a #2, but will likely be a # 3/4. You compare him to Jonson and say that I am biased? I don't get it. Where is the bias?

"The 2 forwards, Jessiman and Korpikoski, have top six talent, and this year should show us alot in terms of what we can expect of them"

Could be and can be is wonderfull. However, they are not top 6 forwards yet. We can agree that by the time it was Smith's 6th draft, he did not have such issues with his draft picks.

"Staal has great size and skill, so why hes being relegated to a second pair D-man by you is ridiculous. "

So me calling him a 2nd pair d-man is ridiculous, but you calling him a top pairing is righteous? There is much more than size and skill to be a top pair defenseman.

"are also a group of other guys who may or may not be impact players (Motoya, Dawes, Baranka, Suaer) and some other guys who look like they can be core guys."

But, they have not yet. And, after 6 years, I find that disgracefull.

"I dont see why the fact we dont have a slew of offense first forwards in our system is that much of a concern to you, I think it should be obvious after watching the Rangers the last few years that Defense wins games. "

Sure, defense wins games. I agree. But you need more than just drafting future 4th liners.

"and it looks like the main reason for that is dislike of the person who drafted them."

And you make that statement because?????? Surely it cannot be becuase I am constantly harping on the fact that after 6 years, aside from Tyutin and a goalie or two, Sather's drafts have produced exactly squat. There is more to drafting than saying "This player CAN be and this one COULD be". After 6 years of drafting, there need to be some kind of results. I could care less who is drafting. And if all of these players that Sather has taken in the past 2 years amount to something, I will sing his praises. However, right now, I cannot.

"That is of course your right, as senseless as it is. "

What is more senseless, claiming that I have a bias or ignoring the fact that after 6 years of drafting, despite the fact that the playoffs were acheived not one time, we have not one forward that can play on the 2nd line? That is success to you?

"Smith is the reason we are in this mess in the first place."

Isn't it time to stop using Smith as an excuse for Sather? Sather has had 6 drafts here. I think that Smith is clearly out of the picture. Where we are falls squarely on Sather, at this point.

"His poor drafting and complete & total neglect of the developing of youth in the years after the cup is the sole reason why Sather even got hired in the first place."

Again, after his 6th draft, Smith had no less than 3 top line forwards and 2 top pairing defensemen. We won't go into 3rd liners or the like. How can you possibly slam Smith and laud Sather? After 6 drafts, Sather does not measure up to Smith's drafting.

"Had Smith done his job"

He did. Or did you miss the Stanley Cup part?

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 03:55 PM
  #66
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
So what? The fact remains that he DID produce. How many top liners have Sather's drafts turn out? It is year 6 and I am still waiting for one second liner.


Thats' 2 top pairing d-men and one in the 4-6 range and one definite 3rd pairing d-man. Sather has given us Tyutin. It's been 6 years, and we have not one top 6 player and one 2nd pairing defenseman. Oh, and a goalie. That's in 6 friggin' years of drafting.

Call it what you want, but it towers over what Sather has accomplished in his drafts.

You need not factor anything. You examine the whole body of work. And within his body of work are real players who were making an impact by the time Smith was on his 6th draft.

I am confused. How is that bias? You are the one drawing a comparison to Jonson. I said that, IMO, I hope that Tyutin is a #2, but will likely be a # 3/4. You compare him to Jonson and say that I am biased? I don't get it. Where is the bias?

Could be and can be is wonderfull. However, they are not top 6 forwards yet. We can agree that by the time it was Smith's 6th draft, he did not have such issues with his draft picks.

So me calling him a 2nd pair d-man is ridiculous, but you calling him a top pairing is righteous? There is much more than size and skill to be a top pair defenseman.

But, they have not yet. And, after 6 years, I find that disgracefull.

Sure, defense wins games. I agree. But you need more than just drafting future 4th liners.

And you make that statement because?????? Surely it cannot be becuase I am constantly harping on the fact that after 6 years, aside from Tyutin and a goalie or two, Sather's drafts have produced exactly squat. There is more to drafting than saying "This player CAN be and this one COULD be". After 6 years of drafting, there need to be some kind of results. I could care less who is drafting. And if all of these players that Sather has taken in the past 2 years amount to something, I will sing his praises. However, right now, I cannot.

What is more senseless, claiming that I have a bias or ignoring the fact that after 6 years of drafting, despite the fact that the playoffs were acheived not one time, we have not one forward that can play on the 2nd line? That is success to you?

Isn't it time to stop using Smith as an excuse for Sather? Sather has had 6 drafts here. I think that Smith is clearly out of the picture. Where we are falls squarely on Sather, at this point.

Again, after his 6th draft, Smith had no less than 3 top line forwards and 2 top pairing defensemen. We won't go into 3rd liners or the like. How can you possibly slam Smith and laud Sather? After 6 drafts, Sather does not measure up to Smith's drafting.

He did. Or did you miss the Stanley Cup part?
You are missing my point here.

I had no intention of comparing Sather and Smith. The only reason I even mentioned Sather in my post is because I think you are wrong about the state of our system. If you want to compare Smith and Sather, do it when Sather was with the Oilers during the same time period. Sather had one of the poorest draft records during that time, and his is only slightly worse than Smith's.

No, I'm looking at Smith on his own drafting merits, which are not even remotely impressive. And I am looking at Smiths "whole body of work", which essentially consisted of spending the last 8 years of his career drafting Kim Johnsson with the last pick of the 1994 draft, and Marc Savard. Hell, throw York in there as well. Sure its great to get Weight and Zubov in 1990, but what happens to the team when by 1999 we dont have a single decent prospect in the system, and the ones you used to have were traded away? Ohhhhh thats right, you miss the playoffs and leave your team in disarray with cupboard completely bare...or have YOU forgotten? I honestly dont get it with people and Smith. I mean I realize Sather has been bad enough to make people wish for Smith back, but doesnt ANYONE remember the state he left this team in? All those drafts that yeilded nothing?

As for your comments about Sathers picks: When have we gotten a look at them? I hear people b*tch and moan about how Sather puts the wrong guys out on the ice season after season, how the kids never get a proper look or are in other ways mishandled.... and then you want to use it AGAINST the kids? Its there fault they havnt broken through when Sather hasnt had the sense to use them and let them develop? Yeah thats logic for you. How would we know Doug Weight was what we was if the coaches under Smith didnt use him? All you have is potential when idiot coaching refuses to play them.

The rebuidling should have started in 2000, and if that were the case we would have those "top 6" or "top pair" guys you so desperately want just by having high draft picks. Sather has proved over and over again that he shouldnt have a job anymore. But that doesnt mean he has made terrible picks and that we dont have decent players in the system.

McRanger is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 04:18 PM
  #67
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
The only reason I even mentioned Sather in my post is because I think you are wrong about the state of our system.
Really? 6 years of drafting and not one forward that we feel comfortable with on the 2nd line? And I am wrong?

"If you want to compare Smith and Sather, do it when Sather was with the Oilers during the same time period."

I could care less what Sather did in Edmonton. I care about what he did in NY.

"Ohhhhh thats right, you miss the playoffs and leave your team in disarray with cupboard completely bare...or have YOU forgotten?"

No, I have not forgotten. However, we are not talking about the state of the team. We are talking about the players that Smith drafted in his first 6 years here as opposed to Sather.

"I honestly dont get it with people and Smith. I mean I realize Sather has been bad enough to make people wish for Smith back, but doesnt ANYONE remember the state he left this team in? All those drafts that yeilded nothing? "

I remember. However, I also remember a Staley Cup banner, and at least a handfull of top line forwards and top pair defensemen. The first 6 years DID yield those things. This is not a Smith's tenure to Sather's tenure comparison, although we could get into that in another thread. This is strictly about the players that were drafted. And, when looked upon in that light, Sather does not deserve to carry Smith's notebook.

"As for your comments about Sathers picks: When have we gotten a look at them?"

You tell me. It's been 6 years. Shouldn't there have been someone to look at by now?

"Its there fault they havnt broken through when Sather hasnt had the sense to use them and let them develop?"

So they have talent, but Sather failed to develop them? We could say the exact same thing about every single Smith pick that did not make it to the NHL. I don't understand what you are driving at. Whether not drafting the right player or not developing said player, whatever reason you want to use, the bottom line is that aside from Tyutin and possible a goalie or two, 6 years worth of Sather's drafts have produced squat.

"But that doesnt mean he has made terrible picks and that we dont have decent players in the system."

I would say that after 6 years, the proof is in the pudding.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 04:20 PM
  #68
E-Train
Registered User
 
E-Train's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
The rebuidling should have started in 2000, and if that were the case we would have those "top 6" or "top pair" guys you so desperately want just by having high draft picks. Sather has proved over and over again that he shouldnt have a job anymore. But that doesnt mean he has made terrible picks and that we dont have decent players in the system.
This is exactly right, the Rangers haven't had a top 5 pick (with the exception on Brendl in '99) in I don't know how long. Not having a #1 center or a Leetch-type defenseman in the system doesn't mean the Ranger prospects won't amount to anything special. I'm ok with a good stable of #2-#4 defensemen (I see Tyutin as a near definite #2 (especially on this team) and an excellent second pair d-man on a stacked team.

With any luck we'll see a lottery pick in the '06 draft and adding a franchise center to this prospect list will hopefully turn around some of the pessimists regardless of who the GM is.

E-Train is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 05:19 PM
  #69
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
Let me try this AGAIN. The debate I was making was that Smiths drafting history during his tenure here was terrible. And since the only way you can see if something is good or bad is to compare it to something else, I gave Sathers time in Edmonton as an easy example, since Sather was pretty much unquestionably terrible in his time there. As I've said, and shown, Smith spent 8 years wasting draft picks. That is not success, no matter what way you cut it.

As for the Sather part of my point (which is not related to the fact that Neil Smith had a terrible draft record) is as follows. First, try and understand that you can't completely judge a draft a year or two or even three years after it is held. Most, except a few select picks (usually top 5 guys or guys rushed on terrible teams) do not play before that span is up. Hell, alot of guys from 2003 have not even made an appearance yet. Top picks like Vanek, Phaneauf, Coburn, Sutter, Carter etc. havnt even played an NHL game. These are TOP draft picks and TOP prospects and they havent hit the ice yet.

You wanna look at drafts that you can (almost) accurately look at as successes or failures, look at 2000 and 2001, as ive repeatedly repeatedly said.

In 2000 we didnt have a first rounder, thanks to Smith. Its hard to pick up an impact player without one, though it looks like Sather may have got one in the 7th round. Of course we cant count him, because all he has is potential. In the second round we got Moore, who looks like a decent NHLer, he looked good at the NHL level, he even scored 3 points in 5 games.

In 2001 we took Blackburn who showed he had a career at the NHL, by playing well at that level as a 19 year old. Except he got hurt, so thats that. In the second round that year we took Tyutin, who, as i stated before, showed me more as a 20 year old rookie than Johnsson did as a 23 yeah old rookie, hense the previous comparison. After that, well there are a few good role players here and there, a few who have even played well at the Pro level.

And thats where it ends. You can look at 2002 if you want, but it was another year without a first rounder, and the majority of the picks are either just leaving college or are on their way over from Europe.

After that its all potential, which draft picks tend to be. No one drafts players (outside of top picks) that are NHL ready and even then its not a lock. Some players take time to develop, but pretty much all of them take at least a 2 or 3 years. To think that that is a failure is like considering Jan Mertiz a good pick in '98 simply because he stepped right into the NHL.


Last edited by McRanger: 08-23-2005 at 06:24 PM.
McRanger is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 05:24 PM
  #70
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Train
This is exactly right, the Rangers haven't had a top 5 pick (with the exception on Brendl in '99) in I don't know how long. Not having a #1 center or a Leetch-type defenseman in the system doesn't mean the Ranger prospects won't amount to anything special. I'm ok with a good stable of #2-#4 defensemen (I see Tyutin as a near definite #2 (especially on this team) and an excellent second pair d-man on a stacked team.

With any luck we'll see a lottery pick in the '06 draft and adding a franchise center to this prospect list will hopefully turn around some of the pessimists regardless of who the GM is.
Thank God, someone gets it. Its not easy to pump out impact players when you only have 1 first rounder in 3 years of drafting, and that one ends up with a career ending injury. Add that to the fact that the Rangers never went through a legit rebuild, and never got that top 5 pick that they needed.

McRanger is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 06:08 PM
  #71
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
No. First of all, as a GM, Sather bears the responsibility for the 2000 draft. You keep trying to dodge that fact. Touting names like Dan Blackburn, Fedor Tyutin, Garth Murray and Bryce Lampman is not really the same thing as Amonte, Zubov or weight. Or even Mike York (another Smith pick). Or even Mark Savard (another Smith pick). Say what you want about Smith, but his drafts produced top (again, not top 2, just TOP) line players and top pairing defensemen. You genereously list Tyutin as a # 3, but he could jus as easily be a #4. Either way, it's 2nd pair defenseman. Don't get me wrong, I'll do backflips if both he and Staal turn out to be 2nd pair d-men. However, it does not hold a candle to Smith's entire body of work while he was here. Look at Smith's 6 drafts and look at Sather's 6 drafts. By the time Smith was done with his 6 drafts, he had players playing on the top 2 lines and top pair d-men. We have not one young player to hang our hats on for being on the 2nd line this current year. No, I would not like to rethink my stance.


Okay.


Fine, are you telling me that it was Dolan behind the Lindros trade all along? And the Bure trade? And the Carter trade? And the Kovalev trade? And the Jagr trade?


I believe it was all Sather on Lindros and the idiotic Mazel Tov signing. But I also heard Matt Schneider was not popular in the room, which led to them not bringing him back.

However, Bure? Kovalev? Jagr? They all reek of Dolan. Dolan has done the same thing with the Knicks. I believe he has some pull.



I'll take a think Hartford roster if that means that most of my drafted players are already in the NHL, as opposed to a packed roster from players who are vying to join the "Plumbers of the NHL" union.

The bottom line was Neil invested a lot in the Rangers but had little in the cupboard at the minor league level. The injury to Cherneski didn't help.


What it comes down to is how these players perform in the next 2-3 years. If they do and get the team back into the playoffs, then you can say it worked.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 07:38 PM
  #72
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Train
This is exactly right, the Rangers haven't had a top 5 pick (with the exception on Brendl in '99) in I don't know how long. Not having a #1 center or a Leetch-type defenseman in the system doesn't mean the Ranger prospects won't amount to anything special. I'm ok with a good stable of #2-#4 defensemen (I see Tyutin as a near definite #2 (especially on this team) and an excellent second pair d-man on a stacked team.

With any luck we'll see a lottery pick in the '06 draft and adding a franchise center to this prospect list will hopefully turn around some of the pessimists regardless of who the GM is.
As opposed to hopelessly optimistic who seem to think that the Rangers are in much better hands that many people and most of the NHL believe.

I think the problem seems to be two schools of thought and not enough middle ground. People (esp around here) either seem to be on suicide watch or overdosing on happy pills and the realty of these prospects (many are average at best) seems to be lost in the middle.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 10:06 PM
  #73
E-Train
Registered User
 
E-Train's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
As opposed to hopelessly optimistic who seem to think that the Rangers are in much better hands that many people and most of the NHL believe.

I think the problem seems to be two schools of thought and not enough middle ground. People (esp around here) either seem to be on suicide watch or overdosing on happy pills and the realty of these prospects (many are average at best) seems to be lost in the middle.
That's exactly it. Far too little middle ground, I'm realistic about the situation here but this being a fan site, fans usually tend to be overly optimistic about their team's prospects.

I see that many of the prospects are average but there are some that are well above average and that gets clouded here. Some get a bit pumped up about certain players and then get absolutely hammered by the pessimists.

You are right, the reality is lost in the middle.

E-Train is offline  
Old
08-23-2005, 10:55 PM
  #74
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
We all need some patience around here. We really wont know the situation for a while.

Edge is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.