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

Rangers are "FUBAR"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2010, 09:26 AM
  #26
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Not surprising. It's hard to make trades like that when all of your cap space is being eaten up by the terrible long term contracts that you've chosen to give out yourself.
This is nonsensical even for you Sting. You lament us being unable to trade for underachieving long term contracts because we of the long term contracts we have?

How many teams in the league have the cap space to make this trade, and how many of them of those teams can actually afford to pay the salary?

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:30 AM
  #27
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,975
vCash: 500
Sell Sell Sell!

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:34 AM
  #28
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
vCash: 500
Please tank, tank, tank. We better get a top 5 pick this year. If we finish like 10th in the east and pick like 10th - 13th overall that would do nothing for us long term. Maybe we should not sell, because it might be addition by subtraction and we will actually have a competitive team then.

bubba5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:17 AM
  #29
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
That's exactly the point.
Thank you. You acknowledge that a pattern of behavior is "exactly the point" of the analogy, and yet it finds no place in the analogy.

Do you see the problem here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
A pattern of behavior doesn't give any more credibility to something that is only pure speculation at this point.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it does. Where speculation is concerned, any number of factors offer validity, patterns being one of the most effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
This is a message board. Everything is thought. Nobody has the power to do anything. Bashing someone is our greatest form of punishment.
I agree but your analogy did not indicate "bashing."

Arrest is a material sanction, not a mere critique. No one here has suggested that Sather should be fired or that any material sanction should be laid against him. Thus an attempt to correlate "bashing" him with "arresting" him is absurd.

There's quite a bit of difference between:
"I'm going to call you a likely thief" and "I'm going to arrest you as a likely thief." If you don't see the difference between those two things, I suggest you ask a cop, lawyer, judge, or anyone who's been arrested.

RangerBoy offers the first in his opening post. Your analogy claims the second. That's why it is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
You can say its not a perfect analogy; "false analogy," as you put it, it is not.
Sure it is. See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
My point would have been well taken if you did not have a stick up your ass because I argued against your point in another thread.
Or if you'd constructed an appropriate analogy. Why do you make this about me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
No, that would be an awkward, ridiculous analogy.
Awkward yes but hardly ridiculous. Sadly, awkward is what one often gets when he doesn't oversimplify in an attempt to make a point.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:18 AM
  #30
reckoner
Registered User
 
reckoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
has anyone else noticed that wade redden is on pace for a 12-point season? he'll probably end up with about 15-17 points--but holy crap!

gilroy, girardi, and staal all have more points than him!



i know i'm probably beating a dead horse, but the guy is just amazing.

reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:22 AM
  #31
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
This is nonsensical even for you Sting. You lament us being unable to trade for underachieving long term contracts because we of the long term contracts we have?

How many teams in the league have the cap space to make this trade, and how many of them of those teams can actually afford to pay the salary?
Even for me? LOL. I'm not supporting this idea. I'm completely against it. That wasn't my point at all. All I'm saying is that it's no surprise Sather hasn't made deals like this, it's not as if he could even if he wanted to. That's all.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:54 AM
  #32
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
This organization apparently is not familiar with the phrase "bite the bullet". I've got an idea...unless the player's name is "Ilya Kovalchuk", do not add a high -ticket player this off-season. Don't necessarily give up on pursuing the playoffs, but, don't make stupid short term move to make the playoffs that will come back to bite the team in in the butt. Identify the core - IMO that core consists of four forwards, (Gaborik, Dubinsky, Callahan and Anisimov), two D-men, (Staal and MDZ) and one goalie, (obvious) that are currently on the roster. Get max value for the likes of Prospal, Girardi and Higgins, (I still see the Campoli/Comrie deal as a comparable for a Higgins/Girardi deal, and the Antropov deal as a comparable for a Prospal deal - a 2nd with the option of an additional pick). Move Kotalik for what you can get - take a lower pick if it means not adding salary. If you can move Rozsival without taking back too awful a contract, do it. The Rangers are stuck with Drury for two more years, but, reduce his ice time, and give it to Anisimov. Buyout both Brashear and Redden. Yes, you have a cap hit of $1.9 million or so for for additional years, but, you gain an immediate $4.5 million the next two years, and in years three and four, both Drury and Rozsival are off the books, so additional cap space is gained. And, try to give players like Sanguinetti, Weise and Byers some looks at the NHL level over the last month or so of the season.

There is no easy way out.
Exactly the route I would like to go. Excellent summary, jas.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 11:16 AM
  #33
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
The only way I take Souray is if they take Redden back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
FUBAR. ****ed Beyond All Repair. Large scale disarray.

The Rangers have bad contracts coming out of their wazoo. The team can't score goals. They are a terrible product to watch every night. The coach is too busy fighting with the media. The players don't fight for each other.

This morning I read this



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0diuwWpVQ

That's the answer to all of the problems. Another big ticket item from Saks. Soon to be 34 year old Souray who has zero PP goals this season in 34 games played. With his shot,he should have 5 PPG's by accident. That is Sather's solution. Edmonton doesn't want to swap a bad contract for Souray. They want futures. High picks. Top prospects. Young roster players.

If Sather wants Souray soo much,why didn't he sign him in 2007 instead of both captain America centers? Sign one of them and sign Souray.

I feel like making one of those Hitler movies. The scene in some movie where Hitler reams out his staff for some snafu. People put their own subtitles/closed captioning underneath. Hoping Souray is willing to waive his NTC for the Rangers. $5.4 million cap hit. Injuries every other season.

Enough already

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 11:37 AM
  #34
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,777
vCash: 50
Awards:
Please keep things impersonal, guys. No one is better than anyone else here. Discuss the post, not the poster. If the argument has reached a stalemate, where no one is giving any ground, then agree to disagree and walk away.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:14 PM
  #35
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 RangerBoy View Post
FUBAR. ****ed Beyond All Repair. Large scale disarray.

The Rangers have bad contracts coming out of their wazoo. The team can't score goals. They are a terrible product to watch every night. The coach is too busy fighting with the media. The players don't fight for each other.

This morning I read this



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0diuwWpVQ

That's the answer to all of the problems. Another big ticket item from Saks. Soon to be 34 year old Souray who has zero PP goals this season in 34 games played. With his shot,he should have 5 PPG's by accident. That is Sather's solution. Edmonton doesn't want to swap a bad contract for Souray. They want futures. High picks. Top prospects. Young roster players.

If Sather wants Souray soo much,why didn't he sign him in 2007 instead of both captain America centers? Sign one of them and sign Souray.

I feel like making one of those Hitler movies. The scene in some movie where Hitler reams out his staff for some snafu. People put their own subtitles/closed captioning underneath. Hoping Souray is willing to waive his NTC for the Rangers. $5.4 million cap hit. Injuries every other season.

Enough already
I have the Hitler/NY Rangers one from this year where he rips Redden, Drury ,Higgins and Rosy. Funny as hell.

I would post it but it has some curse words in the subtitles.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:15 PM
  #36
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoner View Post
has anyone else noticed that wade redden is on pace for a 12-point season? he'll probably end up with about 15-17 points--but holy crap!

gilroy, girardi, and staal all have more points than him!



i know i'm probably beating a dead horse, but the guy is just amazing.
If he scored 17 points...that would equate to $382,352.94, a point...not a bad living.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:29 PM
  #37
Kind of Blue
Registered User
 
Kind of Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Thank you. You acknowledge that a pattern of behavior is "exactly the point" of the analogy, and yet it finds no place in the analogy.

Do you see the problem here?
Yes, the problem is you. You separated the above quoted sentence from the sentence that followed, thereby completely taking it out of context. Good job. Without context, there's no way to have a rational discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it does. Where speculation is concerned, any number of factors offer validity, patterns being one of the most effective.
No, it really doesn't. Sather's past behavior doesn't change the fact that Brooks is merely speculating. It is an inarguable fact that at this point we do not have knowledge that Sather has interest at this point. Criticizing him for something he may not even be thinking, which RB undeniably did, is pointless. That is the main point, which would have been instantly clear to any reasonable person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
I agree but your analogy did not indicate "bashing."
Only it did, you just don't know how to interpret an analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Arrest is a material sanction, not a mere critique. No one here has suggested that Sather should be fired or that any material sanction should be laid against him. Thus an attempt to correlate "bashing" him with "arresting" him is absurd.

There's quite a bit of difference between:
"I'm going to call you a likely thief" and "I'm going to arrest you as a likely thief." If you don't see the difference between those two things, I suggest you ask a cop, lawyer, judge, or anyone who's been arrested.

RangerBoy offers the first in his opening post. Your analogy claims the second. That's why it is false.
Look, based on that embarrassing sample analogy you posted earlier, I really didn't expect you to know what an analogy is, so I'm going to provide you with the definition: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Therefore, all you need for an analogy is "similarity in some respect" -- not all, but just some respect. Keep that in mind for the future.

Since you prefer to be literal in the extreme, here is the bottom line, Brooks' comments are speculation and have no basis in fact and as such criticizing Sather as a result of those comments is pointless. If you had a problem with the analogy the first time around, there you have the main point in more literal terms -- try focusing on that rather than the analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Or if you'd constructed an appropriate analogy.
After that winner of an analogy you posted earlier, don't play the judge of what is an appropriate analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Awkward yes but hardly ridiculous. Sadly, awkward is what one often gets when he doesn't oversimplify in an attempt to make a point.
Did you ever take the SATs? You tell me if any of the analogies looked like the mangled rambling you posted.


Last edited by Kind of Blue: 01-26-2010 at 12:36 PM.
Kind of Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:39 PM
  #38
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,055
vCash: 500
Seems to me the Rangers are just a confused team... from the owner to the GM to the coach to the players to the fans... no one really knows what's going on. Haven't followed them closely since Jagr left, but either "the more things change, the more they stay the same" or "one step forward, two steps back" seems appropriate.

Many are hoping for a late season surge as in previous years, and optimistic they will make the playoffs. That is possible, but more of a characteristic of Jagr's teams than Rangers' teams, and they are not as good of a team as they were 2-3 years ago, so not much of a threat even if they do make the playoffs. It's easy to blur the last 4 1/2 seasons together as "hot start, mediocre middle, hot finish, mediocre playoffs" and as teams of similar quality, but that's not exactly true:

Looking at last 5 seasons (using Points - Games = X or "+X")

2006: +12 after 32 games, +20 after 58 games (Olympic break), finished +18 with (GF-GA) of +42; lost 1st round 0-4 (4 GF, 17 GA).
Summary: hot start, hot middle, mediocre finish, poor playoffs (due to Jagr's injury and Lundqvist's fatigue/injury).

2007: +8 after 32 games, only +2 after 62 games, finished +12 with (GF-GA) of +26; won 1st round 4-0 (17 GF, 6 GA), lost 2nd round 2-4 (13 GF, 17 GA).
Summary: mediocre start, mediocre middle, hot finish, very good playoffs (only seconds to go from winning 3 in a row and going up 3-2 against top team in conference).

2008: +6 after 26 games, only +1 after 49 games, finished +15 with (GF-GA) of +14; won 1st round 4-1 (19 GF, 12 GA), lost 2nd round 1-4 (12 GF, 15 GA).
Summary: mediocre start, mediocre middle, hot finish, good playoffs (competitive against SC finalist who won Cup next year).

2009: +9 after 21 games, +13 after 49 gms, finished +13 with (GF-GA) of -8; lost 1st round 3-4 (11 GF, 19 GA).
Summary: hot start, mediocre middle, mediocre finish, mediocre playoffs (lost in 7 games, but were mostly outplayed).

2010: +5 after 7 games, also +5 after 46 games... currently +2 after 53 games with (GF-GA) of -8.
Summary: hot start, mediocre middle... ?? (mediocre finish?)

Also can look at scoring and special teams:

2006: 3.13 GF (12th), 2.62 GA (4th), 18.8% PP (9th), 83.8% PK (10th)
2007: 2.95 GF (16th), 2.63 GA (9th), 18.5% PP (8th), 83.85% PK (12th)
2008: 2.60 GF (23rd), 2.43 GA (5th), 16.5% PP (22nd), 84.5% PK (6th)
2009: 2.56 GF (25th), 2.66 GA (6th), 13.9% PP (29th), 87.8% PK (1st)
2010: 2.52 GF (23rd), 2.65 GA (12th), 18.4% PP (14th), 84.7% PK (6th)

Don't mean to overwhelm with stats, just wanted to put the data out there for review. What it shows is how the nature and quality of the team changed after 2007, which coincidentally was when Drury and Gomez were added to the team. The previous two seasons, the Rangers had a power play in top third of league, and despite Renney's defensive style, an offense in the middle of the pack. After 2007, the power play went from top third to bottom third and team scoring went from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack, without a corresponding improvement in defense (except slight improvement in PK%).

So, after all the signings, trades, coaching change, etc. what I see is a worse team with basically the same, if not more, issues:

- instead of middle of the pack offense... a weak offense
- instead of a good PP... a weak PP that is only good when Gaborik is healthy and playing well
- lack of secondary scoring, so reliant on Euros on top line
- no substantial improvement in defense, although PK% even better
- still plenty of blame... since changed coaches, blame GM more now
- Jagr "not much of a leader?"... Drury "not much of a player!"
- soft team that won't stand up against cheap shots of star players
- lack of consistent PP QB defenseman
- lack of shutdown defensemen

I do agree that Sather deserves a good portion of blame. He wanted to go in a new direction apparently, and signed Gomez and Drury. This wasn't so unpopular at the time (although many questioned their contracts), because they were non-Euros, had played on winning teams, more north-south style hockey, had those "intangibles" that were supposedly missing... grit, leadership, captain clutch, all that jazz. Yet, remember how puzzled Jagr and his linemates were at the signings? No wonder, since he thought the most pressing need was an elite defenseman, and it broke up a highly effective line to create lines without any real coherence.

I know this has been more of a review of the post-lockout Rangers, rather than a "how to fix it" post. I can only suggest the following:

- Being a playoff contender and rebuilding are not mutually exclusive.
- This team is farther, not closer, to being a Cup contender than they were during Jagr's tenure.
- It's better to make the right trade or signing, than to make several and hope some pan out.
- Consistently high turnover is a sign of poor management.
- Don't give up on young players too quickly.
- Defense is a need just as much as offense. There's a reason Renney played such a defensive system, which along with Lundqvist helps cover an often shaky defensive corps.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:54 PM
  #39
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Excellent post, Czech. You should post here more often, it's a breath of fresh air after reading the same old tired argument from the usual suspects.

Shadowrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 02:55 PM
  #40
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Seems to me the Rangers are just a confused team... from the owner to the GM to the coach to the players to the fans... no one really knows what's going on. Haven't followed them closely since Jagr left, but either "the more things change, the more they stay the same" or "one step forward, two steps back" seems appropriate.

Many are hoping for a late season surge as in previous years, and optimistic they will make the playoffs. That is possible, but more of a characteristic of Jagr's teams than Rangers' teams, and they are not as good of a team as they were 2-3 years ago, so not much of a threat even if they do make the playoffs. It's easy to blur the last 4 1/2 seasons together as "hot start, mediocre middle, hot finish, mediocre playoffs" and as teams of similar quality, but that's not exactly true:

Looking at last 5 seasons (using Points - Games = X or "+X")

2006: +12 after 32 games, +20 after 58 games (Olympic break), finished +18 with (GF-GA) of +42; lost 1st round 0-4 (4 GF, 17 GA).
Summary: hot start, hot middle, mediocre finish, poor playoffs (due to Jagr's injury and Lundqvist's fatigue/injury).

2007: +8 after 32 games, only +2 after 62 games, finished +12 with (GF-GA) of +26; won 1st round 4-0 (17 GF, 6 GA), lost 2nd round 2-4 (13 GF, 17 GA).
Summary: mediocre start, mediocre middle, hot finish, very good playoffs (only seconds to go from winning 3 in a row and going up 3-2 against top team in conference).

2008: +6 after 26 games, only +1 after 49 games, finished +15 with (GF-GA) of +14; won 1st round 4-1 (19 GF, 12 GA), lost 2nd round 1-4 (12 GF, 15 GA).
Summary: mediocre start, mediocre middle, hot finish, good playoffs (competitive against SC finalist who won Cup next year).

2009: +9 after 21 games, +13 after 49 gms, finished +13 with (GF-GA) of -8; lost 1st round 3-4 (11 GF, 19 GA).
Summary: hot start, mediocre middle, mediocre finish, mediocre playoffs (lost in 7 games, but were mostly outplayed).

2010: +5 after 7 games, also +5 after 46 games... currently +2 after 53 games with (GF-GA) of -8.
Summary: hot start, mediocre middle... ?? (mediocre finish?)

Also can look at scoring and special teams:

2006: 3.13 GF (12th), 2.62 GA (4th), 18.8% PP (9th), 83.8% PK (10th)
2007: 2.95 GF (16th), 2.63 GA (9th), 18.5% PP (8th), 83.85% PK (12th)
2008: 2.60 GF (23rd), 2.43 GA (5th), 16.5% PP (22nd), 84.5% PK (6th)
2009: 2.56 GF (25th), 2.66 GA (6th), 13.9% PP (29th), 87.8% PK (1st)
2010: 2.52 GF (23rd), 2.65 GA (12th), 18.4% PP (14th), 84.7% PK (6th)

Don't mean to overwhelm with stats, just wanted to put the data out there for review. What it shows is how the nature and quality of the team changed after 2007, which coincidentally was when Drury and Gomez were added to the team. The previous two seasons, the Rangers had a power play in top third of league, and despite Renney's defensive style, an offense in the middle of the pack. After 2007, the power play went from top third to bottom third and team scoring went from middle of the pack to bottom of the pack, without a corresponding improvement in defense (except slight improvement in PK%).

So, after all the signings, trades, coaching change, etc. what I see is a worse team with basically the same, if not more, issues:

- instead of middle of the pack offense... a weak offense
- instead of a good PP... a weak PP that is only good when Gaborik is healthy and playing well
- lack of secondary scoring, so reliant on Euros on top line
- no substantial improvement in defense, although PK% even better
- still plenty of blame... since changed coaches, blame GM more now
- Jagr "not much of a leader?"... Drury "not much of a player!"
- soft team that won't stand up against cheap shots of star players
- lack of consistent PP QB defenseman
- lack of shutdown defensemen

I do agree that Sather deserves a good portion of blame. He wanted to go in a new direction apparently, and signed Gomez and Drury. This wasn't so unpopular at the time (although many questioned their contracts), because they were non-Euros, had played on winning teams, more north-south style hockey, had those "intangibles" that were supposedly missing... grit, leadership, captain clutch, all that jazz. Yet, remember how puzzled Jagr and his linemates were at the signings? No wonder, since he thought the most pressing need was an elite defenseman, and it broke up a highly effective line to create lines without any real coherence.

I know this has been more of a review of the post-lockout Rangers, rather than a "how to fix it" post. I can only suggest the following:

- Being a playoff contender and rebuilding are not mutually exclusive.
- This team is farther, not closer, to being a Cup contender than they were during Jagr's tenure.
- It's better to make the right trade or signing, than to make several and hope some pan out.
- Consistently high turnover is a sign of poor management.
- Don't give up on young players too quickly.
- Defense is a need just as much as offense. There's a reason Renney played such a defensive system, which along with Lundqvist helps cover an often shaky defensive corps.
Wow, what a great post! One of the best posts I've read here in awhile.

I always knew that the Gomez and Drury disrupted the chemistry and dynamic of the team, and this statistical data backs up that assertion. Seems like Sather thought these guys would take the team to the next level and instead it set them back.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 03:37 PM
  #41
Sidgeni Malkby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,082
vCash: 500
Nice post Czech....

With all the bad contracts as of late (Drury, Redden, and the late Gomez), would Nylander's "bad contract" had been so bad? It would have kept Jagr here an extra year, and there would still be cap space to get Gaborik.

The stats don't lie.

I honestly though the Rangers were done with the "buy high and sell low" mentality of the pre-lockout...I guess old habits never die .

Sidgeni Malkby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 03:40 PM
  #42
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Wow, what a great post! One of the best posts I've read here in awhile.

I always knew that the Gomez and Drury disrupted the chemistry and dynamic of the team, and this statistical data backs up that assertion. Seems like Sather thought these guys would take the team to the next level and instead it set them back.
Any sensible analysis of the factors that led to the respective successes of Gomez and Drury would have led to the fairly obvious realization that neither was a fit for this team. It also leads to the fairly obvious realization that neither is a first-line player. Terrible idea before it even happened.

And just think, he goes ahead and does the same exact thing the next summer and makes it that much worse. Not only could he have avoided Redden, he could have gotten one of several more attractive choices.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 03:43 PM
  #43
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Any sensible analysis of the factors that led to the respective successes of Gomez and Drury would have led to the fairly obvious realization that neither was a fit for this team. It also leads to the fairly obvious realization that neither is a first-line player. Terrible idea before it even happened.

And just think, he goes ahead and does the same exact thing the next summer and makes it that much worse. Not only could he have avoided Redden, he could have gotten one of several more attractive choices.
agreed....when the signings were announced, i remember coming on here and basically saying the next 5 years were going to be awful...and while they havent been awful, they have certainly been trending downwards. hated the signings then, hate them now...though the blowmez one less for getting us back McDonagh.
its the NMC that are awful..you never give them out anymore...we didnt give it out to Gaborik, we shouldnt have given it out to captain cardboard.

Inferno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 03:47 PM
  #44
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,158
vCash: 500
Its almost like Sather thinks he's onto something that he thinks no one else has thought of when he plays around with FA money - "instead of getting one Chara i'll get Redden/Rosy ! Two for the price of one ! No Savard, i'll take Gomez & Drury, that'll be enough to put us over the top !"


Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 04:16 PM
  #45
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Its almost like Sather thinks he's onto something that he thinks no one else has thought of when he plays around with FA money - "instead of getting one Chara i'll get Redden/Rosy ! Two for the price of one ! No Savard, i'll take Gomez & Drury, that'll be enough to put us over the top !"

Redden and Roszsival could have been Chara and Streit.

Good lord, haha. Wow. Just think about that.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 04:23 PM
  #46
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Redden and Roszsival could have been Chara and Streit.

Good lord, haha. Wow. Just think about that.
I'm still kind of amazed he passed on Chara. That had NYR signing all over it, wtf happend?

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 04:44 PM
  #47
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,552
vCash: 500
With the Rangers, it's always a SNAFU. Situation Normal All F***ed Up. At least for the last 10 years anyway.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 05:04 PM
  #48
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
FUBAR. ****ed Beyond All Repair. Large scale disarray.

The Rangers have bad contracts coming out of their wazoo. The team can't score goals. They are a terrible product to watch every night. The coach is too busy fighting with the media. The players don't fight for each other.

This morning I read this



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0diuwWpVQ

That's the answer to all of the problems. Another big ticket item from Saks. Soon to be 34 year old Souray who has zero PP goals this season in 34 games played. With his shot,he should have 5 PPG's by accident. That is Sather's solution. Edmonton doesn't want to swap a bad contract for Souray. They want futures. High picks. Top prospects. Young roster players.

If Sather wants Souray soo much,why didn't he sign him in 2007 instead of both captain America centers? Sign one of them and sign Souray.

I feel like making one of those Hitler movies. The scene in some movie where Hitler reams out his staff for some snafu. People put their own subtitles/closed captioning underneath. Hoping Souray is willing to waive his NTC for the Rangers. $5.4 million cap hit. Injuries every other season.

Enough already
Loved the post RB...but that part just made me laugh because its true lol

RGY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 06:26 PM
  #49
Mikos87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
I'm still kind of amazed he passed on Chara. That had NYR signing all over it, wtf happend?
Chara and Redden were UFAs the same year but that was when Redden signed a 2 year deal to stay in Ottawa, and Chara left for Boston, where Peter Chiarelli (the former Assistant GM of Ottawa) took over. Chiarelli was the biggest reason as to why Chara signed there. I don't have a source on hand but maybe some one can confirm, Chara was offered more years and money by other teams than Boston. Rangers were not amongst those teams.

I think there will be a lot of turnover with the team again next year, but with the exception of Hartford, Redden will still be on the roster imo.

Mikos87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 07:57 PM
  #50
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
You separated the above quoted sentence from the sentence that followed, thereby completely taking it out of context.
No, I simply dropped the part of your comment that had no relevance to the discussion at hand. Let’s review:

My statement: “Your analogy ignores a pattern of behavior. It states the mere speculation and puts aside that there are many examples to support the speculation.”

Please note the grammatical subject of both my sentences is “your analogy.”

Your reply: ”That's exactly the point. A pattern of behavior doesn't give any more credibility to something that is only pure speculation at this point.”

As you can see, your second sentence in no way addresses the subject of the comment you are (presumably) rebutting. That is, your analogy is not the subject of your reply, even though it IS the subject of MY sentences. That being the case, I treated it for what it was: a separate, unrelated comment. You'll see that I replied to it as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
Sather's past behavior doesn't change the fact that Brooks is merely speculating.
Of course it doesn’t change the fact of speculation, but it does provide evidence that Brooks’s speculation is not empty of evidence and thus merit. Brooks’s guesswork is based on a body of evidence founded in past precedent; that evidence of past precedent is exactly what’s lacking in your analogy. Your analogy simply offers a speculation out of thin air, which is not the case where Brooks is concerned.

In other words, you have omitted the central premise on which Brooks offers his speculation. In doing so, you have failed to build a one-to-one correlation between your analogy and the thing it attempts to illustrate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
Only it did, you just don't know how to interpret an analogy.
Well it certainly did if we choose to interpret “arrest” as “criticize.” Such mangling of the English language doesn’t appeal to me, however, and for someone who touts the subtleties of language and logic, it amazes me you would attempt to pass off such a grotesquerie as a valid comparison.

Tell me, do you see these statements as analogous?
“I’m going to criticize you as potential thief.”
“I’m going to arrest you as a potential thief.”

Because that is precisely the correlation you draw through your analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
I'm going to provide you with the definition: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Therefore, all you need for an analogy is "similarity in some respect" -- not all, but just some respect.
Tell you what, why don’t we look at the OED’s definitions? Most - surely including someone who claims an appreciation for the subtleties of language - would agree the Oxford English Dictionary is a little authoritative.

Logic. a. Resemblance of relations or attributes forming a ground of reasoning. b. The process of reasoning from parallel cases; presumptive reasoning based upon the assumption that if things have some similar attributes, their other attributes will be similar.

A “resemblance of relations” is what you’ve failed to provide through your failure to account for the major premise of Brooks’s speculation.

Equivalency or likeness of relations; ‘resemblance of things with regard to some circumstances or effects’ (J.); ‘resemblance of relations’ (Whately); a name for the fact, that, the relation borne to any object by some attribute or circumstance, corresponds to the relation existing between another object and some attribute or circumstance pertaining to it. Const. to, with, between.
This is an extension of the general idea of proportion from quantity to relation generally, and is often expressed proportionally, as when we say ‘Knowledge is to the mind, what light is to the eye.’ The general recognition of this analogy makes light, or enlightenment, or illumination, an analogical word for knowledge.


An “equivalency or likeness of relations” is what you’ve failed to provide through your attempt to compare arrest with criticism. There is no proportionality in such a comparison.

more vaguely, Agreement between things, similarity.

Aaaaah! HERE’S the one you want, the “more vaguely” one.

You should understand that this vague definition doesn’t stand up to the practical example you give regarding the SAT, nor does it seem to merit the esteem of someone who espouses the subtleties of language and logic, but I will surely “keep in mind for the future” your desire to limit discussions to the bare minimum of “all you need.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
Since you prefer to be literal in the extreme, here is the bottom line, Brooks' comments are speculation and have no basis in fact and as such criticizing Sather as a result of those comments is pointless.
1. If by “literal” you mean “demanding precision in language,” yeah. I’m quite literal as you see by the OED citations above.
2. I’ve never contested your point, merely the extremely poor vehicle you’ve offered to illustrate it. You can make such a point without offering misleading attempts at analogy, and given the failings of the one you’ve offered, I’d say your own focus should be in doing exactly that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
After that winner of an analogy you posted earlier, don't play the judge of what is an appropriate analogy.
Okay. My analogy better meets the most precise OED definitions, but we’ll put that aside and I’ll use your criteria for judging. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kind of Blue View Post
Did you ever take the SATs? You tell me if any of the analogies looked like the mangled rambling you posted.
You clearly regard the SAT analogy as an appropriate model, so let’s look at one.

1.) BIRD : NEST ::

(A) dog : doghouse
(B) squirrel : tree
(C) beaver : dam
(D) cat : litter box
(E) book : library

Note the defining feature of the analogy: a one-to-one correlation of elements. Furthermore, we judge the analogy by the degree of correlation. (So the simple fact that four of these are “homes” does not constitute an acceptable analogy.)

Now, what has been missing from your analogy from the start?

1. A failure of correlation by your failure to include the major premise of speculation.
2. A failure of refinement by your attempt to equate “arrest” with “criticize.”


Last edited by dedalus: 01-26-2010 at 08:07 PM.
dedalus 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 10:55 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.