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

Sather's off-season - impressive

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2010, 04:58 PM
  #351
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,892
vCash: 500
So,

Sather can't even even get screwing up right when he tries (a la 2005-6 season). How sad, the man can't do anything right!

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 05:08 PM
  #352
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I still contend that the 2005-2006 team was originally designed to stink, with Jagr being the necessary "star power" to keep ***** in the seats. But a funny thing happened that season, Jagr exploded for a franchise record in points, and a Swedish goaltender named Lundqvist emerged as a star. Thats all it took for Sather to abandon any longterm plans and convince himself he had a potential winner on his hands. Next thing you know Shanahan is coming in, then Gomez and Drury...he just couldnt help himself. At least those teams were fun to watch, its been a complete cluster**** when it comes to personnel ever since Jagr left.
With that in mind, why would we not commend Sather for putting the same team out there, except for frolov and potentially MZA, and having them finish near the bottom again? If we are truely going to be giving these young players a shot either next year or the end of this year, we are going to have to "stink" in order for them to have that shot and not have Sather go off on another tangent thinking we have a shot with the "core players" we currently have.

Lets just get to that summer of 2012, when we will be rid of drury, rosy, and avery's contracts, hopefully being able to move redden somewhere not in our system, and having loads of cap space and young talent progressing. Thats what we need to be looking forward to as fans. There we can retool and grab some players hitting the FA market and improve this team drastically.

For this offseason, Sather did what was best for the future of this team. No high priced long term contracts. After Staal is signed long term, we will have 6 players signed during the 2012 offseason. This does not include players like mcdonagh, stepan, and any of our other prospects. Those 6 players include Redden, which will have 2 years remaining on his deal at that point. It (Redden's contract) could become a valuable piece at that point for some team looking to shed cap in a couple of years, or to even just reach the cap floor.

Even if our prospects don't pan out to be top line players, we will have the money to sign players that do make it onto the market to play along side Gaborik up front, and Staal and Del Zotto on the back. These next 2 seasons MIGHT be rough, but we do have a great future.

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 05:37 PM
  #353
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmyg89 View Post
With that in mind, why would we not commend Sather for putting the same team out there, except for frolov and potentially MZA, and having them finish near the bottom again? If we are truely going to be giving these young players a shot either next year or the end of this year, we are going to have to "stink" in order for them to have that shot and not have Sather go off on another tangent thinking we have a shot with the "core players" we currently have.

Lets just get to that summer of 2012, when we will be rid of drury, rosy, and avery's contracts, hopefully being able to move redden somewhere not in our system, and having loads of cap space and young talent progressing. Thats what we need to be looking forward to as fans. There we can retool and grab some players hitting the FA market and improve this team drastically.

For this offseason, Sather did what was best for the future of this team. No high priced long term contracts. After Staal is signed long term, we will have 6 players signed during the 2012 offseason. This does not include players like mcdonagh, stepan, and any of our other prospects. Those 6 players include Redden, which will have 2 years remaining on his deal at that point. It (Redden's contract) could become a valuable piece at that point for some team looking to shed cap in a couple of years, or to even just reach the cap floor.

Even if our prospects don't pan out to be top line players, we will have the money to sign players that do make it onto the market to play along side Gaborik up front, and Staal and Del Zotto on the back. These next 2 seasons MIGHT be rough, but we do have a great future.
Okay, I can get behind the build for the future scenario - I mean it's our only, best choice at this point. But if we're going to do that, why sign guys like Prospal and Frolov at all? They insure mediocrity between now and then. They give us a sniff of the playoffs - likely preventing selling at the trade deadline (again) and ensuring drafting outside the top 5 where the franchise offensive players get snapped up (again).

We should be living or dying with the kids and collecting the best draft picks we can between now and 2012. Instead we're slapping together a borderline playoff team. Why? And don't give me "it's MSG, they'll never accept a full-on rebuild," because a)that's exactly what they tried to do in '04 and b) for the last two years the Knicks pursued a 2 year plan where they embraced full-on suckage in anticipation of the summer of 2010.

As always, this comes with the caveat that my opinion might change in light of other moves. Slats could do something unpredictable this summer to jump start the rebuild. He could surprise me and actually sell assets at the deadline this season to get picks & prospects. But barring such a move, this offseason hasn't been "impressive" at all. It's simply been better than the monstrosities of the past. And that's hardly worth praising.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 06:40 PM
  #354
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Okay, I can get behind the build for the future scenario - I mean it's our only, best choice at this point. But if we're going to do that, why sign guys like Prospal and Frolov at all? They insure mediocrity between now and then. They give us a sniff of the playoffs - likely preventing selling at the trade deadline (again) and ensuring drafting outside the top 5 where the franchise offensive players get snapped up (again).

We should be living or dying with the kids and collecting the best draft picks we can between now and 2012. Instead we're slapping together a borderline playoff team. Why? And don't give me "it's MSG, they'll never accept a full-on rebuild," because a)that's exactly what they tried to do in '04 and b) for the last two years the Knicks pursued a 2 year plan where they embraced full-on suckage in anticipation of the summer of 2010.

As always, this comes with the caveat that my opinion might change in light of other moves. Slats could do something unpredictable this summer to jump start the rebuild. He could surprise me and actually sell assets at the deadline this season to get picks & prospects. But barring such a move, this offseason hasn't been "impressive" at all. It's simply been better than the monstrosities of the past. And that's hardly worth praising.
There is a certain school of thought that you don't just throw a team of kids to the wolves and let them get killed because it could hurt their development. I think that explains signing guys like Frolov and Prospal.

And I personally would rather our kids get as much NHL playoff experience as possible.

dtrap is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 07:02 PM
  #355
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Okay, I can get behind the build for the future scenario - I mean it's our only, best choice at this point. But if we're going to do that, why sign guys like Prospal and Frolov at all? They insure mediocrity between now and then. They give us a sniff of the playoffs - likely preventing selling at the trade deadline (again) and ensuring drafting outside the top 5 where the franchise offensive players get snapped up (again).

We should be living or dying with the kids and collecting the best draft picks we can between now and 2012. Instead we're slapping together a borderline playoff team. Why? And don't give me "it's MSG, they'll never accept a full-on rebuild," because a)that's exactly what they tried to do in '04 and b) for the last two years the Knicks pursued a 2 year plan where they embraced full-on suckage in anticipation of the summer of 2010.

As always, this comes with the caveat that my opinion might change in light of other moves. Slats could do something unpredictable this summer to jump start the rebuild. He could surprise me and actually sell assets at the deadline this season to get picks & prospects. But barring such a move, this offseason hasn't been "impressive" at all. It's simply been better than the monstrosities of the past. And that's hardly worth praising.
Look at it this way. Last season we played the whole season with 3 rookies (Anisimov, MDZ, and Gilroy) and we noticed they all had their ups and downs, yet we finished 1 point out of the playoffs.

This season, it looks like we might have 2 rookies on the roster (McDonagh and Aasen). So signing the guys we did was to not have a team of basically rookies and 2nd year players. If we didn't bring back Christensen and Prospal, AND didn't sign frolov, there are 3 spots in our top 9 skaters we would have to fill with ????. More rookies and young players that might not be ready.

This is a similar approach the Canucks did with their young players. They held onto vets and let the young players filter into their line-up over time and now they are one of the perennial cup contenders year in and year out.

Stepan, Kreider, Grachev, and the rest of our spects will have time to grow in the AHL or other leagues, become accustom to one another and they will have their shot in the NHL when they are ready, not being forced into action because we want to be bad and have our prospects develop on the NHL level.

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 07:11 PM
  #356
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
good one.
You think Sather has improved the Rangers more than Yzerman has improved the Bolts?

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 07:18 PM
  #357
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
There is a certain school of thought that you don't just throw a team of kids to the wolves and let them get killed because it could hurt their development. I think that explains signing guys like Frolov and Prospal.

And I personally would rather our kids get as much NHL playoff experience as possible.
A) I don't buy that school of thought. Seems to me we see examples of teams sucking with kids and then getting better all the time in all sports. Pittsburgh and Chicago in the NHL, the two Florida teams in MLB - do I need to go on?

B) If you feel that way, players like Erik Christensen can hold the fort while you wait for them to develop at the AHL. Waiver wire/AAAA players (to borrow a baseball term) are available all the time. Tim Kennedy is the most recent example. Signing Frolov and Prospal who put you in the middle of the pack aren't necessary.

C) If the roster is stacked with veterans, the kids won't be getting ANY playoff experience, since the vets will have the roster spots! And even if one or two kids sneak on, who cares if they play limited minutes for 4 games and get bounced? IMO it's much more valuable for them to miss the dance at 22 and then get 2-3 rounds deep at 23 or 24 than to go one-and-done year after year.

D) What does it matter if your future second and third liners get PO experience, if in so doing you prevent yourself from drafting the FIRST liners you need to win a Cup?

I get that bringing on Frolov (a signing I would LOVE under other circumstances) and Prospal (not so much) makes it more fun for you to watch during the 2010-2011 season. And if we were coming off the PO drought we had in the early part of this decade, I'd agree since I was starved to simply see post-season hockey after the lockout. But as it is, what I care about is building a contender that can eventually be in the mix for the championship for years to come.

We can agree to disagree on those points of view and I don't have a problem with it. But don't try to sell me that this middle of the pack approach is anything other than counterproductive to the eventual construction of a Cup contender.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 07:57 PM
  #358
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
A) I don't buy that school of thought. Seems to me we see examples of teams sucking with kids and then getting better all the time in all sports. Pittsburgh and Chicago in the NHL, the two Florida teams in MLB - do I need to go on?
Pittsburgh did it with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin...Chicago did it with Patrick Kane and Jonathan Towes...we have no young guys on our team even close to that good.

And baseball is a completely different game than hockey. Baseball is an individual sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
B) If you feel that way, players like Erik Christensen can hold the fort while you wait for them to develop at the AHL. Waiver wire/AAAA players (to borrow a baseball term) are available all the time. Tim Kennedy is the most recent example. Signing Frolov and Prospal who put you in the middle of the pack aren't necessary.
You are clearly part of the "let's tank crew". I don't see how letting EC hold the fort for a year is any different that Frolov or Prospal holding the fort for a year. Someone has to play in the top-6 and I'd rather see two guys qualified to play in the top-6 rather than a few rookies who have no business being put in that position at 19 and 20.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
C) If the roster is stacked with veterans, the kids won't be getting ANY playoff experience, since the vets will have the roster spots! And even if one or two kids sneak on, who cares if they play limited minutes for 4 games and get bounced? IMO it's much more valuable for them to miss the dance at 22 and then get 2-3 rounds deep at 23 or 24 than to go one-and-done year after year.
If the kids are good enough they will take the veterans spots. The fact of the matter is that right now, none of those kids are good enough to take the spots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
D) What does it matter if your future second and third liners get PO experience, if in so doing you prevent yourself from drafting the FIRST liners you need to win a Cup?
In case you haven't noticed we have two perfectly good first liners. All we are missing is a first line center for them. And playoff experience of any sort is important. Remember what happened current Penguins group the first time they made the playoffs? They got killed, but were much more prepared the next year for what to expect from playoff hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
I get that bringing on Frolov (a signing I would LOVE under other circumstances) and Prospal (not so much) makes it more fun for you to watch during the 2010-2011 season. And if we were coming off the PO drought we had in the early part of this decade, I'd agree since I was starved to simply see post-season hockey after the lockout. But as it is, what I care about is building a contender that can eventually be in the mix for the championship for years to come.
Honestly this kind of attitude makes me sick. I am sick and tired of people acting like they are better fans that other posters because THEY want to see the team tank and THOSE OTHER PEOPLE want to see wins. We all root for the same team. Only this ****ed up fan base could act like there are two tiers of fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
We can agree to disagree on those points of view and I don't have a problem with it. But don't try to sell me that this middle of the pack approach is anything other than counterproductive to the eventual construction of a Cup contender.
I am not trying to sell you on anything. I think history will show that tanking isn't the only way to build a contender. Will Sather build a contender...I have no idea. I have my doubts. But I just would like to see this team actually play a game before I judge how good or bad they are.

dtrap is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 09:47 PM
  #359
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
A) I don't buy that school of thought. Seems to me we see examples of teams sucking with kids and then getting better all the time in all sports. Pittsburgh and Chicago in the NHL, the two Florida teams in MLB - do I need to go on?

B) If you feel that way, players like Erik Christensen can hold the fort while you wait for them to develop at the AHL. Waiver wire/AAAA players (to borrow a baseball term) are available all the time. Tim Kennedy is the most recent example. Signing Frolov and Prospal who put you in the middle of the pack aren't necessary.

C) If the roster is stacked with veterans, the kids won't be getting ANY playoff experience, since the vets will have the roster spots! And even if one or two kids sneak on, who cares if they play limited minutes for 4 games and get bounced? IMO it's much more valuable for them to miss the dance at 22 and then get 2-3 rounds deep at 23 or 24 than to go one-and-done year after year.

D) What does it matter if your future second and third liners get PO experience, if in so doing you prevent yourself from drafting the FIRST liners you need to win a Cup?

I get that bringing on Frolov (a signing I would LOVE under other circumstances) and Prospal (not so much) makes it more fun for you to watch during the 2010-2011 season. And if we were coming off the PO drought we had in the early part of this decade, I'd agree since I was starved to simply see post-season hockey after the lockout. But as it is, what I care about is building a contender that can eventually be in the mix for the championship for years to come.

We can agree to disagree on those points of view and I don't have a problem with it. But don't try to sell me that this middle of the pack approach is anything other than counterproductive to the eventual construction of a Cup contender.
A) What is the difference between finishing in 10th and 15th? So we draft 10th instead of top 3. You see the draft this year? There was a significant difference in picking 1-2 or 3-15. ANY First round pick has the potential to turn into something special. Del Zotto was a late 1st rounder, and some people think he has the upside to be a top pairing defender. I think he is capable of that, but my guess would be he is a #3 defender and a PP QB in this league for the next 15 seasons. You don't need to suck to draft well, thats on the scouts.

B) Sure they are important. Remember, people going to the game is important too. That and Sather is most likely on a shortened leash after not making the playoffs last season. Also, those players get us into the playoffs and they aren't signed long term, so the team has the capabilities to trade these players if we aren't good, and get players and picks back in return. And if we do make the playoffs, our younger players who didn't make it this past season will get to see how they are supposed to play in the playoffs.

C) If we get young players on the roster, they won't be playing limited minutes in the playoffs unless they cannot handle some of the pressures, but they will be out there just as much as the vets if they can handle it. Why find out the next season when you have all young players that they cannot handle it, when you can figure out what you need to do and learn from it?

D) They need the experience even more than the 1st line players we could be drafting. If they aren't as talented as the guys we could be drafting, might as well find out if they can be players in the NHL. Also, we are going to have enough money coming off the books in 2012, where we can grab a 1st line center, and go from there with what the team needs.

Also, do you honestly think the team wants to tank? There are players on this roster that are too competitive to lose games. we have a world class goalie that would flip out if we "tanked" to move up in the draft. Why not move up in the draft thru trades?

This team will have flexibility in a couple seasons. We are going to have some retreads and some kids playing. Sather has to put something on the ice worth watching. He could lose his job if this team fails to produce a playoff birth this season. I know for some people that is what they would like, but he has to think about keeping his job and doing what is best for this team. A tough spot for him, don't ya think?

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 10:16 PM
  #360
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,896
vCash: 500
I think what is being widely agreed on here is that most of our prospects are going to develop in a way that gives us very good depth, with very few with the ability to be legit top NHL 1st liners ala Crosby and Ovy. However, what I see great about this is, with a homegrown depth and players like Gaborik, Lundqvist and Staal, once our bad contracts run out we WILL have the oomph to sign a real 1st line.

Call it too much kool-aid but I think a few of our contracts can really be 1st line caliber anyway. We'll see as time goes on, with Sather as our GM or not.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 10:46 PM
  #361
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
Pittsburgh did it with Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin...Chicago did it with Patrick Kane and Jonathan Towes...we have no young guys on our team even close to that good.
But where were those players drafted? Top 5 picks. If you don't get those picks, you don't draft those players and you don't win the cup.

Also, I would suggest you go back and look at the Chicago team pre-Toews and Kane. You will see that the team that finished 3rd to last in '05-'06 and 5th to last in '06-'07 had Seabrook, Keith, Sharp... the good, young players right below the Kanes and Toews. Very similar to our Staals and MDZs and Stepans and Grachevs - or at least we (both of us!) hope so. These players played in the NHL, the team sucked, they drafted their two superstars... and THEN they ascended. That is actually an EXACT parallel to what I'm suggesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
And baseball is a completely different game than hockey. Baseball is an individual sport.
First of all it's not an individual sport - it breaks down into more identifiable individual matchups and has a much more stop-and-start flow, but there are 25 men on a roster for a reason. Secondly, in terms of roster construction and layers of minor leagues, it's by far the closest to hockey. Neither football nor basketball has any real developmental system and basketball teams are composed of many fewer players while football teams are composed of many more players. All of which is besides the point - your comment was regarding losing hurting young players. You are talking about a psychological effect. Frankly, it should be pretty much the same across all team sports. Unless you're suggesting that baseball players as a group are mentally tougher than hockey players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
You are clearly part of the "let's tank crew".
C'mon - applying a label to me doesn't do your argument any good or mine any harm.

Furthermore, it's silly to suggest that I have a single strategy for all situations. Those who remember me from '05-'07 and even into '08 will remember me as a very positive person who thought this team was on an upswing into contention. I advocate making the right strategic move in the right situation. I have made my recommendation for this squad in this year based on the team's talent base, organizational strengths and weaknesses, the competitive balance in the league and historical facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
I don't see how letting EC hold the fort for a year is any different that Frolov or Prospal holding the fort for a year. Someone has to play in the top-6 and I'd rather see two guys qualified to play in the top-6 rather than a few rookies who have no business being put in that position at 19 and 20.
You don't? You don't see that by hiring 2nd-tier mercenaries for a year we improve our team marginally against the dregs of the league without actually improving our chances of beating the upper echelon? I think you're being disingenuous here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
If the kids are good enough they will take the veterans spots. The fact of the matter is that right now, none of those kids are good enough to take the spots.
I would like to believe this, but I just don't see it. There are 13 veteran forwards and 7 veteran dmen signed. In other words, a full squad plus one extra both up front and on the backline composed entirely of experienced NHL players - that means that TWO vets must be shifted for a single kid to play. IF Sather is in fact open to demoting Redden I see exactly one spot that a kid can realistically claim. At this point, even MZA, who I thought was a mortal lock a month ago, is going to have to absolutely shine to earn a spot on the big club. Stepan, Grachev, Byers, Weise, Sauer, Valetenko, etc., etc. could poo goals in training camp and they won't make the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
In case you haven't noticed we have two perfectly good first liners. All we are missing is a first line center for them. And playoff experience of any sort is important. Remember what happened current Penguins group the first time they made the playoffs? They got killed, but were much more prepared the next year for what to expect from playoff hockey.
I disagree. I look at this squad and see three legitimate top six players, two of whom are second liners. (I HOPE that Anisimov can MAYBE make it four and a third second liner by the end of the year.) That's a much bigger deficiency than "just missing a first line center" - which by the way is a huge hole I don't see them filling without either acquiring a top five pick or gutting the minors.

And the Penguin group that you mention? Don't forget they "tanked" and got the two elite scorers that are required to win in the league today before they had that playoff experience. As you pointed out in your first paragarph, the Rangers don't yet have their Crosby and Malkin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
Honestly this kind of attitude makes me sick. I am sick and tired of people acting like they are better fans that other posters because THEY want to see the team tank and THOSE OTHER PEOPLE want to see wins. We all root for the same team. Only this ****ed up fan base could act like there are two tiers of fans.
I'm sorry, but this is a pretty hypocritical statement. Flip "want to see the team tank" and "want to see wins" and read the paragraph again. Heck, didn't you just finish saying I'm "part of the tank crew" - what is that if not assigning me to a lower tier?

Furthermore, I never disparaged your fandom. I firmly believe that you are a die-hard Rangers fan. I just happen to think that the strategy you're advocating is flawed and I am frustrated that you don't see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
I am not trying to sell you on anything. I think history will show that tanking isn't the only way to build a contender.
I disagree. Every successful run starts with multiple high draft picks - including everybody's favorite (seeming) anomolies, the Wings and the Devils. We have exactly one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
Will Sather build a contender...I have no idea. I have my doubts.
Well, we agree here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
But I just would like to see this team actually play a game before I judge how good or bad they are.
You have that luxury as a fan - but our GM doesn't. He has to analyze his roster, be realistic about where it stands and then make the decisions to improve it. Frequently, if the team is in the upper half of the league with some good pieces, this simply entails finding the right complementary pieces to make it all work. It seemed like that's where the Rangers were about 3 years ago. Sometimes however, there are deeper problems and more drastic action is called for - sometimes at the expense of a season or two. Donnie Walsh over at MSG's other (and let's face it, flagship) franchise over the last two years is a good example. I believe that's where the Rangers are right now.

Don't get me wrong - once the season starts, I will root for the team on the ice at every game. In the larger scheme, if Slats continues on this current course, I will hope to be wrong. However, until the team proves that this patchwork approach is making them a contender, I will be advocating for the team's general manager to switch gears and take the more drastic action that I currently believe is required.


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 08-03-2010 at 10:56 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 10:56 PM
  #362
bscharf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 269
vCash: 500
This tank talk is truly pathetic. you dont tank with a team that has hands down a top 5 goalie in the league for the next 5-10 years. You have legitimate talent with gabby,frolov,dubi, cally,aa,etc on one end and a great core of young defensemen with Staal Girardi MDZ.

WE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS BY A TERRIBLE CHOICE TO LET OLLI SHOOT OVER GABBY.

YOU WANT TO WAIT 5 YEARS FOR OUR PROSPECTS TO COME SHINE AND LOSE OUT ON HENRIK GABORIK STAAL IN THEIR PRIME?

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE PROSPECTS GOING TO DEVELOP WITH IF WE DROP EVERYONE?

IF YOU WERE GM WE WOULDNT HAVE SIGNED JAGR AND JUST LET HUGH JESSIMAN DEVELOP

bscharf is offline  
Old
08-03-2010, 11:06 PM
  #363
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Also, let's be clear here - I NEVER said we should go into this season purposefully trying to lose.

What I said was that we should not have signed all these second tier placeholders who IMO are basically locking us into a middle of the pack finish. I also ONLY suggested using waiver wire fodder if you decide that the kids are somehow being hurt by playing on a losing team in the NHL (which frankly I don't think usually happens). My preferred strategy for 2010-2011 has always been to play the kids - if they carry us to the playoffs, AWESOME! Maybe we've beaten the odds and have actually gotten the true first tier NHL talent with later picks. If not, then, well, at least we have a shot at a pick with a much higher probability of becoming first tier NHL talent to add to our other solid kids.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 12:41 AM
  #364
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
But for me, the timing of it leads me to believe that Sather was setting himself up for the ability to pursue a top notch FA.
At midnight on July 1, 2009, the Rangers were released from the cap hits of the following:
Zherdev
Naslund
Mara
Antropov
Betts
Morris
Orr

Sather did not need to trade Gomez in order to have the ability to pursue a top notch UFA. In the exact same moment that Gaborik became a UFA, Sather gained the ability to sign him as a result of these expired contracts. This oft-repeated notion that Sather "couldn't afford to sign Gaborik while he had Gomez" is factually incorrect.

As the best young UFA on the market, as a player who could be gotten below market value (because of his injury status), and as a player who filled a dire need, Gaborik was coming here on July 1 whether or not Gomez was on the roster at the time.

If there is a link between the 6/30 and 7/1 dates, it is far more sensible that it came from the Habs' side, not ours. Sather knew he would have the cap room on July 1. That was a non-issue. The Habs, on the other hand, had already made known they were letting Koivu walk. I daresay they were VERY concerned about their status at first line center going into the UFA period.

That is, they had every reason to want the trade resolved (one way or another) so that they would know on July 1 if they had to search for a center on the UFA market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Now, the risk was that he could have gotten shut out and we would have been SOL
There was no risk he could get shut out on Gaborik. The room for his contract was there on July 1st, whether or not Gomez was on the roster.

The risk in not moving Gomez was that OTHER signings - later signings - could not be made until Gomez was moved.

dedalus is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 12:47 AM
  #365
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Also, let's be clear here - I NEVER said we should go into this season purposefully trying to lose.

What I said was that we should not have signed all these second tier placeholders who IMO are basically locking us into a middle of the pack finish. I also ONLY suggested using waiver wire fodder if you decide that the kids are somehow being hurt by playing on a losing team in the NHL (which frankly I don't think usually happens). My preferred strategy for 2010-2011 has always been to play the kids - if they carry us to the playoffs, AWESOME! Maybe we've beaten the odds and have actually gotten the true first tier NHL talent with later picks. If not, then, well, at least we have a shot at a pick with a much higher probability of becoming first tier NHL talent to add to our other solid kids.
This is a theory i agree with strongly. It would be one thing if we were poised to make a stanley cup run next season. However, i think the Rangers next chance at a cup will be with many of the prospects they develop. IMO the Rangers would be best suited by letting the young guys in and just giving them a view of the NHL.

This theory was used when Joe Thornton was drafted as his first season was spent with the Bruins rather than in juniors. Although he only had 7 points (or something like that) in his first season, I think we can all say he has been a success in this league.

Obviously not all guys are meant to just hop to the NHL but I truly believe that if a guy shows that they are capable of playing NHL level hockey, and im sure there will be some considering our many prospects (grachev, aasen, mcdonagh, kreider, stepan, valentenko, etc..)

Even if they do not have good seasons, the amount they will learn and develop this year will only help them when the rangers have a real opportunity at making a run for the cup.

I think almost all of us can agree when i say that id much rather see one of our prospects playing than prospal this season, even if that means a few less points.

I understand the need for veterans but this team will have plenty of them regardless, such as Drury, Callahan, Gaborik, Henrik, Biron, Roszival, Frolov, Girardi, Staal, Eminger etc..

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 12:49 AM
  #366
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
At midnight on July 1, 2009, the Rangers were released from the cap hits of the following:
Zherdev
Naslund
Mara
Antropov
Betts
Morris
Orr

Sather did not need to trade Gomez in order to have the ability to pursue a top notch UFA. In the exact same moment that Gaborik became a UFA, Sather gained the ability to sign him as a result of these expired contracts. This oft-repeated notion that Sather "couldn't afford to sign Gaborik while he had Gomez" is factually incorrect.

As the best young UFA on the market, as a player who could be gotten below market value (because of his injury status), and as a player who filled a dire need, Gaborik was coming here on July 1 whether or not Gomez was on the roster at the time.

If there is a link between the 6/30 and 7/1 dates, it is far more sensible that it came from the Habs' side, not ours. Sather knew he would have the cap room on July 1. That was a non-issue. The Habs, on the other hand, had already made known they were letting Koivu walk. I daresay they were VERY concerned about their status at first line center going into the UFA period.

That is, they had every reason to want the trade resolved (one way or another) so that they would know on July 1 if they had to search for a center on the UFA market.


There was no risk he could get shut out on Gaborik. The room for his contract was there on July 1st, whether or not Gomez was on the roster.

The risk in not moving Gomez was that OTHER signings - later signings - could not be made until Gomez was moved.
Im pretty sure the Gomez Gaborik moves were hand in hand considering, that if he had signed Gabs while Gomez was still there we would have had to go with a roster of about 10 guys

Puckface NYR* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:26 AM
  #367
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bscharf View Post
This tank talk is truly pathetic. you dont tank with a team that has hands down a top 5 goalie in the league for the next 5-10 years. You have legitimate talent with gabby,frolov,dubi, cally,aa,etc on one end and a great core of young defensemen with Staal Girardi MDZ.

WE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS BY A TERRIBLE CHOICE TO LET OLLI SHOOT OVER GABBY.

YOU WANT TO WAIT 5 YEARS FOR OUR PROSPECTS TO COME SHINE AND LOSE OUT ON HENRIK GABORIK STAAL IN THEIR PRIME?

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE PROSPECTS GOING TO DEVELOP WITH IF WE DROP EVERYONE?

IF YOU WERE GM WE WOULDNT HAVE SIGNED JAGR AND JUST LET HUGH JESSIMAN DEVELOP
I'm sorry, but, I missed the free agent period where Jagr was signed...I could have swore he was acquired in a trade for Anson Carter.

jas is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:57 AM
  #368
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
I think what is being widely agreed on here is that most of our prospects are going to develop in a way that gives us very good depth, with very few with the ability to be legit top NHL 1st liners ala Crosby and Ovy. However, what I see great about this is, with a homegrown depth and players like Gaborik, Lundqvist and Staal, once our bad contracts run out we WILL have the oomph to sign a real 1st line.
And you have faith this will actually turn out that way? I guess I just can't be that optimistic at this point given Sather's track record.

I firmly believe that to win a Cup in the post-lockout world (with its Cap and 12-yr contracts that ensure that great young talent never makes it to FA) you need young elite "cheap" talent surrounded by "expensive" veterans.

I would never advocate losing on purpose and yes, we could get really lucky and find some insane gems picking 12-20. But signing players to 1-2 year deals as stop gaps to ensure we stay just competitive enough is not making a strong enough effort to swing the pendulum in either direction and is just treading water.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame

Last edited by HatTrick Swayze: 08-04-2010 at 07:04 AM.
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 07:26 AM
  #369
msv957
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bscharf View Post
This tank talk is truly pathetic. you dont tank with a team that has hands down a top 5 goalie in the league for the next 5-10 years. You have legitimate talent with gabby,frolov,dubi, cally,aa,etc on one end and a great core of young defensemen with Staal Girardi MDZ.

WE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS BY A TERRIBLE CHOICE TO LET OLLI SHOOT OVER GABBY.

YOU WANT TO WAIT 5 YEARS FOR OUR PROSPECTS TO COME SHINE AND LOSE OUT ON HENRIK GABORIK STAAL IN THEIR PRIME?

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE PROSPECTS GOING TO DEVELOP WITH IF WE DROP EVERYONE?

IF YOU WERE GM WE WOULDNT HAVE SIGNED JAGR AND JUST LET HUGH JESSIMAN DEVELOP
Great post.. I agree...

msv957 is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 08:10 AM
  #370
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bscharf View Post
This tank talk is truly pathetic. you dont tank with a team that has hands down a top 5 goalie in the league for the next 5-10 years. You have legitimate talent with gabby,frolov,dubi, cally,aa,etc on one end and a great core of young defensemen with Staal Girardi MDZ.

WE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS BY A TERRIBLE CHOICE TO LET OLLI SHOOT OVER GABBY.

YOU WANT TO WAIT 5 YEARS FOR OUR PROSPECTS TO COME SHINE AND LOSE OUT ON HENRIK GABORIK STAAL IN THEIR PRIME?

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE PROSPECTS GOING TO DEVELOP WITH IF WE DROP EVERYONE?

IF YOU WERE GM WE WOULDNT HAVE SIGNED JAGR AND JUST LET HUGH JESSIMAN DEVELOP
I agree to an extent. Right now, due to Lundqvist and Gaborik being on the roster, this team is incapable of tanking to a top 5 pick. Instead, we are in purgatory...not good enough to truly compete and not bad enough to build toward the future with elite draft picks.

Where you lose me is the Jagr talk...first of all we traded for him in 2004...another delapitated move in an attempt to compete. While Jagr played well, that didnt work and the firesale soon followed. Look, I loved watching Jagr play here, it was truly a sight to behold, especially his first full season. But maintaining him on the roster forfeited the one opportunity this team had to truly rebuild. Once Sather smelled just a little bit of success, he went in for the kill and cap-****ed this team for several years with highly questionable signings.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 09:19 AM
  #371
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckface Avery View Post
Im pretty sure the Gomez Gaborik moves were hand in hand considering, that if he had signed Gabs while Gomez was still there we would have had to go with a roster of about 10 guys
Then what you're arguing is that Gomez needed to be traded in order to fill out the roster, not Gomez needed to be traded in order to get Gaborik.

The cap space was available for Gaborik on the day Gaborik became a UFA. It's that simple. Therefore, any claim that Gomez was moved in order to make cap room for Gaborik is based on a post hoc fallacy.

Could Sather have signed Prospal, Brashear, Kotalik, Higgins, and Boyce without moving Gomez? No. Space needed to be opened for those later signings. For his first signing - for the signing that HAD to be made at the opening of the UFA period - the team had the cap space.

As I've written elsewhere, because of the Gomez trade and the expiration of a handful of contracts, the Rangers had a pool of money on July 1st. To assert "THESE particular dollars paid for THAT particular contract" is entirely arbitrary. It has no factual merit; it's merely a convenient construct.


Last edited by dedalus: 08-04-2010 at 09:32 AM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 09:25 AM
  #372
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Then what you're arguing is that Gomez needed to be traded in order to fill out the roster, not Gomez needed to be traded in order to get Gaborik.

The cap space was available for Gaborik on the day Gaborik became a UFA. It's that simple. Therefore, any claim that Gomez was moved in order to make cap room for Gaborik is based on a post hoc fallacy.
Actually I think it makes total sense to say that Gomez had to be move in order to sign Gabby AND fill out the roster. If we had just signed Gabby we would have been missing half the roster. So in a way, yes Gomez needed to be traded in order to afford Gabby because we still had to fill out the rest of the roster.

Can we just agree that both point of views are valid and both make sense?

dtrap is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 09:42 AM
  #373
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtrap View Post
The real problem is that no one here is patient. The front office may very well have a plan now...but we all need to realize that we are entering Year 2 (maybe 3) of that plan.
It has nothing to do with patience. I'm perfectly willing to wait for Stepan, Grachev, Kreider, McIlrath, etc. I'm perfectly willing to wait for Drury, Redden, Rozy and Avery to be off the books.

What I'm not willing to wait for is how Sather will screw this team again once he has a little cap space. Haven't the last 10 years shown you that he isn't the right person for the job? You think he's suddenly going to get it now?

If this is year 2 or 3 of some master plan, what the **** was he doing the other 8 or 9 years?

Changing GMs isn't going to wipe out our prospects pool. A new GM isn't going to come in and fire Clark and Gorton (assuming neither of them are made the new GM). The only thing hiring a new GM will do is keep Sather from handing out bad contracts. I've seen enough of Sather. I'll take my chances on someone else, be it Clark, Gorton or whoever.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 10:42 AM
  #374
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
First and foremost never forget that as an original six franchise that resides in Manhattan, NYC, the #1
Priority will always be to turn a profit. If you can’t get past this simple immutable fact then you should
Seriously consider changing allegiances to another NHL franchise.

The above ensures that no matter who the GM is we’ll almost always seek to obtain star players via trade and UFA.
I don’t have a problem with this as long as they are young and have a lot offer and fit the chemistry of the team.
We the combinations of: the draft, trades, UFA we can build a successful team that can compete for many years.
I see no reason why we have to be committed to one direction at the exclusion of all others.

I have posted for the past 5 yrs on the original NYR BB/WEBLEEDBLUE.net and position has always been that we should maximize our efforts NOW to build the best team in front of Henrik while he is in his prime. I posted a thread the other day asking people how they felt about Moving Hank for more offense and signing Neimi as a goaltender to grow with. I got killed for it, and I understand however it does prove the point that if we stick with Hank who is a legitimate top 5 goalie, we’ll always be contending for a playoff spot. This means we DO NOT get to draft the players needed to truly turn around the franchise.

NikC is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 10:43 AM
  #375
DekeR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
I have no problem withthe drafting that Clark will do now. I like the idea that it is better to promote 2nd and 3rd liners into the NYR lineup from the AHL and grab FA's to fill the 1st line. You know exactly what you are getting in the FA market if DONE properly and they already have the history of work ethic, production, experience and maybe even leadership abilities.
To me that is the correct way to build a team in lieu of tanking seasons waiting for that one special player that may be there or not.

DekeR 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 03:03 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.