HFBoards

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

Sather: Goal is a long run of success

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2010, 11:27 PM
  #76
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
I appreciate your optimism and I give you credit for continuing to stay positive while holding true to your position on the management of this franchise. I think its a good thing to remain solid in your stance on any issue if you truly believe it and theres no doubt you have. We have all discussed this topic and beat it to death, and usually its you against many. Whether you really give a rats ass how I feel - well thats up to you..

But can I ask you a question? In all seriousness- Would you mind sharing with us your age and how long you have been following the team?

Because your comments lead me to believe that you haven't gone through the dark years and haven't witnessed the complete tenure of Glen Sather. No offense, please, you could be older than I am and very possibly a true fan for longer - I could be totally off base here, If I am so be it. I'm just curious how someone could go through the past 15 some-odd years as passionately as most Rangers fans are and not feel one iota of hate or disappointment towards the general management of this team over the past 10. I'm only going by a majority of the posts i see from you so correct me if im wrong if you do have those feelings. I think its natural to feel that disdain, and after a long while it can quite frankly feel a little hopeless sometimes.

With that said, most of us can see through the Rangers propaganda - and it is exactly that. Its one thing to talk up your team to generate interest and sales. Its another to blatantly lie and circumvent the reality on several occasions. Its another thing to avoid the passionate fans and owning up to the truth by answering hard hitting questions which await you from an honest and impartial interviewer. The Rangers and specifically Sather avoid the fans and exploit their television network and website as propaganda tools - and despite the fact that they are most likely doing everything in their power to build a championship team, they arent going about it the right way specifically because they treat the fan like an idiot who doesn't know any better.
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, but I wanted to give a complete answer and I haven't been able to find enough time to do that until now.

I've been going back and forth on how to answer this question in the most accurate way possible. I felt that giving any age would automatically bias some people's responses to my posts in the future so I decided not to do that. If someone says they're young, than the older posters dismiss them and if someone says they're older than some of the younger posters dismiss them, and I'd rather have people only go on the content of the post so I'm not going to give an age but I'll try to get to the reason why you asked that question.

I've followed this team, rooted for this team, and usually died with this team my whole life. Of course without an age that may or may not mean something. Now the specific period of time that you asked about was the Sather years so I'll go into that. I kept up with this team all throughout Sather's tenure. I came into it with optimism but that didn't stay with me for too long. I saw him overpay old has-beens and trade for them too all while botching our youth in every way possible. The biggest complaint I had was that we weren't committed to the youth as the life-blood of the franchise. Sometimes we rushed a guy for the hype but most of the time we either drafted like ****, or got rid of the youth. Going into the lockout I hated the guy and I just wished we'd see some playoff hockey, and a real commitment to producing our own players.

Coming out of the lockout we know what happened. Playoffs, finally. Some friends of mine who are islanders fans found this corny isles song and one line in it was, "seven years since the rangers made the playoffs." Very happy that streak ended. It was terrible the way that ended, but I was still happy with that year to finally watch our team in the playoffs. Next year we built on that and it really looked like a couple things go our way and we're challenging for the cup. **** Malik. Next year we're in it again, refs suck. As this pic to the left shows if you're playing crosby's team getting your face cut open on the ice doesn't warrant a high sticking call. Oh and five foot nine on skates marty straka, one of the real good guys, throws crosby to the ground away from the puck. The refs see it that way at least, crosby doesn't dive. So again, I'm happy with the team. A couple rounds of playoff hockey, got kind of screwed out of it. The washington series was rough.

Anyway what's going on here with Sather was great. He starts with an old core that get us going. Unfortunately we miss the window with them. The good thing is that Sather doesn't wait for that to happen, he anticipates it (correctly when you look at what those core guys did afterwards) and goes and gets the best two centers available. Overpaid? Yeah probably but based on their recent production not terrible. Drury's a 35 goal scorer, as well as being incredibly clutch and Gomez is a great assist guy as well as a very strong skater. Both fail to do what they did previously, that's on them. Drury's production was increasing when he came here. We start bringing up our youth and suddenly we have more home grown guys making an impact than we had in a long time. Today we're still looking at good players in the lower levels and the future is bright.

I care about this team more than I care about who's running it. Sather ****ed us for a long time. Now he's doing exactly what many of us wanted. What's past is past. I don't want to wander the desert for another 7 years trying to find a GM who is willing to do what Sather is now. As long as Sather remains with the post lockout mindset I want him running this team.

I know that's really long, so I'll give a summary on my mindset when it comes our GM: "A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat! You know how much we wanted one of those!" We finally have the boat, don't risk it by going with something else.


Last edited by Kel Varnsen: 09-02-2010 at 12:10 AM.
Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 12:10 AM
  #77
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
Prospects bust, more often than not especially with this team. Your talking about these guys like they are Rangers already. If we have such great young players coming along why did we need to sign Frolov? Why resign Prospal? Why sign Kennedy? Like I already said, Sather says one thing but if you look at the way the team is made up the two don't really match.

No one is living in the past, we are living in the present in which we were an inept offensive team, the coach said he would sit players if there was anyone else worth dressing, our cap is stuffed with overpaid garbage, and we are coming off missing the playoffs. Add in even if NJ doesn't get Kovalchuk every team in our division got better this offseason and the Isles should be better. But the plan is to build a core of young players that will win for a long time don't ya know? Sheesh

That is every teams goal people, the thing is you don't get there by picking busts like Hugh Jessiman, Al Montoya, Lauri Korpikoski, Bobby Sanguinetti, ect. Even some of the guys who looked liek they would be something were just flash in the pan, Prucha, Dawes, Immonen. You sure don't get there by giving fading star players long term contracts that let them retire very rich people all during that time killing your cap space so that when a true star player who deserves that money comes a long (kovalchuk) your hands are tied because you have overpaid untradable players.

We know the friggin plan how about you execute it in the right way Slats.
Frolov, Prospal, Kennedy, they're all here on one year deals.

One year deals because prospects will be ready during and after this season.

And again, Dawes, Immonen, none of them have anything to do with anyone else.

I'm sorry but you are acting like the Rangers are the only organization that has had draft picks not pan out. NO team has a 100% success rate. All teams have a majority of their prospects bust. That's just the way it is.

However, every so often, like, for the first time in 20 years, a team will have a very good group of prospects that do wind up being sucessful. And this is that group. These players will be successful. Management sees it. Scouts see it. No one is calling them elite. They're solid. And that's all they need to be. Lundqvist and Gaborik are elite. Staal and Del Zotto will be elite.

Its not as if I'm high on every single prospect we have. I'm down on more of them then I'm high on. I'm just high on a group of them.

Stepan, Kreider, Grachev.

I see as top six forwards

Werek as a superb 3rd line center.

McDonagh and McIlrath I see as NHL defensemen.

And I think Yogan has the potential to develop into a good player.

Weise and Byers are ready for 4th line duty now, but have stiff competition.

And Chad Johnson I see as a legit long term backup to Lundqvist, starting maybe after this season.

The rest of the prospects (there's a lot of them) I'm not that high on.

And of the prospects I listed that I like, if I had to chose the ones that I could picture busting, Grachev, Yogan, and Byers.

The rest I think have specific abilities that will make them NHL players even if they don't reach full potential. Especially Kreider. The kid is just too much of a pure physical athlete.

Stepan is very intelligent with slick hands and very good vision.

Werek is also an intelligent player, a workaholic, and physical.

Weise is a tough kid.

McDonagh is a very good skater with size and strength, he's at least a serviceable 5-6.

McIlrath's physicality is valued.

And I just can't blame the prospects for managerial mishaps.

The FA signings of the past were mostly awful. Sure.

But that didn't happen again this year. Mostly one year deals. No risk.

Yes, management screwed up big time in the past. But they apparently learned. The future is what is important. Can't change the past. And they had to wait for some of these prospects to develop.

I personally, like the direction they're going in. I love this group of prospects and young NHL roster players. Future looks good.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 01:53 AM
  #78
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Warning: long post. I couldn't resist

Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
I came into it with optimism but that didn't stay with me for too long.
Already the picture begins to become clearer. Were you not familiar with the majority of his tenure with the Oilers, or were you simply unable to find your way out of the mound of ******** upon which his reputation is constructed.

Quote:
The biggest complaint I had was that we weren't committed to the youth as the life-blood of the franchise.Sometimes we rushed a guy for the hype but most of the time we either drafted like ****, or got rid of the youth. Going into the lockout I hated the guy and I just wished we'd see some playoff hockey, and a real commitment to producing our own players.
So you're a fan of a team that does everything wrong, which I think is a pretty fair way to describe the Rangers at that time...but instead of hoping that they'd focus on one strategy to dig themselves out of a hole, you immediately desire for them to become either the Devils or the Red Wings. Those are the only two teams that were able to do both of those things (producing your own significant talent and winning playoff hockey) at the same time.

Highly unrealistic goal. Far more difficult to achieve in the post-lockout NHL, too.

Quote:
Coming out of the lockout we know what happened. Playoffs, finally. Some friends of mine who are islanders fans found this corny isles song and one line in it was, "seven years since the rangers made the playoffs." Very happy that streak ended. It was terrible the way that ended, but I was still happy with that year to finally watch our team in the playoffs.Next year we built on that and it really looked like a couple things go our way and we're challenging for the cup. **** Malik. Next year we're in it again, refs suck. As this pic to the left shows if you're playing crosby's team getting your face cut open on the ice doesn't warrant a high sticking call. Oh and five foot nine on skates marty straka, one of the real good guys, throws crosby to the ground away from the puck. The refs see it that way at least, crosby doesn't dive. So again, I'm happy with the team. A couple rounds of playoff hockey, got kind of screwed out of it. The washington series was rough.
It's laughable to suggest that we were ever "in it," "challenging for the cup," or that the referees are the reason we lost to the Penguins. We were the inferior team in each of those playoff losses. It was a 2 or 3 man team the entire time Jagr was here. The facade of a team, nothing more.

Quote:
Anyway what's going on here with Sather was great. He starts with an old core that get us going. Unfortunately we miss the window with them.
We never had a core, nor did we go anywhere. We had Jagr and a bunch of rookies, scrubs, and over the hill veterans. There was no window to begin with. That team was going no where. It was just delaying a commitment to youth, one that has yet to be instituted.

Quote:
The good thing is that Sather doesn't wait for that to happen, he anticipates it (correctly when you look at what those core guys did afterwards)
LOL

Quote:
and goes and gets the best two centers available.
The two best centers (other than Briere of course) in one of the worst free agent classes of all-time, that is, and then fails to fulfill any of the requirements necessary, whether strategic or personnel, for either of them to succeed.

Quote:
Overpaid?
Arguably more so than anyone else. Ever. Except another guy that Sather signed the following year, that is.

Quote:
Yeah probably but based on their recent production not terrible. Drury's a 35 goal scorer, as well as being incredibly clutch and Gomez is a great assist guy as well as a very strong skater. Both fail to do what they did previously, that's on them. Drury's production was increasing when he came here.
WHAT??? Unbelievable. The absurdity of this statement is simply unbelievable.

The fact that both Drury and Gomez failed to "do what they did previously" is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY on Sather. More so, them failing was completely and entirely predictable. Combined with the colossal failure to easily prognosticate the inability for Wade Redden to "recover," these are the moves that stand as a testament to how poor an evaluator of talent and of strategy Glen Sather is. Not to mention budget management and total lack of foresight.

How can you possibly believe that Drury and Gomez are to blame for what only someone who doesn't have a particularly firm grasp of the tactical side of the sport could term as a disappointment?

Players don't exist in a vacuum. This is a team sport, and for most players in the league, their statistical output is going to depend greatly on numerous variable factors, most notably the talent, ability, and intelligence of the personnel around them and the strategy endorsed by their coaching staff.

Chris Drury scored 37 goals because he played on an aggressive offensive team that had one of the best power plays in the league. It was a line that featured Chris Drury firmly planted in front of the net, while four other more talented offensive players created things. He didn't magically become a different player. He was still, essentially, a great third line center with some speed and a good shot. If he isn't on that power play, with those offensive talents, he isn't going to score 37 goals. It's not that complicated. On the Rangers, these criteria have not been met. Not even close. His play hasn't changed other than the fact that he's gotten a few years older and a step or two slower, which is perfectly normal.

Chris Drury is who he is, and the way he's played since he's come here is exactly who you paid for. If you wanted or expected 37 goals, you should have been able to figure out that you had to put other people in place to make that happen. But Glen Sather couldn't figure that out. Shame on him.

He apparently also couldn't figure out that Scott Gomez's game has MASSIVE flaws that only a team as deep, strong, and defensively stingy as New Jersey could hide effectively. He couldn't figure out that Scott Gomez's game is so one-dimensional that unless he's playing with a very specific type of player (one that plays a much different style than Jagr or 49 year old Naslund), he's going to be more trouble than he's worth.

These players were neither at fault, nor were they disappointments. The disappointment is that Glen Sather isn't a bright enough hockey mind to see through statistics or media hype and simply evaluate players and/or situations through visual analysis.

Quote:
We start bringing up our youth and suddenly we have more home grown guys making an impact than we had in a long time. Today we're still looking at good players in the lower levels and the future is bright.
What is bright? Another early playoff exit? Are your expectations so low that even the slightest improvement is enough to quell any sort of doubt within you?

Quote:
I care about this team more than I care about who's running it.
Well, that's a problem, because the guy running the team determines pretty much everything about the status of the team.

Quote:
Sather ****ed us for a long time. Now he's doing exactly what many of us wanted. What's past is past. I don't want to wander the desert for another 7 years trying to find a GM who is willing to do what Sather is now.
I wouldn't want that either, because that guy would be doing as bad a job as Sather is. I would, however, love to see a guy who actually gets the way the league and the sport work and is willing to do what Sather has never been willing or able to do in a decade at the helm of this club: build a Stanley Cup contending team that plays entertaining, high level hockey.

Sather is STILL ****ing us for a long time, because instead of doing what's actually necessary to succeed in this league, he's doing just enough to shut a certain segment of the fanbase up. He's achieving just enough success to retain his job, and he's going to stick this team, it's fans, and whichever crony's hands he leaves the reins in with the job that he never had the balls or the know-how to do himself: a proper rebuild, one that produces a foundation, not another generation of not-enoughs.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 08:24 AM
  #79
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Already the picture begins to become clearer. Were you not familiar with the majority of his tenure with the Oilers, or were you simply unable to find your way out of the mound of ******** upon which his reputation is constructed.
This is where you start to lose credibility with me as a guy that really knows the sport and become more of a guy who just has an agenda against Sather. I don't really care if you like him or not, but give credit where it's due. Pocklington asked Sather whether or not he should acquire Gretzky and Sather said he should do whatever it takes to get him and then Wayne lived in his home for a while. You bring up the Oilers drafts 83-00 but fail to mention that their drafting AFTER that was much WORSE. He won 5 Cups in 7 years and I don't care WHO was playing for him. He won. Period. What's it going to take for the Rangers & Sather to be successful to you? 6 Cups in a row?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post

It's laughable to suggest that we were ever "in it," "challenging for the cup," or that the referees are the reason we lost to the Penguins. We were the inferior team in each of those playoff losses. It was a 2 or 3 man team the entire time Jagr was here. The facade of a team, nothing more.
Did you watch the Buffalo series?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
We never had a core, nor did we go anywhere. We had Jagr and a bunch of rookies, scrubs, and over the hill veterans. There was no window to begin with. That team was going no where. It was just delaying a commitment to youth, one that has yet to be instituted.
Really? Do you really believe this? Is this why the Rangers are among the youngest teams in the league? You're really not excited about the future because we haven't drafted in the top 10? Stepan, Kreider, McDonagh, Werek, Borque, Thomas, Grachev, Johnson, Byers, Weise, and on and on. What constitutes success for you exactly? A Cup? 3.5% teams are successful then. Finals? What? Playoffs every year? This "sting36e thinks we're inferior and the future is bleak and Sather sucks" is getting old. There most certainly is a commitment to youth. Sather has said as much. Tortorella has said as much. And I haven't seen any young prospects worth a damn getting shipped out of here a la the Rangers of the past. Sanguinetti was next to worthless in this organization because we have plenty of D prospects that are better than he is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
The fact that both Drury and Gomez failed to "do what they did previously" is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY on Sather. More so, them failing was completely and entirely predictable. Combined with the colossal failure to easily prognosticate the inability for Wade Redden to "recover," these are the moves that stand as a testament to how poor an evaluator of talent and of strategy Glen Sather is. Not to mention budget management and total lack of foresight.
I don't particularly care for Gomez, but Sather's biggest fault with Drury, Gomez, & Redden wasn't so much acquiring them as it was what he paid for them. Me? Never would've brought Redden here. Or Gomez. But, I understand why he did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Sather is STILL ****ing us for a long time, because instead of doing what's actually necessary to succeed in this league, he's doing just enough to shut a certain segment of the fanbase up. He's achieving just enough success to retain his job, and he's going to stick this team, it's fans, and whichever crony's hands he leaves the reins in with the job that he never had the balls or the know-how to do himself: a proper rebuild, one that produces a foundation, not another generation of not-enoughs.
I disagree - especially given that the Rangers haven't been fortunate enough to finish as badly as a Carolina and Pittsburgh to get the marquee player early in the draft. I think the Rangers are committed to youth for the first time I can ever remember. And instead of pissing in everyone's Cheerios, I'm going to try to enjoy watching our young cast / core improve and hopefully be competitive for years to come. I look forward to Kreider, Grachev, Stepan, etc.... in the near future.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:11 AM
  #80
MSG the place to be*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post








Really? Do you really believe this? Is this why the Rangers are among the youngest teams in the league? You're really not excited about the future because we haven't drafted in the top 10? Stepan, Kreider, McDonagh, Werek, Borque, Thomas, Grachev, Johnson, Byers, Weise, and on and on. What constitutes success for you exactly? A Cup? 3.5% teams are successful then. Finals? What? Playoffs every year? This "sting36e thinks we're inferior and the future is bleak and Sather sucks" is getting old. There most certainly is a commitment to youth. Sather has said as much. Tortorella has said as much. And I haven't seen any young prospects worth a damn getting shipped out of here a la the Rangers of the past. Sanguinetti was next to worthless in this organization because we have plenty of D prospects that are better than he is.
I dont respect Glen Sather. He has no respect for the fans, he has an elitist attitude, and worst of all, he has sucked at being the GM of this team for way too long. Therefore anything he says is worthless to me.

I dont respect John Tortorella. He is classless. He doesn't back up his words. Worst of all, he's done a poor job as head coach. More worthless nonsense.

On to the next one...
Who exactly is ahead of Sanguinetti. McDonaugh (I hope) and McIlrath (I hope one day will be but he aint yet). Who else???

MSG the place to be* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:44 AM
  #81
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG the place to be View Post
I dont respect Glen Sather. He has no respect for the fans, he has an elitist attitude, and worst of all, he has sucked at being the GM of this team for way too long. Therefore anything he says is worthless to me.
5 Cups can give you an ego, I guess. I don't care. I wouldn't lose sleep if he weren't in charge anymore. I'm really not a Sather guy, but to say he hasn't accomplished anything is just wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG the place to be View Post
I dont respect John Tortorella. He is classless. He doesn't back up his words. Worst of all, he's done a poor job as head coach. More worthless nonsense.
Poor job? Where? Here? With this group of players? What were you expecting?

Calder Cup, Stanley Cup, etc...

If you don't like him personally, that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG the place to be View Post
On to the next one...
Who exactly is ahead of Sanguinetti. McDonaugh (I hope) and McIlrath (I hope one day will be but he aint yet). Who else???
McDonagh, McIlrath, Sauer, Kundratek, Valentenko and the 4 youngsters already on the team: Gilroy, MDZ, Staal, & Girardi. Clearly, Rangers management felt the same way.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 10:55 AM
  #82
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 500
People who denigrate other folks knowledge of hockey while giving credit to a man who had gretz and mess given to him are funny.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 11:00 AM
  #83
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
People who denigrate other folks knowledge of hockey while giving credit to a man who had gretz and mess given to him are funny.
That team still beat one of the best teams of all time (Isles) to win a Cup.

And, funny thing, the Rangers had Mess and Gretz, too.

Not denigrating anyone, btw, but giving Sather zero credit for winning 5 Cups is asinine.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 11:28 AM
  #84
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
That team still beat one of the best teams of all time (Isles) to win a Cup.

And, funny thing, the Rangers had Mess and Gretz, too.

Not denigrating anyone, btw, but giving Sather zero credit for winning 5 Cups is asinine.
He did not build the team, other than one great draft. He coached them, so maybe that is what he should be doing. Good analogy, comparing the dofferent versions og gretz and mess.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 02:36 PM
  #85
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 haohmaru View Post
This is where you start to lose credibility with me as a guy that really knows the sport and become more of a guy who just has an agenda against Sather. I don't really care if you like him or not, but give credit where it's due. Pocklington asked Sather whether or not he should acquire Gretzky and Sather said he should do whatever it takes to get him and then Wayne lived in his home for a while.
How does this change the fact that Sather had the greatest hockey player ever, the man who has more assists than anyone else has points, handed to him? Quite an accomplishment on Sather's part. He was able to deduce that the Wayne Gretzky, who at 16, broke all of the QMJHL scoring records, was worth pursuing.

This would be akin to Isiah Thomas telling James Dolan 5-6 years ago that through some NBA loophole, LeBron James was available as a free agent out of high school and that Dolan should throw money at him.

Quote:
You bring up the Oilers drafts 83-00 but fail to mention that their drafting AFTER that was much WORSE. He won 5 Cups in 7 years and I don't care WHO was playing for him. He won. Period. What's it going to take for the Rangers & Sather to be successful to you? 6 Cups in a row?
Why would I mention that their drafting afterward has been much worse? What bearing does that have on the abilities of Glen Sather as a general manager?

What's it going to take for them to be successful for me? An entertaining team that is a serious contender for the Stanley Cup. At no point in Sather's tenure have the Rangers been a serious contender for a Stanley Cup, nor have they ever played an entertaining brand of hockey. Yes, a handful of individual players have been exciting, but this is a team sport. The Rangers play a very bland, boring style of hockey, which is hardly surprising, as they've never had a talented enough team under Sather to do anything more.

Quote:
Did you watch the Buffalo series?
Yes, every second of it. The better team won.

Quote:
Really? Do you really believe this? Is this why the Rangers are among the youngest teams in the league?
Being the youngest team in the league is only notable when it means that the team has an influx of significant young talent coming up.

Quote:
You're really not excited about the future because we haven't drafted in the top 10?
How can you possibly boil my point down to such a black-and-white statement? If I believed that the players we have drafted were the equivalent of the talent you can get with the highest picks, then I would be plenty excited. But I don't.

Quote:
Stepan, Kreider, McDonagh, Werek, Borque, Thomas, Grachev, Johnson, Byers, Weise, and on and on.
We have one first line forward on this team. MAYBE one of these guys will be good enough to be a second one. For the umpteenth time, that isn't a put down to any of these players. I happen to be an enormous fan of Stepan. Enormous. He's exactly the type of player I admire most: one whose success stems from his intelligence. But I just don't see him as a first liner. I don't see any of these guys as first liners. Look around the league. Look at the best teams. They all have superstar centers.

Quote:
This "sting36e thinks we're inferior and the future is bleak and Sather sucks" is getting old.
It can't possibly be as old as reading or listening to people defend what I can only describe as a cancer to this team and it's future.

Quote:
There most certainly is a commitment to youth. Sather has said as much. Tortorella has said as much.
Whoa! Sather said as much? Well, I'll be. It's settled then. Here's some other things that Sather has said:

Quote:
"In our opinion he's the best first-passer in the game," Rangers general manager Glen Sather said. "He moves the puck up exceptionally. He's somebody that we had targeted immediately. He was our No. 1 guy on defense, as well as Rozsival.

"We wanted to get them both signed, and we did. We're quite happy that we've got them. We think that's going to help us move the puck to the forwards as well as anybody in the league."
In reference to Drury and Gomez:

Quote:
"It's pretty exciting," Rangers general manager Glen Sather said. "We ranked them both as number ones, and we never expected to get both of them."
There is NO commitment to youth. A commitment to youth would mean a commitment to building a foundation based on young franchise players. A commitment to youth would mean not signing veteran free agents every season.

Quote:
And I haven't seen any young prospects worth a damn getting shipped out of here a la the Rangers of the past.
Ah, but have you seen any prospects worth a damn being ACQUIRED? Again, do we have any franchise players in our prospect pool. Obviously, you must think we do. I sure as **** don't.

Quote:
I don't particularly care for Gomez, but Sather's biggest fault with Drury, Gomez, & Redden wasn't so much acquiring them as it was what he paid for them. Me? Never would've brought Redden here. Or Gomez. But, I understand why he did.
You talk about where I lost credibility. Nothing on this forum infuriates me more than statements like this. There is no justifiable reason for any of the three. None. But of course, everyone and their mother was jumping for joy back then. Not me, but most everyone. You could argue, I suppose, that if you give Drury and Gomez less money then you can bring in other people to assist them with the money saved, but that didn't happen, so you might as well not sign them if you don't have the tools necessary to make them successful. Anyone who didn't expect them to be colossal failures here needs to do their homework.

Not trying to be a dick, honestly, but this reminds me of when you said last season that Chris Higgins' output in Montreal had more to do with him as a player than with the players he played with. I thought that was almost as ridiculous, and I stand by that belief to this day. Chris Higgins will never be a 25 goal scorer again unless he plays with serious playmakers. Chris Higgins has ALWAYS blown plenty of chances, he just got tons more to begin with playing with Koivu and/or Kovalev than playing with Chris Drury.

These are the places where you lose credibility with me.

Quote:
I disagree - especially given that the Rangers haven't been fortunate enough to finish as badly as a Carolina and Pittsburgh to get the marquee player early in the draft.
Well, if there was a real commitment to youth, then fortune wouldn't have all that much to do with it. They'd simply ice a team that wasn't going to finish in the 11-7 range like they do every season in their commitment to wasting season after season in the road to nowhere.

Quote:
I think the Rangers are committed to youth for the first time I can ever remember. And instead of pissing in everyone's Cheerios, I'm going to try to enjoy watching our young cast / core improve and hopefully be competitive for years to come. I look forward to Kreider, Grachev, Stepan, etc.... in the near future.
Well, hopefully you also look forward to another generation of mediocre hockey, because with the current "plan," that's what you're going to get. Perhaps you'll also enjoy watching team after team go through that inevitable cycle that every team except the Rangers is willing to be a part of: Lose to win. Feel free to tell me that I'm way off base. I've heard that before, plenty of times. See how that turned out.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 03:19 PM
  #86
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im not putting words in your mouth, but I certainly am speculating. So, you've chosen to ignore virtually all of the last 10 years, which consisted of mostly bad hockey AND the cluster**** that is the current roster in order to credit Sather for a few good, but non-elite level prospects? Is that what you're saying???

Because no, Im not saying the prospects dont need to get better. I hope they do, and I hope they have long NHL careers. What I am saying is that ignoring a 10 year track record of largely bad decisions, and then praising the GM for cobbling together a deep, yet largely unspectacular prospect pool given the state of the current NHL club is just asking for trouble.
No, I'm saying that at all. I'm saying that I'm not willing to suck all of the fun and excitement out of following my favorite NHL franchise because of **** that our GM did or did not do years ago. I'm saying that its ridiculous to even follow something so closely when you always approach it assuming that it's going to suck and disappoint you. Most, importantly I'm trying to say that *****ing about not having an all-star lineup does NOTHING to help us get an all-star lineup. People argue over whether we need a 1C or a backup more, or whether the goal should be to merely make the playoffs or not...none of this matters.

Do you think if we get the majority of the board to agree that the last 10 years of Sather were useless that somehow he's going to become a smarter GM? If we all agree that we need a 1C we're going to get one? If we all agree that making the playoffs is not enough to shoot for that we'll somehow become good enough to go deep? If we all agree that the prospects are good but not great that they'll somehow get better or we'll switch pools with another team? I'm sure you don't think any of those things. So, whats the point of grilling me about these issues and trying to assert that your POV is the correct POV? At most, you'll get another practical stranger to agree with you on hockey matters. What difference does that make in anything at all?

The team is what it is an you're going to watch it or you're not. You can choose to be excited about a relatively bright outlook for the future of you can be cynical, spin your wheels here complaining to people that have no power to change anything and asking sarcastic questions about what people are saying or not saying in their posts.

Yeah, the end of last year was a downer. Yeah, it'd be better if Sather built a better team. Yeah, it'd be fun to actually feel like we have a chance to win the cup. But in the end, you can lament what we don't have or you can be happy about what we might have in the prospects. In my eyes, MDZ, MZA, Grachev, Stepan, Kreider and McD are players to be excited about. Beyond them, we could have busts across the board, but those guys are bright, bright players with skill sets that are some of the best in their age groups (excluding MZA, who is older and hasn't proven anything). So, no, I'm not saying Sather is a good GM now because he got us what you consider to be an okay prospect pool, but I am saying that I give him credit for getting us these guys and I think that the best of them are going to make a big difference in this league in time.

Lastly, what kind of trouble am I asking for? Disappointment that the team isn't as good as I'd hoped it might be? I'll live. A lot of people around here are that disappointed every single day because they approach the team with such a cynical, pessimistic attitude. I'll be disappointed for a few weeks when our season ends - those of you that dwell on past mistakes and never look toward the future will be disappointed all the time. The difference is I'll have fun for most of the year and you won't.

I'm going to have fun this season. You can sulk. I don't see the point.

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 03:26 PM
  #87
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Warning: long post. I couldn't resist
Already the picture begins to become clearer. Were you not familiar with the majority of his tenure with the Oilers, or were you simply unable to find your way out of the mound of ******** upon which his reputation is constructed.
So you're a fan of a team that does everything wrong, which I think is a pretty fair way to describe the Rangers at that time...but instead of hoping that they'd focus on one strategy to dig themselves out of a hole, you immediately desire for them to become either the Devils or the Red Wings. Those are the only two teams that were able to do both of those things (producing your own significant talent and winning playoff hockey) at the same time.
Highly unrealistic goal. Far more difficult to achieve in the post-lockout NHL, too.
It's laughable to suggest that we were ever "in it," "challenging for the cup," or that the referees are the reason we lost to the Penguins. We were the inferior team in each of those playoff losses. It was a 2 or 3 man team the entire time Jagr was here. The facade of a team, nothing more.
We never had a core, nor did we go anywhere. We had Jagr and a bunch of rookies, scrubs, and over the hill veterans. There was no window to begin with. That team was going no where. It was just delaying a commitment to youth, one that has yet to be instituted.
LOL
The two best centers (other than Briere of course) in one of the worst free agent classes of all-time, that is, and then fails to fulfill any of the requirements necessary, whether strategic or personnel, for either of them to succeed.
Arguably more so than anyone else. Ever. Except another guy that Sather signed the following year, that is.
WHAT??? Unbelievable. The absurdity of this statement is simply unbelievable.
The fact that both Drury and Gomez failed to "do what they did previously" is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY on Sather. More so, them failing was completely and entirely predictable. Combined with the colossal failure to easily prognosticate the inability for Wade Redden to "recover," these are the moves that stand as a testament to how poor an evaluator of talent and of strategy Glen Sather is. Not to mention budget management and total lack of foresight.
How can you possibly believe that Drury and Gomez are to blame for what only someone who doesn't have a particularly firm grasp of the tactical side of the sport could term as a disappointment?
Players don't exist in a vacuum. This is a team sport, and for most players in the league, their statistical output is going to depend greatly on numerous variable factors, most notably the talent, ability, and intelligence of the personnel around them and the strategy endorsed by their coaching staff.
Chris Drury scored 37 goals because he played on an aggressive offensive team that had one of the best power plays in the league. It was a line that featured Chris Drury firmly planted in front of the net, while four other more talented offensive players created things. He didn't magically become a different player. He was still, essentially, a great third line center with some speed and a good shot. If he isn't on that power play, with those offensive talents, he isn't going to score 37 goals. It's not that complicated. On the Rangers, these criteria have not been met. Not even close. His play hasn't changed other than the fact that he's gotten a few years older and a step or two slower, which is perfectly normal.
Chris Drury is who he is, and the way he's played since he's come here is exactly who you paid for. If you wanted or expected 37 goals, you should have been able to figure out that you had to put other people in place to make that happen. But Glen Sather couldn't figure that out. Shame on him.
He apparently also couldn't figure out that Scott Gomez's game has MASSIVE flaws that only a team as deep, strong, and defensively stingy as New Jersey could hide effectively. He couldn't figure out that Scott Gomez's game is so one-dimensional that unless he's playing with a very specific type of player (one that plays a much different style than Jagr or 49 year old Naslund), he's going to be more trouble than he's worth.
These players were neither at fault, nor were they disappointments. The disappointment is that Glen Sather isn't a bright enough hockey mind to see through statistics or media hype and simply evaluate players and/or situations through visual analysis.
What is bright? Another early playoff exit? Are your expectations so low that even the slightest improvement is enough to quell any sort of doubt within you?
Well, that's a problem, because the guy running the team determines pretty much everything about the status of the team.
I wouldn't want that either, because that guy would be doing as bad a job as Sather is. I would, however, love to see a guy who actually gets the way the league and the sport work and is willing to do what Sather has never been willing or able to do in a decade at the helm of this club: build a Stanley Cup contending team that plays entertaining, high level hockey.
Sather is STILL ****ing us for a long time, because instead of doing what's actually necessary to succeed in this league, he's doing just enough to shut a certain segment of the fanbase up. He's achieving just enough success to retain his job, and he's going to stick this team, it's fans, and whichever crony's hands he leaves the reins in with the job that he never had the balls or the know-how to do himself: a proper rebuild, one that produces a foundation, not another generation of not-enoughs.
It seems to me that you weren't really up on the Rangers for the first part of Sather's tenure. I'm sure you knew what was going on with them in a general sense, but based on all your comments I don't see you as someone who watched every game of theirs during the SEVEN years we MISSED THE PLAYOFFS COMPLETELY! This is really what I don't get with you among others. Your philosophy is that you sacrifice having any shot at the playoffs for a few years and then the hockey gods say, "You're commitment to not being competitive pleases us. You will now be elite." That's not the way it ****ing works. You talk about mediocrity as if it's the worst option. IT ISN'T! The worst is being stuck at the BOTTOM, not the middle. That happened to us. It's happening with the leafs, the panthers. I've posted that stuff before and you guys have all ignored it because that doesn't fit with your preconceived idea of how things work. You'll try to deflect the argument saying, "You're setting the bar too low." No, you'd be wrong about that. I'm not saying we should remain mediocre, I don't believe we will if we stay the current course. How does a top six of Kreider, Stepan, Grachev, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Gaborik not appeal to you? A D corps of Staal, Girardi, MDZ, McD? Henrik Lundqvist? And when you assume some guys we think will be big will turn out to be busts you conveniently forget that some guys usually also come out of nowhere to make an impact. We have some high risk high reward guys who will be coming of age in a few years too. Keep on drafting well and we'll have more guys who can fill important roles in the coming years. Here I'll redirect you again to a point I don't want to repeat again. Your philosophy is wrong. Spending a few years in the **** hole doesn't jolt you into an elite powerhouse automatically. Are you willing to spend another 7 years at the bottom?

Honestly when I really think about where you're coming from it makes no sense. You're so obsessed with big names and you think that only the best teams on paper win it each year. That would seem to imply that there's no point to even watching this team for the past few years. So unless you enjoy being depressed, which I guess is a possibility, why bother watching this team if you think they have no shot? Check back in if we ever tank for a couple of years straight. Until then, why are you wasting your time?


Last edited by Kel Varnsen: 09-02-2010 at 03:32 PM.
Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 03:38 PM
  #88
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 haveandare View Post
Lastly, what kind of trouble am I asking for? Disappointment that the team isn't as good as I'd hoped it might be? I'll live. A lot of people around here are that disappointed every single day because they approach the team with such a cynical, pessimistic attitude. I'll be disappointed for a few weeks when our season ends - those of you that dwell on past mistakes and never look toward the future will be disappointed all the time. The difference is I'll have fun for most of the year and you won't.
It appears as if the only requirement for you to have fun is watching any group of men wearing Ranger jerseys step out onto a rink. I wish it were that simple for me.

Quote:
I'm going to have fun this season. You can sulk. I don't see the point.
Well that's because what is fun for you is not fun for everyone else. For me, the fun in watching NHL hockey is in seeing a brand of hockey that you can't see anywhere else. But the Rangers don't play that brand. They aren't good enough. They're not a good hockey team, and the style of hockey they play isn't fun to watch.

Teams like Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc...these teams execute this sport at a very high level. They make incredible plays that require serious talent and vision. And strategy. The Rangers don't do things like this. ****, the Rangers hardly ever cycle the puck in the offensive zone. They can't, because they aren't good enough. They don't have enough skill or talent. Most of the time, watching the Rangers feels more like watching a beer league team play. It's just a bunch of guys skating around waiting for something to happen.

I love hockey and I love the Rangers. Watching Ranger games should be a fulfilling and enjoyable experience. But for years and years now, it just feels hollow and disappointing.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 03:39 PM
  #89
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
Your philosophy is that you sacrifice having any shot at the playoffs for a few years and then the hockey gods say, "You're commitment to not being competitive pleases us. You will now be elite." That's not the way it ****ing works.

Dude, common, the panthers, maple leafs, islanders and blues are absolute powerhouses due to all those years of losing.


haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 03:56 PM
  #90
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
It appears as if the only requirement for you to have fun is watching any group of men wearing Ranger jerseys step out onto a rink. I wish it were that simple for me.



Well that's because what is fun for you is not fun for everyone else. For me, the fun in watching NHL hockey is in seeing a brand of hockey that you can't see anywhere else. But the Rangers don't play that brand. They aren't good enough. They're not a good hockey team, and the style of hockey they play isn't fun to watch.

Teams like Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc...these teams execute this sport at a very high level. They make incredible plays that require serious talent and vision. And strategy. The Rangers don't do things like this. ****, the Rangers hardly ever cycle the puck in the offensive zone. They can't, because they aren't good enough. They don't have enough skill or talent. Most of the time, watching the Rangers feels more like watching a beer league team play. It's just a bunch of guys skating around waiting for something to happen.

I love hockey and I love the Rangers. Watching Ranger games should be a fulfilling and enjoyable experience. But for years and years now, it just feels hollow and disappointing.
You're going to see what you look for.

I saw a ton of great plays last year. I was impressed by our guys at a lot of different times. No, in the grand scheme of things the team as a whole wasn't nearly as impressive as Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, etc. But if you watched last season and didn't see any hockey that you can't see anywhere else or any impressive plays, thats on you, not on the rangers. Hank, Gabby, MDZ, Anisimov, Staal, Cally, Dubi, hell, even Christensen all made numerous memorable plays last year.

And no, I don't have fun watching any random group of players in NYR jerseys, but I have a ton of fun watching this team. Henrik is one of, if not the best goalie in the world. Every night he makes a highlight save that few others are capable of. Gabby is, in my opinion, one of the top 5 most exciting offensive players in the game. About half of his goals last year gave me a sense of awe. Cally's heart shows all over the ice every play, watching him throw himself at the biggest, badest guys in the league is fun. Watching Dubi getting in Sid and Richards' face, not taking their ****, is fun to me. There are a lot of great characters on this team, and a few world-class talents. I'm truly sorry if you can't have fun watching them. I'd say follow another team but that leads to bad feelings and the classic " I shouldn't have to give up my favorite team because of bad management" argument, which is legitimate but ultimately a paradox.

So, I don't really know what to say. We perceive the team and the sport in two very different ways.

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 04:06 PM
  #91
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 genericnyrusername View Post
It seems to me that you weren't really up on the Rangers for the first part of Sather's tenure. I'm sure you knew what was going on with them in a general sense, but based on all your comments I don't see you as someone who watched every game of theirs during the SEVEN years we MISSED THE PLAYOFFS COMPLETELY!
I would say that, since 1994, I've never watched fewer than 75 games per regular season, and I have not missed a second of any Ranger playoff game in that span (not there have been that many)

Quote:
This is really what I don't get with you among others. Your philosophy is that you sacrifice having any shot at the playoffs for a few years and then the hockey gods say, "You're commitment to not being competitive pleases us. You will now be elite." That's not the way it ****ing works.
That's exactly how it works, assuming the people in charge of your team are competent and you don't experience an inordinate amount of bad luck.

Quote:
You talk about mediocrity as if it's the worst option. IT ISN'T! The worst is being stuck at the BOTTOM, not the middle. That happened to us. It's happening with the leafs, the panthers. I've posted that stuff before and you guys have all ignored it because that doesn't fit with your preconceived idea of how things work.
Of course you would bring up teams like the Leafs and Panthers. You understand that the plan I advocate is one that neither of those teams followed, right? The Leafs traded two first round picks for Phil Kessel, including one that turned out to be the #2 pick which was used to select a future #1 center. That is NOT the proper course of action. Notice that the Hawks, Kings, Caps, Pens, etc. did NOT do things like that. Nor did they trade arguably the best goalie in the league for jack ****, like Mike Keenan did with the Panthers. Remember how I said the people in charge of your team must be competent? Dale Tallon, Fred Shero, George McPhee, Dean Lombardi...this is competent. Mike Keenan? Not so much. Personally, I think Brian Burke is highly overrated but he did win a Cup so I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling him an idiot, but that's exactly what he is for making that Kessel trade, for drafting Kadri, for tying up WAY too much money on his blueline, etc.

Quote:
You'll try to deflect the argument saying, "You're setting the bar too low." No, you'd be wrong about that. I'm not saying we should remain mediocre, I don't believe we will if we stay the current course. How does a top six of Kreider, Stepan, Grachev, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Gaborik not appeal to you? A D corps of Staal, Girardi, MDZ, McD? Henrik Lundqvist?
How does it not appeal to me? Simple. I look at the best teams in the league and come to the conclusion that such a lineup is not good enough to compete with them. That's the problem. I don't think that any of those players are going to be as good as the best players on the best teams in the league.

Quote:
And when you assume some guys we think will be big will turn out to be busts you conveniently forget that some guys usually also come out of nowhere to make an impact.
There's a difference between guys coming out of nowhere to make an impact and guys coming out of nowhere to be the franchise player on your team.

Quote:
We have some high risk high reward guys who will be coming of age in a few years too.
I don't even know who you're talking about, other than McIlrath. Who else do we have that is high risk?

Quote:
Keep on drafting well and we'll have more guys who can fill important roles in the coming years.
I LOVE THIS! As if it was just so simple. If it was that easy, then every team in the league would have no problem filling it's most important niches with players they drafted. You can keep ignoring it as much as you want, but the fact remains: most of the best players in the league are drafted in the first few picks of the draft, and not a SINGLE serious contender in the league doesn't have at least one such player. Most have more.

Quote:
Here I'll redirect you again to a point I don't want to repeat again. Your philosophy is wrong. Spending a few years in the **** hole doesn't jolt you into an elite powerhouse automatically. Are you willing to spend another 7 years at the bottom?
Of course it isn't automatic. Nothing is. It's still proven to be a far more successful strategy than the one the Rangers are currently employing, provided you aren't met with incredible misfortune and that the people in charge aren't dolts. Again, that's what separates the Panthers and Thrashers and Leafs from the Hawks and Penguins and Capitals and Kings.

Quote:
Honestly when I really think about where you're coming from it makes no sense.
Believe me, the feeling is certainly mutual.

Quote:
You're so obsessed with big names and you think that only the best teams on paper win it each year. That would seem to imply that there's no point to even watching this team for the past few years.
I'm not obsessed with big names. I'm obsessed with big talent, something this team never has enough of.

Honestly, what HAS been the point of watching this team the last five years? If I wasn't a Ranger fan, there wouldn't be much of one. The team was obviously going nowhere (still is) and aside from a handful of individual players, played a mindless game of puck. Every year I think to myself, "I know this team is going to suck balls but please let me be wrong this time." But I never am. Every year they continue to suck.

I love NHL Center Ice, and I try to watch at least a few games from every team in the league throughout the season. But some teams are so boring to watch that it's difficult unless you have a rooting interest. Prime example right here.

Quote:
So unless you enjoy being depressed, which I guess is a possibility, why bother watching this team if you think they have no shot? Check back in if we ever tank for a couple of years straight. Until then, why are you wasting your time?
You can continue to try and peddle this junk about people somehow being lesser fans than you because they don't buy into every line of ******** from the team, but just because you're a perpetual cheerleader and the number one member of the Glen Sather fan club doesn't make you any more of a Ranger fan than me. It just makes you a more gullible one.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 04:08 PM
  #92
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 haveandare View Post
You're going to see what you look for.

I saw a ton of great plays last year. I was impressed by our guys at a lot of different times. No, in the grand scheme of things the team as a whole wasn't nearly as impressive as Chicago, Detroit, Vancouver, etc. But if you watched last season and didn't see any hockey that you can't see anywhere else or any impressive plays, thats on you, not on the rangers. Hank, Gabby, MDZ, Anisimov, Staal, Cally, Dubi, hell, even Christensen all made numerous memorable plays last year.

And no, I don't have fun watching any random group of players in NYR jerseys, but I have a ton of fun watching this team. Henrik is one of, if not the best goalie in the world. Every night he makes a highlight save that few others are capable of. Gabby is, in my opinion, one of the top 5 most exciting offensive players in the game. About half of his goals last year gave me a sense of awe. Cally's heart shows all over the ice every play, watching him throw himself at the biggest, badest guys in the league is fun. Watching Dubi getting in Sid and Richards' face, not taking their ****, is fun to me. There are a lot of great characters on this team, and a few world-class talents. I'm truly sorry if you can't have fun watching them. I'd say follow another team but that leads to bad feelings and the classic " I shouldn't have to give up my favorite team because of bad management" argument, which is legitimate but ultimately a paradox.

So, I don't really know what to say. We perceive the team and the sport in two very different ways.
Obviously, I find pleasure in watching all of what you noted here. Of course, Lundqvist is a joy to watch. Gaborik is amazing,. My man crush on Callahan will only continue to grow. Etc, etc. If I didn't enjoy these things, I wouldn't watch. But surely you can understand how I might feel shortchanged. Good teams in this league get to see all of those things...PLUS great team hockey.

We don't. That's the basis for my discontent.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 04:24 PM
  #93
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
How does this change the fact that Sather had the greatest hockey player ever, the man who has more assists than anyone else has points, handed to him? Quite an accomplishment on Sather's part. He was able to deduce that the Wayne Gretzky, who at 16, broke all of the QMJHL scoring records, was worth pursuing.
Tell me, again, how many cups LA won with Gretzky? The Rangers? Sather won 5. Furthermore, how about the '83 draft? Beukeboom? Tikkanen @ #80 in the 4th round? Let's not forget that they were in either winning or in the finals nearly every year and almost always picked last. Pocklington asked, Sather answered and no other WHA team did squat. Give credit where it's due, otherwise you lose credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
This would be akin to Isiah Thomas telling James Dolan 5-6 years ago that through some NBA loophole, LeBron James was available as a free agent out of high school and that Dolan should throw money at him.
Really? Gretzky was selected 3rd in the OHMJL draft in 1977 and actually finished 2nd in scoring that year (to Bobby Smith).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Why would I mention that their drafting afterward has been much worse? What bearing does that have on the abilities of Glen Sather as a general manager?
Because he was better? Furthermore, I love how you conveniently leave out the fact that Pocklington was a complete wacko and forced Sather to trade nearly every decent player on the squad during the course of a few seasons because of nearly being bankrupt and omit that the Oilers almost always picked last in the draft because they were the best team. The STILL ended up with guys like Esa Tikkanen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
What's it going to take for them to be successful for me? An entertaining team that is a serious contender for the Stanley Cup. At no point in Sather's tenure have the Rangers been a serious contender for a Stanley Cup, nor have they ever played an entertaining brand of hockey. Yes, a handful of individual players have been exciting, but this is a team sport. The Rangers play a very bland, boring style of hockey, which is hardly surprising, as they've never had a talented enough team under Sather to do anything more.
The Flyers were one point, a shootout point, away from not being a contender. Teams can surprise you and maybe you should try to enjoy the season instead of being predisposed to writing it off, again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Yes, every second of it. The better team won.
Too close to call, IMHO.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Being the youngest team in the league is only notable when it means that the team has an influx of significant young talent coming up.
See, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you POSSIBLY know what Stepan, Kreider, Grachev, McDonagh, etc... will develop into? You don't. You can guess, but that's about it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
How can you possibly boil my point down to such a black-and-white statement? If I believed that the players we have drafted were the equivalent of the talent you can get with the highest picks, then I would be plenty excited. But I don't.
Which doesn't change the fact that there isn't much they could've done differently since 2005. They have, for the most part, chosen wisely in the draft.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
We have one first line forward on this team. MAYBE one of these guys will be good enough to be a second one. For the umpteenth time, that isn't a put down to any of these players. I happen to be an enormous fan of Stepan. Enormous. He's exactly the type of player I admire most: one whose success stems from his intelligence. But I just don't see him as a first liner. I don't see any of these guys as first liners. Look around the league. Look at the best teams. They all have superstar centers.
Okay, but, AGAIN, what could Sather & Co. have done differently? Trade for higher picks (and we know what a crapshoot that is) and have the fans on this board ***** even more that this team is even LESS competitive?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
You talk about where I lost credibility. Nothing on this forum infuriates me more than statements like this. There is no justifiable reason for any of the three. None. But of course, everyone and their mother was jumping for joy back then. Not me, but most everyone. You could argue, I suppose, that if you give Drury and Gomez less money then you can bring in other people to assist them with the money saved, but that didn't happen, so you might as well not sign them if you don't have the tools necessary to make them successful. Anyone who didn't expect them to be colossal failures here needs to do their homework.
Drury is/was justified IF his price would've been lower. I wasn't jumping or even remotely happy about Gomez or Redden. I was ecstatic to see Gomez leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Not trying to be a dick, honestly, but this reminds me of when you said last season that Chris Higgins' output in Montreal had more to do with him as a player than with the players he played with. I thought that was almost as ridiculous, and I stand by that belief to this day. Chris Higgins will never be a 25 goal scorer again unless he plays with serious playmakers. Chris Higgins has ALWAYS blown plenty of chances, he just got tons more to begin with playing with Koivu and/or Kovalev than playing with Chris Drury.
So, wait, we disagree about the talent level of ONE ****ing player and I have no credibility? LOL. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that Higgins looked lost last year with either franchise he played with and I don't think anyone, you included, would've predicted 8 goals and 9 assists in nearly 70 games.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Well, if there was a real commitment to youth, then fortune wouldn't have all that much to do with it. They'd simply ice a team that wasn't going to finish in the 11-7 range like they do every season in their commitment to wasting season after season in the road to nowhere.

Well, hopefully you also look forward to another generation of mediocre hockey, because with the current "plan," that's what you're going to get. Perhaps you'll also enjoy watching team after team go through that inevitable cycle that every team except the Rangers is willing to be a part of: Lose to win. Feel free to tell me that I'm way off base. I've heard that before, plenty of times. See how that turned out.
I understand that. But, I also understand the other ($) side of it and deliberately not making the playoffs for the sake of 2-3 years down the road is NOT going to happen in NY. It works in Pittsburgh. It doesn't in NY.

(sorry about that, had to run)


Last edited by haohmaru: 09-02-2010 at 05:02 PM.
haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2010, 04:43 PM
  #94
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
I would say that, since 1994, I've never watched fewer than 75 games per regular season, and I have not missed a second of any Ranger playoff game in that span (not there have been that many)
That's exactly how it works, assuming the people in charge of your team are competent and you don't experience an inordinate amount of bad luck.
Of course you would bring up teams like the Leafs and Panthers. You understand that the plan I advocate is one that neither of those teams followed, right? The Leafs traded two first round picks for Phil Kessel, including one that turned out to be the #2 pick which was used to select a future #1 center. That is NOT the proper course of action. Notice that the Hawks, Kings, Caps, Pens, etc. did NOT do things like that. Nor did they trade arguably the best goalie in the league for jack ****, like Mike Keenan did with the Panthers. Remember how I said the people in charge of your team must be competent? Dale Tallon, Fred Shero, George McPhee, Dean Lombardi...this is competent. Mike Keenan? Not so much. Personally, I think Brian Burke is highly overrated but he did win a Cup so I'm sure I'll get flamed for calling him an idiot, but that's exactly what he is for making that Kessel trade, for drafting Kadri, for tying up WAY too much money on his blueline, etc.
How does it not appeal to me? Simple. I look at the best teams in the league and come to the conclusion that such a lineup is not good enough to compete with them. That's the problem. I don't think that any of those players are going to be as good as the best players on the best teams in the league.
There's a difference between guys coming out of nowhere to make an impact and guys coming out of nowhere to be the franchise player on your team.
I don't even know who you're talking about, other than McIlrath. Who else do we have that is high risk?
I LOVE THIS! As if it was just so simple. If it was that easy, then every team in the league would have no problem filling it's most important niches with players they drafted. You can keep ignoring it as much as you want, but the fact remains: most of the best players in the league are drafted in the first few picks of the draft, and not a SINGLE serious contender in the league doesn't have at least one such player. Most have more.
Of course it isn't automatic. Nothing is. It's still proven to be a far more successful strategy than the one the Rangers are currently employing, provided you aren't met with incredible misfortune and that the people in charge aren't dolts. Again, that's what separates the Panthers and Thrashers and Leafs from the Hawks and Penguins and Capitals and Kings.
Believe me, the feeling is certainly mutual.
I'm not obsessed with big names. I'm obsessed with big talent, something this team never has enough of.
Honestly, what HAS been the point of watching this team the last five years? If I wasn't a Ranger fan, there wouldn't be much of one. The team was obviously going nowhere (still is) and aside from a handful of individual players, played a mindless game of puck. Every year I think to myself, "I know this team is going to suck balls but please let me be wrong this time." But I never am. Every year they continue to suck.
I love NHL Center Ice, and I try to watch at least a few games from every team in the league throughout the season. But some teams are so boring to watch that it's difficult unless you have a rooting interest. Prime example right here.
You can continue to try and peddle this junk about people somehow being lesser fans than you because they don't buy into every line of ******** from the team, but just because you're a perpetual cheerleader and the number one member of the Glen Sather fan club doesn't make you any more of a Ranger fan than me. It just makes you a more gullible one.
The bold is an incredible naive statement. It's convenient for you to say, "If my theory doesn't work, the people implementing it were idiots," but scouting and player development isn't that simple. That's how you see first overall busts and Hall of Fame talent drafted in the umpteenth round. They're kids, they're not even done growing and maturing.

And you also conveniently left out the question I posed to you. Are you willing to be the dregs of the league for the next seven years? How about the next nine plus like panthers? Or nine like the rockies/devils, or seals/barons/north stars? Or eight like the bruins of the 60s or the caps of the mid 70s to 80s? Or back to seven (besides us) like the Wings of the 70s, isles of the 90s, flames of the mid 90s to early 2000s, blue jackets of the 2000s? How about just six years of no playoffs like eight teams suffered including your example of what we should follow in the Kings?

I don't know about you, but that wouldn't be acceptable to me.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 08:54 AM
  #95
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
lots of words in this thread...hard to follow. I'll keep it simple. The fact that Sather won a Cup 20 years ago, and several in his lifetime, in my opinion, does not have any bearings on his capabilities today. He should be judged based on his tenure with the Rangers. Give him credit for a couple good seasons. Realize the notion that if he was anywhere else on the planet he would not have been here after the lockout. Further realize that after three seasons of playoffs, missing the playoffs last season, coupled with his first few years as Rangers GM, he probably would be jobless anywhere else.

That's not to say that today's roster or cupboard of prospects isn't good. That is to say that someone else should take this team forward; a fresh look; someone not tied to any of the current staff, prospects or player personnel.

To the original title of this tread, the goal of a long run of success should've began when he took over. He's had enough drafts and trade bait (Leetch and Kovalev, to name two) to aid in bringing in young players. He didn't get returns for those players, and didn't draft particularly well. The guy should not have a job in the Rangers organization today.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 09:30 AM
  #96
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,090
vCash: 500
was just gonna say the same thing. too many long winded posts in this thread.

heres the bottom line with slats. not many here believe this new found "restraint" is part of any new direction or plan. the fact that he hasnt over spent is due to his cap situation caused directly by his past overspending.

and i continue to believe the reason we havent moved our youth is due more to our overvaluing them on the open market then wanting to keep them and develop them here. the young guys we have on the roster now just wont bring back enough. period.

as ive said before, good teams- teams that win, share one common trait. their highest paid players are also their best players. us, not so much.

ladies and gentleman, i give you 3 of slats finest contracts.

capt quaalude
mary lou redden
blowszy

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 11:30 AM
  #97
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,247
vCash: 500
I think Slats is talking a bit more about it to appease us impatient fans. He can point to the fact that he hasn't dealt a lot of youth for vets over the last few seasons. One of the reasons being is that the youth was pretty raw and it was difficult to get an impact player. Another was that aside from a rental, he couldn't obtain a player since he has always spent at the cap (and isn't he borrowing a bit from future years' caps?). His plan from the get-go was to inject youth into the system. Why else would he trade Leetch? He had Kovalev to trade, and others, but again, didn't use his assets wisely, and didn't draft particularly well. Hopefully he's finally gotten it right, since it's possible in a draft to guess right a few times if you have enough shots, but again, someone else should be leading this team forward...

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 01:05 PM
  #98
Radek27
Registered User
 
Radek27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I think Slats is talking a bit more about it to appease us impatient fans. He can point to the fact that he hasn't dealt a lot of youth for vets over the last few seasons. One of the reasons being is that the youth was pretty raw and it was difficult to get an impact player. Another was that aside from a rental, he couldn't obtain a player since he has always spent at the cap (and isn't he borrowing a bit from future years' caps?). His plan from the get-go was to inject youth into the system. Why else would he trade Leetch? He had Kovalev to trade, and others, but again, didn't use his assets wisely, and didn't draft particularly well. Hopefully he's finally gotten it right, since it's possible in a draft to guess right a few times if you have enough shots, but again, someone else should be leading this team forward...
See Fletch, making me think back to those failed big deadline deals is one of the reasons I have no faith in this man. Out of all the players he got during those two weeks of deals RJ Umberger was by far the best one and the only one not to be kept beyond that year. No we wanted David Liffiton and whoever else was the flavor of the month prospect then. Add in the Redden comment, add in the Drury and Holik contracts, Jessiman pick. THe guy has no real eye for talent anymore. Look at his drafting before he left EDM, it wasn't all that great. His coaching signings have been almost as bad as his player ones. While I don't agree with everything in Stings posts I think he is spot on when he says he is still living off his Gretzky years and has done NOTHING in the modern era of the sport. Nothing, nada, zipo.

To guys my age they hear Glen Sather yeah they think Oilers, but most youngsters now it's the old guy with the cigar that gives out crazy contracts.

Radek27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 03:22 PM
  #99
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
lots of words in this thread...hard to follow. I'll keep it simple. The fact that Sather won a Cup 20 years ago, and several in his lifetime, in my opinion, does not have any bearings on his capabilities today. He should be judged based on his tenure with the Rangers. Give him credit for a couple good seasons. Realize the notion that if he was anywhere else on the planet he would not have been here after the lockout. Further realize that after three seasons of playoffs, missing the playoffs last season, coupled with his first few years as Rangers GM, he probably would be jobless anywhere else.

That's not to say that today's roster or cupboard of prospects isn't good. That is to say that someone else should take this team forward; a fresh look; someone not tied to any of the current staff, prospects or player personnel.

To the original title of this tread, the goal of a long run of success should've began when he took over. He's had enough drafts and trade bait (Leetch and Kovalev, to name two) to aid in bringing in young players. He didn't get returns for those players, and didn't draft particularly well. The guy should not have a job in the Rangers organization today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
was just gonna say the same thing. too many long winded posts in this thread.

heres the bottom line with slats. not many here believe this new found "restraint" is part of any new direction or plan. the fact that he hasnt over spent is due to his cap situation caused directly by his past overspending.

and i continue to believe the reason we havent moved our youth is due more to our overvaluing them on the open market then wanting to keep them and develop them here. the young guys we have on the roster now just wont bring back enough. period.

as ive said before, good teams- teams that win, share one common trait. their highest paid players are also their best players. us, not so much.

ladies and gentleman, i give you 3 of slats finest contracts.

capt quaalude
mary lou redden
blowszy
There it is. Ten-word answers. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? We've had the shallow debate already, so now it's either time to stop or to dig deeper. That's what a few of us have started recently. If you'd like to join us and keep this going here's the most recent point your opposition has made, although I'd suggest you read it in full above before responding. How many years are you willing to watch a terrible product in order to get the top draft picks you deem necessary for a cup winner?

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 03:55 PM
  #100
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
There it is. Ten-word answers. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? We've had the shallow debate already, so now it's either time to stop or to dig deeper. That's what a few of us have started recently. If you'd like to join us and keep this going here's the most recent point your opposition has made, although I'd suggest you read it in full above before responding. How many years are you willing to watch a terrible product in order to get the top draft picks you deem necessary for a cup winner?
That is not the only other option. Other teams have managed to do far better than Sather has, without resorting to making sure you have a top five draft pick a few years in a row. They have done so with good drafting, good free agent signings, and good coaching hirings, a combination Sather has been unable to accomplish.

And he was given a long time to accomplish it.

Jersey Girl 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 04:38 PM.

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.