HFBoards

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

Well the Leetch trade looks better

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2004, 03:50 PM
  #1
AzWeThInKwEiZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Well the Leetch trade looks better

While it is still hard to accept that Sather was the one who traded Leetch , the deal does look better in my opinon with the addition of the finnish winger who we got in the draft. Adding him with the other players we got from toronto, the Leetch deal may wind up reeping benefits for this orginization for a very long time.

AzWeThInKwEiZ is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 03:57 PM
  #2
Yizee*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Yes

Exactly. Which is why they should have traded Messier for a 2nd rounder - everyone loves Messier yet he was unwilling to accept a trade to help the Rangers - And it shouldnt be a player's option to accept or deny a trade this is a business - I hate messier... he better fricken retire - he's a big part of the reason our team was always not following any system and why players were skipping practices and missing assigments and stuff - he was the captain and doing all the wrong things that you dont want your leader to do. Leetch by the way was misused badly by Toronto - he was thrown out there in the playoffs way too much and was very tired which was evident on the jeremy roenick goal that sent toronto home - they need to cut his minutes down if they want him to perform at his top level.

Yizee* is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 04:02 PM
  #3
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yizee
Exactly. Which is why they should have traded Messier for a 2nd rounder - everyone loves Messier yet he was unwilling to accept a trade to help the Rangers - And it shouldnt be a player's option to accept or deny a trade this is a business - I hate messier... he better fricken retire - he's a big part of the reason our team was always not following any system and why players were skipping practices and missing assigments and stuff - he was the captain and doing all the wrong things that you dont want your leader to do. Leetch by the way was misused badly by Toronto - he was thrown out there in the playoffs way too much and was very tired which was evident on the jeremy roenick goal that sent toronto home - they need to cut his minutes down if they want him to perform at his top level.
I'm happy messier was upfront with sather. It would have been a headache for the rangers if they traded messier and he retired. I don't think he was part of the problem he just wasn't part of the solution. There is a difference. Messiers legacy with the Rangers will forever be 1994.

I think its hard to say leetch was misused. The leafs traded for him to play top minutes. A lot of players on Toronto had bad series against the flyers.

Its way to early to tell who won the leetch trade if anybody. sometimes both teams win a trade.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 04:05 PM
  #4
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yizee
Exactly. Which is why they should have traded Messier for a 2nd rounder - everyone loves Messier yet he was unwilling to accept a trade to help the Rangers - And it shouldnt be a player's option to accept or deny a trade this is a business - I hate messier... he better fricken retire - he's a big part of the reason our team was always not following any system and why players were skipping practices and missing assigments and stuff - he was the captain and doing all the wrong things that you dont want your leader to do. Leetch by the way was misused badly by Toronto - he was thrown out there in the playoffs way too much and was very tired which was evident on the jeremy roenick goal that sent toronto home - they need to cut his minutes down if they want him to perform at his top level.
No way the Rangers would have got a 2nd round pick for Messier IMO.

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 05:07 PM
  #5
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
For the return the Rangers would have gotten, they might as well have just let him retire a Ranger.

Edge is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 05:28 PM
  #6
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yizee
Exactly. Which is why they should have traded Messier for a 2nd rounder
The real mistake regarding Messier was in Neil Smith's tenure. Smith knew in '97 that he didn't particularly want Messier back. He was tired of Messier insisting on his say in trades; he was tired of Messier talking to the press; he knew he was going to lowball Messier as a UFA in the summer of '97.

Knowing all that and knowing that Messier would be genuinely angry and would very probably walk as a UFA (which of course he did), Smith should have traded Messier at the deadline. Larry Brooks wrote it as the deadline approached and so did Rick Carpinello, but Smith didn't have the b***s to deal with the media flak he would get by trading the Great Captain. And so what would have brought the team a significant rebuilding piece turned instead into a compensatory 2nd round pick. A joke.

I generally like Smith, but the guy has zero spine. this is the ONLY thing I'll give Sather over Smith: Sather doesn't give a damn who's angry with him. He doesn't mind confrontation at all. If Smith had more of that in him, he'd be a GM today.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 05:37 PM
  #7
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 12,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
The real mistake regarding Messier was in Neil Smith's tenure. Smith knew in '97 that he didn't particularly want Messier back. He was tired of Messier insisting on his say in trades; he was tired of Messier talking to the press; he knew he was going to lowball Messier as a UFA in the summer of '97.

Knowing all that and knowing that Messier would be genuinely angry and would very probably walk as a UFA (which of course he did), Smith should have traded Messier at the deadline. Larry Brooks wrote it as the deadline approached and so did Rick Carpinello, but Smith didn't have the b***s to deal with the media flak he would get by trading the Great Captain. And so what would have brought the team a significant rebuilding piece turned instead into a compensatory 2nd round pick. A joke.

I generally like Smith, but the guy has zero spine. this is the ONLY thing I'll give Sather over Smith: Sather doesn't give a damn who's angry with him. He doesn't mind confrontation at all. If Smith had more of that in him, he'd be a GM today.
Actually, the first person I recall bringing the subject up was Frank Brown (who, for my money is the BEST NY beat writer I've ever read.) He even suggested the Black Hawks as Messier's destination for ERIC DAZE and ETHAN MOREAU!!

jas is online now  
Old
07-01-2004, 05:41 PM
  #8
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
The real mistake regarding Messier was in Neil Smith's tenure. Smith knew in '97 that he didn't particularly want Messier back. He was tired of Messier insisting on his say in trades; he was tired of Messier talking to the press; he knew he was going to lowball Messier as a UFA in the summer of '97.

Knowing all that and knowing that Messier would be genuinely angry and would very probably walk as a UFA (which of course he did), Smith should have traded Messier at the deadline. Larry Brooks wrote it as the deadline approached and so did Rick Carpinello, but Smith didn't have the b***s to deal with the media flak he would get by trading the Great Captain. And so what would have brought the team a significant rebuilding piece turned instead into a compensatory 2nd round pick. A joke.

I generally like Smith, but the guy has zero spine. this is the ONLY thing I'll give Sather over Smith: Sather doesn't give a damn who's angry with him. He doesn't mind confrontation at all. If Smith had more of that in him, he'd be a GM today.
That's easier said than done. It wasn't until after Messier left that we became the putrid mess that we've witnessed the last 7 years. When Mess was approaching free agency, we were a #5 seed and only 2 years removed from the Cup win. No team, and I mean no team, would trade away their #1 center in that situation. Maybe Smith didn't want Mess trying to run the show anymore, but that doesn't mean he didn't want to keep him for one last run.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 05:43 PM
  #9
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
Actually, the first person I recall bringing the subject up was Frank Brown (who, for my money is the BEST NY beat writer I've ever read.) He even suggested the Black Hawks as Messier's destination for ERIC DAZE and ETHAN MOREAU!!
hindsight is 20/20. if the rangers traded messier in 97 they never would have gone that great run. neil smith should have resigned messier in 97.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 06:00 PM
  #10
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
regarding the trade of Leetch, even as he was my favorite all time ranger I knew he had to go for the betterment of the "sweater". He brought us assets that we could never had gotten on our own. I predcit he will sign a 1 year contract with the Rangers and retire a Ranger.

Don't forget, In addition to Kondral..v, Immonen, Pont ..... we still get a 2nd rounder from Toronto next year. No dooubt that 2nd rounder will be difficult to spell like the rest of them .....

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 06:15 PM
  #11
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
The Rangers were making another run at the cup in 97. It doesn't matter if Smith didn't think he was resigning Messier, he had to keep him because you can't trade your best forward if your trying to make a playoff run.

There is nothing Smith could have done late in his tenure that would have changed the Rangers fortunes after he left. We gave up all the youth ealier in guys like amonte and weight, so by the time 98-99 rolled around it was obvious we were going to have a few down years. The biggest mistakes made since then are the high draft picks this team has made and the trading away of high picks for guys like Bure. If you turn Brendl and Malhotra into decent NHL players today, and give us a first round pick in 00 and 02, this team probably wouldn't have fallen as far as it did. But if you don't draft well you have no shot.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 06:56 PM
  #12
dropthegloves
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The Leetch trade looked good from the start no matter what the extra picks brought in return. Leetch has what? Maybe 3-5 years left. Kondratiev is projected as a sure NHL defenseman and most people I read talking about him said he's a top 4 defenseman for 12+ years. Throw on top of that Immonen who their head scout says has a very good chance to be the best of the all their prospects before they dealt him to New York.

What the heck more do you want? Keep all our old players around forever? As much as loyal Ranger fans would like to admit it. Leetch made a ton of defensive mistakes this year. I don't think he was motivated physically and mentally to be a goto player on the Rangers any longer. He looked like 10% of the player he was when he tried to carry and will our pathetic team in the playoffs down the stretch last year. I don't even think he looked interested playing for Toronto in the playoffs.

I'm not sure Leetch has the fire anymore unless the perfect situation shows itself. That would be Leetch back in New York when the Rangers have a good nucleus of about 7 young forwards, 4 young defenseman who are at the stage they can win enough to make the playoffs. Then I think Leetch would add something again if he was a Ranger.

 
Old
07-01-2004, 08:54 PM
  #13
drewcon40
Registered User
 
drewcon40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: born LI, live SI
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Great posts regarding Messier, I would love to know what everyone thinks if Messier was on the 1997-98 Rangers.

Do you think that the Rangers just caught lightning in the bottle in the spring of 1997?

We made it to the semis without Kovalev (who was playing great hockey until January 97), Berg and Sundstrom went down during the playoffs.

The Devils got 2 or 3 goals taken away, right?

Anyway, what do you guys think would have happened if the Rangers resigned Messier in the summer of 1997. This would include a line up of Keane, Skrudland, Stevens. The only player who wouldn't be a Ranger is LaFontaine.

drewcon40 is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 10:14 PM
  #14
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
That's easier said than done. It wasn't until after Messier left that we became the putrid mess that we've witnessed the last 7 years. When Mess was approaching free agency, we were a #5 seed and only 2 years removed from the Cup win.
They were a team that had been swept by the Flyers and were revealed to be too old, too small, and too slow. (Let's not forget that the Rangers took 2 goal leads out of the 1st period and held 3rd period leads in 2 out of 4 of those games, only to see the Flyers pound and skate them into submission.) I'm looking at the '96 THN Yearbook, and Smith was even then talking about "retooling" the team. Dellapina writes about the team "transitioning out of the Messier Era." Barry Meisel was writing about the failures of the Ranger team against the power games of the Flyers.

It was clear to everyone, including Smith, that the powerhouse days were over. Smith knew that and should have reacted to it as a strong GM would. Is it easier said? Without doubt. Do it anyway. Show some balls; he had at least three local writers on the Ranger beat who were actively calling for the move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
hindsight is 20/20. if the rangers traded messier in 97 they never would have gone that great run.
Except it isn't hindsight. As I wrote above, the deficiencies of teh team were well known. Perhaps you were blind to them, but the beat writers were writing about them and Smith was talking about the need for "re-tooling" before that season even began.

As for the run, it was the worst thing that could have happened. It convinced them that they were closer than they actually were (which directly led to the Kurri/Norstrom deal that you hate so much and also the Zubov/Robitaille trade); led Smith to the deluded thinking that Colin Campbell was some kind of master coach; and in short, delayed the rebuilding that needed to happen. Not only did it delay it, but through trades like the ones above, it crippled it by dealing away youth on some stupid attempts to win a Cup that was beyond reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting
There is nothing Smith could have done late in his tenure that would have changed the Rangers fortunes after he left.
I completely disagree. For starters he could have elected NOT to have made the hideous youth-for-age deals I mentioned above. The team of the last seven years would have been radically different with players like Zubov, Norstrom, Laperriere rather than the likes of Shane Churla, Luc Robitaille, and Jarri Kurri. Factor in the genuine assets of a Messier deal and you have the makings of a young team rather than the pitiful collection that began this seven year travesty.

Quote:
you can't trade your best forward if your trying to make a playoff run.
But this is exactly the thinking that has crippled the team since Smith.
"Let's spend a 1st rounder on Pat Verbeek. Doesn't matter if we lose him to UFA; we're making a playoff run."
"Young guys like Norstrom and Laperrier make mental mistakes. Let's get some steady old players for our playoff run."
"We can't deal veterans, even if we have no intention of signing them later. We're making a playoff run."

Now one of two things was happening:
1. Neil Smith didn't realize the failings of his team - he was ignorant.
2. Neil Smith did realize the failings of his team but didn't address them - he was cowardly.

The fact that he was talking about re-tooling the team shows he understood perfectly well that his team could not compete with the elites of the league. The fact that every beat writer was writing about the same shows it was common knowledge. Smith cannot claim ignorance which leaves us with one alternative.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 11:28 PM
  #15
Fitzlax99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
Actually, the first person I recall bringing the subject up was Frank Brown (who, for my money is the BEST NY beat writer I've ever read.) He even suggested the Black Hawks as Messier's destination for ERIC DAZE and ETHAN MOREAU!!
WOW! You have an awesome memory. I actually remember reading that article! I just tried to find it in the archive of the Daily News, but they only go back to late 1997.

Do you happen to recall an article in the post (i'm pretty sure it was the post) from around winter of the 98-99 season called "Danny and Manny" or "Manny and Danny", (or some such ridiculous title) about how the Rangers future will be built around Manny Malhotra and Dan Cloutier with a "sprinkling" of Todd Harvey? I'm not sure what has made the memory of that article stick with me, probably because of just how wrong it ended up being...

Fitzlax99 is offline  
Old
07-01-2004, 11:50 PM
  #16
Fitzlax99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
They were a team that had been swept by the Flyers and were revealed to be too old, too small, and too slow. (Let's not forget that the Rangers took 2 goal leads out of the 1st period and held 3rd period leads in 2 out of 4 of those games, only to see the Flyers pound and skate them into submission.) I'm looking at the '96 THN Yearbook, and Smith was even then talking about "retooling" the team. Dellapina writes about the team "transitioning out of the Messier Era." Barry Meisel was writing about the failures of the Ranger team against the power games of the Flyers.

It was clear to everyone, including Smith, that the powerhouse days were over. Smith knew that and should have reacted to it as a strong GM would. Is it easier said? Without doubt. Do it anyway. Show some balls; he had at least three local writers on the Ranger beat who were actively calling for the move.


Except it isn't hindsight. As I wrote above, the deficiencies of teh team were well known. Perhaps you were blind to them, but the beat writers were writing about them and Smith was talking about the need for "re-tooling" before that season even began.

As for the run, it was the worst thing that could have happened. It convinced them that they were closer than they actually were (which directly led to the Kurri/Norstrom deal that you hate so much and also the Zubov/Robitaille trade); led Smith to the deluded thinking that Colin Campbell was some kind of master coach; and in short, delayed the rebuilding that needed to happen. Not only did it delay it, but through trades like the ones above, it crippled it by dealing away youth on some stupid attempts to win a Cup that was beyond reach.


I completely disagree. For starters he could have elected NOT to have made the hideous youth-for-age deals I mentioned above. The team of the last seven years would have been radically different with players like Zubov, Norstrom, Laperriere rather than the likes of Shane Churla, Luc Robitaille, and Jarri Kurri. Factor in the genuine assets of a Messier deal and you have the makings of a young team rather than the pitiful collection that began this seven year travesty.


But this is exactly the thinking that has crippled the team since Smith.
"Let's spend a 1st rounder on Pat Verbeek. Doesn't matter if we lose him to UFA; we're making a playoff run."
"Young guys like Norstrom and Laperrier make mental mistakes. Let's get some steady old players for our playoff run."
"We can't deal veterans, even if we have no intention of signing them later. We're making a playoff run."

Now one of two things was happening:
1. Neil Smith didn't realize the failings of his team - he was ignorant.
2. Neil Smith did realize the failings of his team but didn't address them - he was cowardly.

The fact that he was talking about re-tooling the team shows he understood perfectly well that his team could not compete with the elites of the league. The fact that every beat writer was writing about the same shows it was common knowledge. Smith cannot claim ignorance which leaves us with one alternative.
Swept by the Flyers???? Tsk tsk are we forgetting game 2 where we won, what was it, 6-5?

Kidding aside, I mostly agree with you. Smith had stars in his eyes right up until probably about january of the 97-98 season, when it became apparant that Gretzky wasnt going to be able to do anything with a supporting cast of guys like Skrudland and Keane.

One thing they can never take away from me though? October 24th 1997, seeing the otherwise useless Mike Keane score on a penalty shot to lead the Rangers to a win over Tampa! Ah good times...

Fitzlax99 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 03:08 AM
  #17
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
They were a team that had been swept by the Flyers and were revealed to be too old, too small, and too slow. (Let's not forget that the Rangers took 2 goal leads out of the 1st period and held 3rd period leads in 2 out of 4 of those games, only to see the Flyers pound and skate them into submission.) I'm looking at the '96 THN Yearbook, and Smith was even then talking about "retooling" the team. Dellapina writes about the team "transitioning out of the Messier Era." Barry Meisel was writing about the failures of the Ranger team against the power games of the Flyers.

It was clear to everyone, including Smith, that the powerhouse days were over. Smith knew that and should have reacted to it as a strong GM would. Is it easier said? Without doubt. Do it anyway. Show some balls; he had at least three local writers on the Ranger beat who were actively calling for the move.
C'mon, dedalus, you cannot take everything that NY beat writers say as the gospel of what should be done. They do raise some good points on occasion, but they are and have always been highly reactionary. If NYR management listened to the beat writers then the team would be torn down and rebuilt every other year.

Quote:
Except it isn't hindsight. As I wrote above, the deficiencies of teh team were well known. Perhaps you were blind to them, but the beat writers were writing about them and Smith was talking about the need for "re-tooling" before that season even began.
Of course Smith, coming off a disappointing playoffs, is going to talk about "re-tooling." If he didn't, he'd be saying that he is going to throw the same crap out there and hope it sticks this time. Every contender that does not win the Cup will talk about the need for "re-tooling." They aren't going to keep the same team together because obviously something did not work like it was supposed to. Philadelphia is going to "re-tool" this off-season, as is Ottawa and Toronto. It doesn't mean it's time to scrap the entire thing.

Quote:
As for the run, it was the worst thing that could have happened. It convinced them that they were closer than they actually were (which directly led to the Kurri/Norstrom deal that you hate so much and also the Zubov/Robitaille trade); led Smith to the deluded thinking that Colin Campbell was some kind of master coach; and in short, delayed the rebuilding that needed to happen. Not only did it delay it, but through trades like the ones above, it crippled it by dealing away youth on some stupid attempts to win a Cup that was beyond reach.
The run in 97 had nothing to do with the Norstrom and Zubov deals, nor any other youth for vets deals. Norstrom and Zubov were both traded in 96, well before the run. To gear up for the 97 playoffs, the only trade Smith made was Nemchinov and Noonan for Tikkanen and Russ Courtnall, hardly a youth for vets swap. And in the season following that run, the Rangers missed the playoffs and had a top 10 draft pick (and Campbell was also fired that year, so no one was under the illusion that he was a master coach because of 97), so Smith was not using that run as an excuse to hold on to the Rangers as contenders. It was just one last great hurrah for Mess' Rangers. The rebuild started shortly after, with the only thing remotely resembling a youth for vets trade being LaFontaine for a 2nd.

Dedalus, I just cannot get behind you on this one. You are taking the writings of a couple of beat writers and Smith's talk about "re-tooling" (which is very different from rebuilding) and blowing it out of proportion. It was not until after Mess left that it became painfully obvious that it was time to start from scratch. But in 95-97, the 94 Cup was still fresh in everyone's memories, and no one, and I mean NO ONE, was willing to tear it down just yet, much less trade away our #1 center and unquestioned leader. It was just too soon to throw in the towel.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 05:33 AM
  #18
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 12,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzlax99
WOW! You have an awesome memory. I actually remember reading that article! I just tried to find it in the archive of the Daily News, but they only go back to late 1997.

Do you happen to recall an article in the post (i'm pretty sure it was the post) from around winter of the 98-99 season called "Danny and Manny" or "Manny and Danny", (or some such ridiculous title) about how the Rangers future will be built around Manny Malhotra and Dan Cloutier with a "sprinkling" of Todd Harvey? I'm not sure what has made the memory of that article stick with me, probably because of just how wrong it ended up being...
The one I remeber is an article by Dellapina, in which he the Rangers had three blue-chippers in waiting - Stefan Cherneski , Wes Jarvis and Burke Henry . Cherneski was probably the only one with the talent and desire to become anything of significance in the NHL. Of course, given the the way things are run around here, Cherneski would have dealt at some point for Brett Hull.

jas is online now  
Old
07-02-2004, 07:28 AM
  #19
drewcon40
Registered User
 
drewcon40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: born LI, live SI
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzlax99
Do you happen to recall an article in the post (i'm pretty sure it was the post) from around winter of the 98-99 season called "Danny and Manny" or "Manny and Danny", (or some such ridiculous title).
Fitzlax99 - I remember that too! I believe it was Laura Price from Newsday. She was writing on the state of the Rangers. It was 1998-99 during their 2nd non-playoff year, she said something like 5 years from now when it is the Manny and Danny show....blah, blah blah.

drewcon40 is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 07:45 AM
  #20
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
They were a team that had been swept by the Flyers and were revealed to be too old, too small, and too slow. (Let's not forget that the Rangers took 2 goal leads out of the 1st period and held 3rd period leads in 2 out of 4 of those games, only to see the Flyers pound and skate them into submission.) I'm looking at the '96 THN Yearbook, and Smith was even then talking about "retooling" the team. Dellapina writes about the team "transitioning out of the Messier Era." Barry Meisel was writing about the failures of the Ranger team against the power games of the Flyers.

It was clear to everyone, including Smith, that the powerhouse days were over. Smith knew that and should have reacted to it as a strong GM would. Is it easier said? Without doubt. Do it anyway. Show some balls; he had at least three local writers on the Ranger beat who were actively calling for the move.


Except it isn't hindsight. As I wrote above, the deficiencies of teh team were well known. Perhaps you were blind to them, but the beat writers were writing about them and Smith was talking about the need for "re-tooling" before that season even began.

As for the run, it was the worst thing that could have happened. It convinced them that they were closer than they actually were (which directly led to the Kurri/Norstrom deal that you hate so much and also the Zubov/Robitaille trade); led Smith to the deluded thinking that Colin Campbell was some kind of master coach; and in short, delayed the rebuilding that needed to happen. Not only did it delay it, but through trades like the ones above, it crippled it by dealing away youth on some stupid attempts to win a Cup that was beyond reach.


I completely disagree. For starters he could have elected NOT to have made the hideous youth-for-age deals I mentioned above. The team of the last seven years would have been radically different with players like Zubov, Norstrom, Laperriere rather than the likes of Shane Churla, Luc Robitaille, and Jarri Kurri. Factor in the genuine assets of a Messier deal and you have the makings of a young team rather than the pitiful collection that began this seven year travesty.


But this is exactly the thinking that has crippled the team since Smith.
"Let's spend a 1st rounder on Pat Verbeek. Doesn't matter if we lose him to UFA; we're making a playoff run."
"Young guys like Norstrom and Laperrier make mental mistakes. Let's get some steady old players for our playoff run."
"We can't deal veterans, even if we have no intention of signing them later. We're making a playoff run."

Now one of two things was happening:
1. Neil Smith didn't realize the failings of his team - he was ignorant.
2. Neil Smith did realize the failings of his team but didn't address them - he was cowardly.

The fact that he was talking about re-tooling the team shows he understood perfectly well that his team could not compete with the elites of the league. The fact that every beat writer was writing about the same shows it was common knowledge. Smith cannot claim ignorance which leaves us with one alternative.
Sure they made some youth for veteran deals in 96 and 97, with guys like Norstrom and Zubov being shipped out. But, the reason for that is Messier, Leetch and Richter were still at the top of their games, and being only 2-3 years removed from the cup it would have been stupid not to try to get there again. Obviously we would be better today if it weren't for those trades, but that's part of the business. You want a little extra now, you give up a little extra down the road. Can't blame Smith for trying to get back to the cup in 96 and 97.

My point was that it wasn't obvious this team couldn't compete until after the 97 season. Like someone said, once we got about half way through the 97-98 season it was obvious this team needed to be rebuilt.....and that's where the mistakes where made.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 08:04 AM
  #21
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus

As for the run, it was the worst thing that could have happened. It convinced them that they were closer than they actually were (which directly led to the Kurri/Norstrom deal that you hate so much and also the Zubov/Robitaille trade); led Smith to the deluded thinking that Colin Campbell was some kind of master coach; and in short, delayed the rebuilding that needed to happen. Not only did it delay it, but through trades like the ones above, it crippled it by dealing away youth on some stupid attempts to win a Cup that was beyond reach.


I completely disagree. For starters he could have elected NOT to have made the hideous youth-for-age deals I mentioned above. The team of the last seven years would have been radically different with players like Zubov, Norstrom, Laperriere rather than the likes of Shane Churla, Luc Robitaille, and Jarri Kurri. Factor in the genuine assets of a Messier deal and you have the makings of a young team rather than the pitiful collection that began this seven year travesty.
.
hey instead of hindsight perhaps you should do a tad bit of homework. when was the zubov/robitalle deal? in august of 95

when was the kurri/nordstrom deal? two days before the trading deadline in 96.

If smith thought campbell was such a great coach why did he fire him less than a year after the great run of 97?

Even suggesting dealing mark messier in 97 has to be funniest thing i have ever read. Perhaps when you are looking up some more "facts" you can also look up the fact that messier had a no trade clause that kicked in when the rangers pick up his contract in december of 96. lets not also forget that smith let verbeek go so niklas sundstrom could get major minutes in his rookie year.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:08 AM
  #22
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 12,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
lets not also forget that smith let verbeek go so niklas sundstrom could get major minutes in his rookie year.
Actually, they didn't match the Dallas offer to Verbeek, so they'd have money to sign TGO.

jas is online now  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:28 AM
  #23
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
Actually, they didn't match the Dallas offer to Verbeek, so they'd have money to sign TGO.
they had no rights to match. verbeek wasn't a rfa he was a free agent. how do you know he even gave the rangers a chance to match the contract?

sundstrom was brought in to play the minutes that verbeek was playing.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:42 AM
  #24
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
dedalus...

they did beat a very good Devils team that year, though. They were beat-up and battered when they reached Philly. I think there were guys like Gernander, Eakins and Langdon in the lineup. Sunny hurt his arm. Kovalev was about one or two games (which were never played) from returning from his reconstructive knee surgery. It wasn't such a bad playoff run, and Mess contributed to it.

Yeah SoS, but had the Rangers 'matched' the offer, perhaps Verbeek would've stayed.

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-02-2004, 09:49 AM
  #25
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
Actually, the first person I recall bringing the subject up was Frank Brown (who, for my money is the BEST NY beat writer I've ever read.) He even suggested the Black Hawks as Messier's destination for ERIC DAZE and ETHAN MOREAU!!
Not to disappoint you, but Moreau really has only had one decent year as an Oiler. A good third line checker for the most part, has some character.

As far as Daze, after back surgery, one would think that he could contribute if healthy, as has always been his problem.

I think that a better deal could have been struck elsewhere.

Slats432 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 08:10 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.