HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is there ANY chance Sather steps down after this season?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2011, 07:50 PM
  #76
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The way you draft a Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews is by literally being the worst team in the league and winning the lottery.
And praying that you don't pick a Cam Barker, Kyle Turris or Nick Zherdev.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 08:28 PM
  #77
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
And praying that you don't pick a Cam Barker, Kyle Turris or Nick Zherdev.
Why pray when you can play the odds? The odds are quite clear on this issue. Want the highest chance at the highest level of talent AND the highest chance of avoiding complete busts?

Choose at the top of the draft.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 08:34 PM
  #78
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
So the options are either you like him or you're some ranting lunatic demand trades and firings?
For some here there are no legitimate reasons to want Glen Sather gone. Anyone who disapproves of Sather's performance does so because they don't like his name, don't like his press policy, or are still living in 2004.

Because it's not like Glen Sather iced a non-playoff team last year or - after 11 seasons on the job - currently ices a team struggling to make the playoffs.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 08:34 PM
  #79
JeffMangum
~Dylan~
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 57,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
If Sather steps anywhere it will be up to full time President and advisor to head of hockey operations. And Messier may or may not be the chosen one. I'm in the Gordie Clark camp but Gordie may be content living in Canada and scouting players.
I'd rather he keep scouting than gm the team. He's one of the biggest reasons for our current young steals.

__________________


Everything about you is bringing me misery.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 09:26 PM
  #80
Dantes19
Registered User
 
Dantes19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
They drafted and developed an elite goaltender and defenseman. Lundqvist and Staal.
Lundquist in 2000 and Staal in 2005. And how much development did the organization really do with Lundquist? He came over at 23 and stepped right into the starting role, where he was obviously excellent. If anything, Frolunda of the SEL did a great job developing Lundquist.

I don't really think 2 great players out of 11 years of 7-round drafting is much to brag about -- especially considering chances they had in 2003 and 2004 to draft an impact player. I'm sure you could find a large number of GM's with records far, far better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Dubinsky and Stepan are going to be consistent 50+ point players.

Callahan and Anisimov 40+

Girardi, McDonagh, and Sauer are legit.

Del Zotto will learn, and his 30+ point rookie season is not a fluke. He needs to become more consistent, which is not unheard of for a 20 year old second year Pro defenseman.
Del Zotto really should not even need to be playing for the team yet. When was the last time we had a legitimate PP QB? Why has it taken Sather so long to address this? Did he really expect that Wade Redden would be what the team needed in that area? It wasn't hard to see that he was way past his prime, yet Sather felt compelled to offer him a contract. I know he drafted Sanguinetti and Del Zotto, but who was expected to run the PP while they were developing? Sather was unsuccessful in finding any effective solution to this issue.

Sather has done a decent job of cleaning up mistakes like Redden, Gomez, etc. But, don't you ever wonder why he keeps making the same type of mistake?? Why is it that Sather seems to give out a terrible contract almost every single year? And not just a bad contract value-wise, but a contract that is extremely expensive and handcuffs the team. Winning teams don't make that same mistake year in and year out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Gaborik is supposed to be an elite goal scorer.
Let's hope so, because if that ability fades or is decimated by injury, this team is in trouble. How many scoring threats does this team have? In 11 years of trying, the team still hasn't been able to draft a genuine offensive threat. I understand that they don't grow on trees, but you'd think in 11 years they could draft one genuine 1st line scoring talent. I'm not talking about a 25 g, 60 pt guy like Dubinsky, either.

Yes, their drafting has gone better recently. And I give the team a lot of credit for that. But what about the first 5 years he was here? What did the 2000-2004 drafts yield as far as players on the current roster?

2000 - Lundquist
2001 - No one
2002 - No one
2003 - No one
2004 - Dubinsky/Callahan

Yes, there are a couple bright spots there, but that's 3 players out of 5 drafts. I wouldn't consider that great -- the '01, '02, & '03 drafts were just downright terrible. I understand that the recent drafts have been better, but those 4-5 terrible years really hurt the team currently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
If they sign Richards, great, if not, then they continue until an elite center is available either via draft or free agency.
Richards is 31 and concussed. Yes, he's been a great player. But you know he's going to want a huge deal. Do you see him signing for less than 5 years? Maybe he'll be worth his contract the first 2 or 3 years of the deal (and that's not a sure thing), but what about the last couple years? Doesn't Sather's history of expensive signings failing worry you?

A great center is tough to come by, especially through free agency. Your best chance is to draft one, and we had that chance in 2003 and missed it. Obviously Sather can't take all the blame for that, I understand. But your idea that we can sign an elite center seems pretty shaky to me -- how many teams in the last 10-15 years have won a Cup with a #1C they got through Free Agency??

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
You constantly put down these players the Rangers have been developing and they're in the middle of a playoff race, and have been doing it without Gaborik, Drury, and Rozsival (traded for Wolski).
I haven't seen many people on here putting our homegrown players down. What I have seen is people pointing out that this team has serious holes -- holes that have been there for many years. Dubinsky and Callahan are great players, that is true. Staal is a great player, and the Rangers have a bunch of promising young defensemen. No one's denying this. But they're not enough. There's just not enough talent there, even if they continue to develop. It's not pessimism, it's the truth.

These young players are forced to take on roles/burdens they shouldn't have to, in large part because of Sather's ineptitude with personnel. Brian Boyle should not be counted on as one of the team's leading scorers. Brandon Dubinsky is a 2nd liner & shouldn't be counted on to carry a team's scoring attack. Michael Del Zotto should not be counted on to be a team's PP QB at age 20. Yes, they are great players, but they're being asked to carry too much weight and fill in holes that Sather has been unable to fill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
If the Rangers acquire their "elite" player via free agency or draft, what's the difference? It doesn't change the fact that because of the young guys who are very good players, the Rangers are being set up for years of success.
What's the difference? There's a big difference when you look at the situation practically. First of all, you don't win a cup without a #1 center -- that's a fact -- yet, those #1 centers aren't available in free agency very often. Guys like Crosby, Toews, Stamkos, their teams lock them up so that they can't hit the market.

What happens then is that #2 centers like Gomez hit the market, get overpaid, are expected to fill the role of #1 center, usually fail, and then the team suffers because of it. You're really underestimating the importance of drafting with a statement like that. You can't just go out and easily snag a #1 center through free agency. And free agents are almost always going to cost much more than they're worth on the open market, so you're always going to overpay.

Are the Rangers really being set up for years of success? I'm not sure. They have some really large holes going forward: #1 center, #1 scoring wing, and another top level defenseman. I understand that there are promising prospects. Kreider looks very good, sure, but he's still an unknown. What if he doesn't pan out? Who's going to score for this team in the future? Are you putting all your eggs in the Kreider basket?

Do you really have confidence in Sather's ability to put all the pieces together? I don't. In 11 years, he still hasn't been able to find the most important piece to a team: the #1 center. In 2003, the team had many holes and was struggling to make the playoffs. 8 years later, we're essentially still in that same spot. Yes, we have more younger player and talent (and that's good!), but we're still in the same general spot. It's not like Sather has drastically improved our lot during his tenure. We've not made it past the 2nd round once during his 11 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Every team in the modern era that wins the Cup or gets to the Finals acquires some elite players externally. Hossa, Campbell, Pronger...
Yes, that is true. But those teams Cup winning teams had the major pieces in place before acquiring those final guys. They didn't have the holes that we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The way you draft a Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews is by literally being the worst team in the league and winning the lottery. Should the Rangers defile themselves by being the worst team in the league?
Were you around in 2002, 2003, 2004? It really seems like either werent' around then or have forgotten those years. Those Rangers teams defiled themselves badly enough. They had the #13 pick in '03, and look at the players they could've had even at that spot. You don't have to be the worst team in the league to draft a top player. No one's saying we want the Rangers to be the worst team. But the fact is that they drafted terribly. The point is not to whip Sather over and over for 2003, but we really could've been set at #1 center right then and there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Girardi was an undrafted free agent.

Zuccarello was an undrafted free agent.

Boyle and McDonagh are former first round picks we acquired via trade.
Girardi and Zuccarello were very good signings; no doubt about it. But Zuccarello has 3 goals this year. He's a nice player, but he's not the scoring the team needs. Same with Boyle. They need (and have needed for a while) some genuine scoring threats. Even when Jagr was here, there was no one else. A team with one scoring line will get shut down in the playoffs really easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Everyone wants to complain excessively about the bad moves that were made over the years, and put down anyone who acknowledges the good moves that were made.

It doesn't matter what happened in the past with bad free agent contracts. The future is what matters. And yes, Sather had to cover some of them up by getting rid of his mistakes, but he FIXED those mistakes. You can't be that spoiled to have flawless decisions made all the time.
No, it's not about refusing to admit that good moves were made. Obviously some very good moves were made. The point is that you're underestimating the damage that Sather's bad signings and first 5 years made. That's not something he can just "fix" in one fell swoop. Contracts like Drury's seriously impair the team and its ability to fill the holes it has. Even if we buy him out, we pay a cap hit while he's not here. Do you not see the damage that comes with having a terrible signing every year?

And, even more disturbingly, you seem to have a confidence that Sather will put everything together and get this team to the Finals. I just don't understand where that confidence comes from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Some chose to acknowledge only the bad. Want to go through life like that, go ahead.

As for me, I'm looking forward to watching these young players develop and progress toward getting the Rangers back to the Finals in the future.
And some choose not to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Some choose to be blindly optimistic and place their face in a GM who hasn't won anything since 1989.

I think that the team has some very good pieces. I like the younger direction and the fact that this team seems to care. There are a lot of good things going for this team! But you also have to acknowledge that there are some major holes, and that the team is being led by a man with a history of terrible signings, questionable decision making, and an inability to fix the team's major deficiencies.


Last edited by Dantes19: 03-02-2011 at 10:08 PM.
Dantes19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 09:46 PM
  #81
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewcon40 View Post
I am probably one of the older posters who date back to Craig Patrick. If anything, this has been Sather's best year. I think the "Fire Sather" thing is old. He isn't the problem this year. He didn't get Richards? Probably because Nieuwendyk was asking for a boatload? Has Sather crippled us with free agent signings? Absolutely.

I understand why some are calling for Sather's head. But, be careful what you wish for. Who will replace him? Messier is unproven. (Spare me the Stevie Y comparisons). Jim Nill from Detroit? Does this man even have an interest in leaving the Red Wings?

I have a feeling the hard feelings for Sather are just a residual effect from the loss last night. I still feel Sather has a great record with trades lately.

McCabe for a 3rd and Kennedy (3rd pick is valuable but I am not crying over that)
Wolski - Roszival trade?
Gomez trade
Higgins / Kotalik trade that got us Prust
Taking a chance on Brian Boyle for a 3rd rounder.

If you want to knock Slats, he didn't come away from the 2004 purge with much. I think in early 2004, a salary cap was very much indeed discussed prior to the lockout/strike. He acquired Jagr for Anson Carter and Washington to pick up half the tab on the salary!

Things aren't that bad. I just think after holding steady with Richards. What is it that Sather didn't do this year that you want him gone. Besides this process taking so long, we are finally on the cusp.

Who do you guys suggest replaces Slats?
When you look at the list of credits you have given us, it is pretty noticeable that none are big winners. The best you can say is that they didn't hurt.

I'm oh so thankful for all he has done in his tenure. What a great decade it's been.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 10:54 PM
  #82
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
FORGET PRE-LOCKOUT.

I don't give a **** what happened in 2001-2004.

I'm passed it. I'm not living 10 years ago.

This is not 2001.

This is 2011. And more then half our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and smart trades.

GET OVER IT.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 10:59 PM
  #83
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
FORGET PRE-LOCKOUT.

I don't give a **** what happened in 2001-2004.

I'm passed it. I'm not living 10 years ago.

This is not 2001.

This is 2011. And more then half our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and smart trades.

GET OVER IT.
At some point, wouldn't it be nice to win, or is the goal to have a homegrown team that loses as much as the mercenary teams?

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 11:29 PM
  #84
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Its a process. Things in life do not happen instantaneously.

Young teams take time to develop.

Although, thickheaded minds won't process it. Need instant gratification like a child.

So, I'm through trying to get the point across.

Not reading any more responses in this thread.

Because honestly, I'm sick of wading through the excessive negative *****ing, in search of useful information.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 11:46 PM
  #85
Dantes19
Registered User
 
Dantes19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
FORGET PRE-LOCKOUT.

I don't give a **** what happened in 2001-2004.

I'm passed it. I'm not living 10 years ago.

This is not 2001.

This is 2011. And more then half our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and smart trades.

GET OVER IT.

I see that you pretty much ignored everything I wrote.

It's foolish to say "forget pre-lockout". I don't know why this is hard for you to understand, but some of the things that happened pre-lockout have and are still affecting this team currently. It's not ancient history. It's still relevant. A player drafted in 2003 (like Ryan Getzlaf, for example) would be 26 -- a.k.a. Brian Boyle's age. That's not an old player. So the drafting mistakes of that time essentially deprived the team of qualities players would would be in their prime right now. Also, Sather's mistakes during that time established the start of a disturbing pattern of bad judgment.

How many of the mistakes I mentioned happened AFTER the lock-out. How many bad free agent signings has Sather since 2005? Gomez, Drury, Redden, Boogaard, Brashear, etc. -- winning teams don't have GMs that make a terrible signing every year. And I'm not asking you to "live in 2001". I'm asking you to acknowledge that some of the things that happened during before Tortorella's tenure have had a negative effect on the current state of the team. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you.

You say that more than half of our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and trades. Does that change the fact that the team lacks a #1C and #1 wing? You should try actually reading what I wrote. What I said is that the team has some major holes. I never said that the team was void of talent. I said it had some spots of major weakness, and I even named them for you.

The Rangers didn't magically begin in 2005. Two of their best players, Dubinsky and Callahan, were drafted before the lockout. Does that make them irrelevant or unimportant? I know what year it is, and I know the status of our roster. I'm also aware and realistic enough to acknowledge that the team's roster has numerous bright spots but also some major spots of weaknesses -- spots that have been a weakness for a long, long time. That fact leads me to question Sather's ability to assemble a Cup winning team. I don't doubt that they could make the playoffs; I'm saying that the team has some major holes to fill if they want to be a serious contender, and I'm not convinced that Sather is the man to get the job done.

Do you want to express a constructive opinion about why you disagree?


Last edited by Dantes19: 03-03-2011 at 12:16 AM.
Dantes19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 12:02 AM
  #86
Dantes19
Registered User
 
Dantes19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a process. Things in life do not happen instantaneously.

Young teams take time to develop.
Of course it's a process. When have we said otherwise? We know it doesn't happen instantly.

You've managed to miss some of the major points of this thread. Given 11 years, Sather has not found a #1C. He doesn't even have one in the pipeline. His best hope would seem to be a concussed 31 year old. The most important part of a winning team, and he still hasn't found one after 11 years.

Is that not enough time?

Given 11 years as GM, Sather's teams have not won more than 1 playoff series in a row. Think about that. They have not won a 2nd round playoff series in 11 years under Sather.

Is that not enough time?

What do you consider to be "winning"? Are you satisfied with 1st and 2nd round exits? I'm not. I expect more out of a GM. I understand that winning doesn't happen overnight. I understand that player development doesn't happen overnight.

It's been 11 years under Sather. What results have we seen? What have been the benefits of that process? I'm not trying to say that this team is void of good young talent. I'm saying that it's lacking in key spots, and I really don't think Sather is the right guy to assemble all of the pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Although, thickheaded minds won't process it. Need instant gratification like a child.
It's a complete joke for you to say this. You're talking to people who were actually fans during a time when the team was much harder to root for -- during a time that you admit to not giving a **** about. And you call us thickheaded.

Let me ask you this: is waiting 11 years for results "needing instant gratification"? If certain things can't be accomplished in 11 years, how much longer would you like us to wait?

And this is what I really want to know: Do you think Sather is the GM that's going to lead us to the Cup?


Last edited by Dantes19: 03-03-2011 at 12:14 AM.
Dantes19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 08:36 AM
  #87
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
For some here there are no legitimate reasons to want Glen Sather gone. Anyone who disapproves of Sather's performance does so because they don't like his name, don't like his press policy, or are still living in 2004.

Because it's not like Glen Sather iced a non-playoff team last year or - after 11 seasons on the job - currently ices a team struggling to make the playoffs.
Well, hopefully Dante's posts below finally put to rest the notion that any critical opinion made of Sather is made by thoughtless "children" with entitlement/instant gratification issues, or by transaction-obsessed, screaming morons who lack the basic skills needed to appreciate the breathtaking landscape Sather has been painting these last 11 years. Oooops, sorry...I mean these last 11 days. Anything beyond that is mute.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 08:39 AM
  #88
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantes19 View Post
It's a complete joke for you to say this. You're talking to people who were actually fans during a time when the team was much harder to root for -- during a time that you admit to not giving a **** about. And you call us thickheaded.

Let me ask you this: is waiting 11 years for results "needing instant gratification"? If certain things can't be accomplished in 11 years, how much longer would you like us to wait?

And this is what I really want to know: Do you think Sather is the GM that's going to lead us to the Cup?
Yeah, that comment had me scratching my head as well. He's accusing Rangers fans...RANGERS FANS....of needing instant gratification? A franchise with 4 Cups on its resume in 85 years of work. Ranger fans might not be the most rational, but I think they're the epitome of patience.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 08:43 AM
  #89
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
FORGET PRE-LOCKOUT.

I don't give a **** what happened in 2001-2004.

I'm passed it. I'm not living 10 years ago.

This is not 2001.

This is 2011. And more then half our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and smart trades.

GET OVER IT.
Of course, if Sather had done the right thing from the start, the Rangers could have iced a team like this in 2004.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 08:58 AM
  #90
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a process. Things in life do not happen instantaneously.

Young teams take time to develop.

Although, thickheaded minds won't process it. Need instant gratification like a child.

So, I'm through trying to get the point across.

Not reading any more responses in this thread.

Because honestly, I'm sick of wading through the excessive negative *****ing, in search of useful information.
I don't think that 11 years is instant gratification.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 09:07 AM
  #91
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 6,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a process. Things in life do not happen instantaneously.

Young teams take time to develop.

Although, thickheaded minds won't process it. Need instant gratification like a child.

So, I'm through trying to get the point across.

Not reading any more responses in this thread.

Because honestly, I'm sick of wading through the excessive negative *****ing, in search of useful information.
We have waited 11 years. How much longer should we be patient with Glen Sather? remember....he is the smartest guy in the room, ask him. Remember when he said "If I had the rangers money I would win the cup every year?" How's that working so far? If not for the cap, we would have worse salaries than Drury. Remember Val Kamensky, Brian Skrudland, Bobby Holik, et al?

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 09:16 AM
  #92
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
We have waited 11 years. How much longer should we be patient with Glen Sather? remember....he is the smartest guy in the room, ask him. Remember when he said "If I had the rangers money I would win the cup every year?" How's that working so far? If not for the cap, we would have worse salaries than Drury. Remember Val Kamensky, Brian Skrudland, Bobby Holik, et al?
To be fair, Kamensky and Skrudland weren't Sather.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 09:27 AM
  #93
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
We have waited 11 years. How much longer should we be patient with Glen Sather? remember....he is the smartest guy in the room, ask him. Remember when he said "If I had the rangers money I would win the cup every year?" How's that working so far? If not for the cap, we would have worse salaries than Drury. Remember Val Kamensky, Brian Skrudland, Bobby Holik, et al?
What is this, Enron? haha

I remember playing NHL 2001 for PS2 starring Val Kamensky... he scored most of my goals haha.

I've said it before, we will NEVER be Cup contenders under Sather, and I stand by that. Just like my poor Buffalo Bills will never make the playoffs until Ralph Wilson kicks the proverbial bucket.

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 09:32 AM
  #94
EventHorizon
Bring Back Ties!
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Budd Lake, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a process. Things in life do not happen instantaneously.

Young teams take time to develop.

Although, thickheaded minds won't process it. Need instant gratification like a child.

So, I'm through trying to get the point across.

Not reading any more responses in this thread.

Because honestly, I'm sick of wading through the excessive negative *****ing, in search of useful information.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one irritated by that. Instant gratification. What a joke. If waiting for 11 years is instant gratification how long do we have to wait if we're patient? 20 years? 40 years? Maybe 54 years; then we're right on schedule.

EventHorizon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 10:54 AM
  #95
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
I've been a fan since 91.

Most of the time I've been a fan I've dealt with losing seasons.

I'm not a Rangers fan for winning. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm a Rangers fan because I genuinely love watching them play hockey. I love the jersey, I love the arena, I love the logo, I love everything about the Rangers. They don't need to win to have my affection. When/if they finally win the Cup it will be that much better. The only thing I ever ask of them is effort.

And I haven't ignored any points you made. This isn't 1998 or 2004. This is 2011.

During the lockout the Rangers made a commitment to rebuilding the system completely from scratch. The process takes time. The draft picks that worked out are starting to pay dividends.

And failed draft picks are not a phenomenon isolated to the Rangers. EVERY team busts more then they succeed. That's life.

The Rangers are progressing very well. The process is going to take a year or two while these guys develop. Acquiring Richards will help, in theory, push the process faster.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 11:18 AM
  #96
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Of course, if Sather had done the right thing from the start, the Rangers could have iced a team like this in 2004.
In 05-06. And probably a team that was a consistent contender for the cup, not just a team that may-or-may-not make the playoffs. And he didn't even have to start right away, just start the rebuild in 2003 instead of 2004.

But no GM could have made us a playoff team, or even a watchable team, before the lockout.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 11:21 AM
  #97
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I'm not a Rangers fan for winning. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm a Rangers fan because I genuinely love watching them play hockey. I love the jersey, I love the arena, I love the logo, I love everything about the Rangers. They don't need to win to have my affection. When/if they finally win the Cup it will be that much better. The only thing I ever ask of them is effort.
That's all well and good. That said, games are made to be won. That is how success is measured.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
During the lockout the Rangers made a commitment to rebuilding the system completely from scratch. The process takes time. The draft picks that worked out are starting to pay dividends.
But having a strong farm system is important to be consistently competitive. I'm not sure why this was even something that they had to decide to do. It should have been done from the start. 11 years later, and they still are not consistently competitive. And the real impetus behind building the farm system was the cap. You have to have guys on ELC to field a team. I can't credit Sather for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
And failed draft picks are not a phenomenon isolated to the Rangers. EVERY team busts more then they succeed. That's life.
There's always risks and guys who don't pan out. But look back and their drafting until of late has been appalling. And their lack of success in the first round is even more appalling. Go back and look at the picks prior to 2004. See how many of those actually played a game in the NHL, let alone became legit NHL players. Nevermind stars. Look, the bolded names are players who played at least one NHL game:

2002 Entry
2003 Entry 12 1 Hugh Jessiman
2003 Entry 50 2 Ivan Baranka
2003 Entry 75 3 Kenny Roche
2003 Entry 122 4 Corey Potter
2003 Entry 149 5 Nigel Dawes
2003 Entry 176 6 Ivan Dornic
2003 Entry 179 6 Phillip Furrer
2003 Entry 180 6 Chris Holt
2003 Entry 209 7 Dylan Reese
2003 Entry 243 8 Jan Marek

2002 Entry
Draft Num. Round
2002 Entry 33 2 Lee Falardeau
2002 Entry 81 3 Marcus Jonasen
2002 Entry 127 4 Nate Guenin
2002 Entry 143 5 Mike Walsh
2002 Entry 177 6 Jake Taylor
2002 Entry 194 6 Kim Hirschovits
2002 Entry 226 7 Joey Crabb
2002 Entry 240 8 Petr Prucha
2002 Entry 270 9 Rob Flynn

2001 Entry
Draft Num. Round
2001 Entry 10 1 Dan Blackburn
2001 Entry 40 2 Fedor Tyutin
2001 Entry 79 3 Garth Murray
2001 Entry 113 4 Bryce Lampman
2001 Entry 139 5 Shawn Collymore
2001 Entry 176 6 Marek Zidlicky
2001 Entry 206 7 Petr Preucil
2001 Entry 226 7 Pontus Petterstrom
2001 Entry 230 8 Leonid Zvachkin
2001 Entry 238 8 Ryan Hollweg
2001 Entry 269 9 Juris Stals

2000 Entry
Draft Num. Round
2000 Entry 64 2 Filip Novak
2000 Entry 95 3 Dominic Moore
2000 Entry 112 4 Premsyl Duben
2000 Entry 140 5 Nathan Martz
2000 Entry 143 5 Brandon Snee
2000 Entry 175 6 Sven Helfenstein
2000 Entry 205 7 Henrik Lundqvist
2000 Entry 269 9 Martin Richter

Now, look at that lack of production from the draft. And that's ignoring guys they passed on. So, we're not even talking about "oh that guy turned out better and the Rangers passed on him." We're talking about the Rangers took guys who never made it to the NHL. never made it to the NHL as a Ranger and guys who never proved to be legit NHLers. That's awful. That especially awful when you consider that when this drafts came at the end of seasons where the Rangers didn't even make the playoffs — when most teams do make the playoffs. Even if you take into considerations the freak injury to Blackburn and the tragic death of Cherepanov, it's still bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The Rangers are progressing very well. The process is going to take a year or two while these guys develop. Acquiring Richards will help, in theory, push the process faster.
See, that's where I disagree. They're not progressing nicely. They finally have some young pieces. But they are not close to being a Cup contender. They still don't have an elite forward prospect in their system. They're thin in net in the system.

When you look at all that with the general lack of success this team has had over the past decade and I can't say things are progressing nicely.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 11:24 AM
  #98
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
But no GM could have made us a playoff team, or even a watchable team, before the lockout.
I'm not ready to say that. The farm system was bare, but this GM drafted poorly and when made several "swing for the fences" deals for injury prone stars that didn't help on bit.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 11:27 AM
  #99
RMcDonagh
New York Rangers Cup
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,264
vCash: 500
Look, Sather needs to go. We probably won't win a cup with him.

Dolan is the owner. Until Dolan goes, Sather stays.

Stop arguing about it, you're getting nowhere. He's going nowhere. That, my friends, you'll have to deal with.

Wait until he's dead IMO.

RMcDonagh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2011, 11:44 AM
  #100
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Sure Sather has a poor track record prior to the lockout and all that. Well documented no need to re-hash.

However, I like the direction he has taken in recent years with respect to building a young core of assets and developing them. No doubt he has made some UFA gaffes but that was to try and be a competitive team which seems to be a key requirement of running the ship in NYC.

I'd say if Sather hung it up this season that the new GM would be getting credit for most of Sather's ground work over the past few seasons/drafts therefore I doubt he will quit now and is most likely hanging around to see the fruits of his labors.

Gatorade* 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 07:46 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.