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.
Seriously that was quite a while ago though. Sather has obviously changed that approach and the results have been pretty good so far with a number of players to look forward to.
I'm all for playing the youth, but there's no reason that it should have taken Sather 10 years to start it. Let's not kid ourselves, building from within, aka building through the draft, is plan 'C' for Sather at best.
Plan 'A': Acquire big names regardless of their skill set or state of health.
Plan 'B': Draft filler players, pawn them off as having "untapped potential" and continue to chase big names in free agency to fill the gaping holes.
Plan 'C': Play the youth because you've handcuffed yourself financially. Take significant risks on trades / free agents who have a history of any of the following: Injuries, inconsistency, attitude problems, or are on the downside of their careers.
Plan 'D': Take your licks for a couple years, and rebuild the team properly through the draft. Let the core grow together, and then add the necessary filler through free agency. Championship teams aren't looking for stars at the deadline, they're looking for depth, and that one 'final piece' to really make them a contender.
Again, I'm a fan of a lot of our kids, but I think right now, the "Youth movement" is little more than a security blanket for the majority of fans. It's great to have good young players, but if you're not sprinkling in elite talent, you're always going to have to wait for that talent to become available. Thus you run the risk of making poor decisions with the check book.
I'm all for playing the youth, but there's no reason that it should have taken Sather 10 years to start it. Let's not kid ourselves, building from within, aka building through the draft, is plan 'C' for Sather at best.
Plan 'A': Acquire big names regardless of their skill set or state of health.
Plan 'B': Draft filler players, pawn them off as having "untapped potential" and continue to chase big names in free agency to fill the gaping holes.
Plan 'C': Play the youth because you've handcuffed yourself financially. Take significant risks on trades / free agents who have a history of any of the following: Injuries, inconsistency, attitude problems, or are on the downside of their careers.
Plan 'D': Take your licks for a couple years, and rebuild the team properly through the draft. Let the core grow together, and then add the necessary filler through free agency. Championship teams aren't looking for stars at the deadline, they're looking for depth, and that one 'final piece' to really make them a contender.
Again, I'm a fan of a lot of our kids, but I think right now, the "Youth movement" is little more than a security blanket for the majority of fans. It's great to have good young players, but if you're not sprinkling in elite talent, you're always going to have to wait for that talent to become available. Thus you run the risk of making poor decisions with the check book.
Terrific post. The organization still lacks a philosophy from management to on-ice. And doesn't need time to develop.
I don't buy that one bit. The Knicks weren't competitive. And neither were the Rangers for that matter.
Depends on your definition of competitive I guess. If compete to you means cup contender than you are correct. But making the playoffs 4 of the 5 last seasons and missing by a shootout in the other is competitive in my books.
I know nothing about the Knicks, other than same ownership, and see no relevance to be honest.
Terrific post. The organization still lacks a philosophy from management to on-ice. And doesn't need time to develop.
So the public statements that they are not trading the kids, didn't buckle for Richards etc means nothing? It doesn't point to a current philosophy and direction? I beg to differ.
Depends on your definition of competitive I guess. If compete to you means cup contender than you are correct. But making the playoffs 4 of the 5 last seasons and missing by a shootout in the other is competitive in my books.
I don't think making the playoffs is competitive because more teams make the playoffs than don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade
I know nothing about the Knicks, other than same ownership, and see no relevance to be honest.
My point is the Knicks have been lousy. And by a large poorly managed. Walsh came in and had a plan. Get under the cap and then rebuild. That happened in NY.
This is 2011. And more then half our roster is filled with draftees, undrafted free agents, and smart trades.
GET OVER IT.
I don't know how you can say "just forget it."
Should we just forget about the 8th overall pick in 2000 we traded away? (maybe that wasn't Sathers fault I'm not sure)
Or how about the first rounder we traded away in 2002?
Or how about in 2003 when we took Hugh Jessiman over Dustin Brown, Brent Seabrook, Zach Parise, Ryan Getzlaf, Brent Burns, Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards and Corey Perry?
Those are the type of things that affect this franchise NOW. The fact that we focused more on acquiring big name free agents than developing young players from 2001-2004 affects this franchise NOW. So no, I'm not going to forget about it.
My point is the Knicks have been lousy. And by a large poorly managed. Walsh came in and had a plan. Get under the cap and then rebuild. That happened in NY.
The Rangers have rebuilt as well. Not in the HFBoards traditional sense of lottery picks but they have rebuilt their roster with young players and continue to build on that.
So the public statements that they are not trading the kids, didn't buckle for Richards etc means nothing? It doesn't point to a current philosophy and direction? I beg to differ.
Trxjw said it better than I can: "Again, I'm a fan of a lot of our kids, but I think right now, the "Youth movement" is little more than a security blanket for the majority of fans. It's great to have good young players, but if you're not sprinkling in elite talent, you're always going to have to wait for that talent to become available. Thus you run the risk of making poor decisions with the check book."
Are we really giving the GM credit for not gutting his team for a concussed, UFA to be?
But I'm talking bigger than just "we're going with youth". What kind of this team do they want to be? Up-tempo run and gun? Defensive minded? Tough? To me, I see a team very and a system that is very close to what we saw with Tom Renney. What do the powers that be want this team to be? I don't see a direction other than "we're going with the kids. For that matter, what exactly does that mean? Who exactly is part of the core? Doesn't "going with the kids" still require some sort of asset analysis/management? They're still a very flawed team with lots of questions such as:
- Is Boyle more than what he's been this year?
- Have Dubinsky and Callahan reached their ceilings?
- If you sign Richards, what do you do with Anisimov?
- Is it reasonable to expect any more from Sauer?
- Will McDonagh, like Staal, develop an offensive component to his game?
- Will Zuccarello's lack of size keep him from being the offensive player it was hoped he'd become?
- Does Del Zotto regain his game?
These questions need to answered. And then you need to decide how to proceed. Who are the guys you want to retain and build with and which guys best value to the team are as trade pieces? The "play the kids" idea is nice — and probably right for this season. But sitting and waiting for prospects to develop with the that it will ultimately result in a cup-contending team is not a philosophy. To me the only four real keepers right now are Callahan, Stepan, Staal McDonagh (of the so-called younger guys).
The farm system may be in decent shape, but the team on the NHL level is really not that close to challenging for the Cup.
The Rangers have rebuilt as well. Not in the HFBoards traditional sense of lottery picks but they have rebuilt their roster with young players and continue to build on that.
That's fine. Where's the elite talent? This team stuggles to score goals. How do you solve that problem. They might have stockpiled youth, but they are seriously flawed.
Last week it was, "we're not beating Philly, there's no reason to improve the team this year." This week it's, "why didn't Sather make this team better, we're not going to make the playoffs and win it all."
I swear, Ranger fans are only happy when they're mad at someone. I won't defend Sather's entire tenure, I won't say that he should keep his job based on his total body of work. I like what he has done over the last 4-5 years. I like what he is building towards. I like his direction, I like Tortorella, his style and the fact that this team is built in his and Callahan's image. At the end of the day this is entertainment and I was utterly disgusted with the late 90s team that mailed it in night after night. These guys try and work hard... I like that. Is it enough to keep your GM job? Debateable at best.
But I cannot stand the flip flopping fans. He's sticking to the youth, like everyone has been begging for years. Hey, if Del Zotto performed like he did last season, we're a lock for the playoffs. But he faultered like so many sophmores do. Sather could have packaged him for immediate help this season, locked us up for a spot in the post season. But they are committed to the core, win or lose in the immediate future. If Gaborik, who everyone swore up and down on these boards was completely healthy and beyond his recurring injury days, could be half the player he was last year we would be in the playoffs. If just those two performed to the level they should have, no one is calling for Sather's head. A bad luck year full of injuries and under 25 year olds. That's the tipping point?
I just look at our current direction, which I really like. I feel like for what we are doing, Sather is proving himself everyday on the job. He's not waivering, abandoning the plan or panicking when he could have all season long. He's building the team the way I've wanted for so long. Now we can fire him, sure, but just expect new everything. A new coach who will bring in a new and safer style that we render most of our roster obsolete. We can sell of guys at a loss and rebuild with crappy parts. We'll see a guy who treats Callahan like Renney did. Who sees Staal as a 1 dimensional defenseman and gives his ice time accordingly. Who doesn't have the patience to let Stepan and Anisimov work out their games. You guys want Messier here who ran Zubov out of town? What do you think he'll do to Del Zotto or Anisimov?
You're not going to bring in a new GM to carry out the same work. We all like the direction but we want to sacrifice Sather at the altar? It's senseless. I can't wait to see how the fans react to the next guy who doesn't get a lottery pick or a cup ever season. One or the other or the campaign was an utter failure. Forget about steps and growth. All or none. Buy a team like the Yankees or tank for a decade like the Pens and win immediately.
Trxjw said it better than I can: "Again, I'm a fan of a lot of our kids, but I think right now, the "Youth movement" is little more than a security blanket for the majority of fans. It's great to have good young players, but if you're not sprinkling in elite talent, you're always going to have to wait for that talent to become available. Thus you run the risk of making poor decisions with the check book."
Are we really giving the GM credit for not gutting his team for a concussed, UFA to be?
But I'm talking bigger than just "we're going with youth". What kind of this team do they want to be? Up-tempo run and gun? Defensive minded? Tough? To me, I see a team very and a system that is very close to what we saw with Tom Renney. What do the powers that be want this team to be? I don't see a direction other than "we're going with the kids. For that matter, what exactly does that mean? Who exactly is part of the core? Doesn't "going with the kids" still require some sort of asset analysis/management? They're still a very flawed team with lots of questions such as:
- Is Boyle more than what he's been this year?
- Have Dubinsky and Callahan reached their ceilings?
- If you sign Richards, what do you do with Anisimov?
- Is it reasonable to expect any more from Sauer?
- Will McDonagh, like Staal, develop an offensive component to his game?
- Will Zuccarello's lack of size keep him from being the offensive player it was hoped he'd become?
- Does Del Zotto regain his game?
These questions need to answered. And then you need to decide how to proceed. Who are the guys you want to retain and build with and which guys best value to the team are as trade pieces? The "play the kids" idea is nice — and probably right for this season. But sitting and waiting for prospects to develop with the that it will ultimately result in a cup-contending team is not a philosophy. To me the only four real keepers right now are Callahan, Stepan, Staal McDonagh (of the so-called younger guys).
The farm system may be in decent shape, but the team on the NHL level is really not that close to challenging for the Cup.
I don't disagree that this young team is not an elite young team nor did I expect them to be. However, they are building a nice group of core players.
Living in the moment there are issues. No doubt about that. But the Rangers have a number of pieces in place and have publicly stated their direction.
Lundqvist is not a keeper? Sauer is in his rookie season... not a keeper? Time to jettison Girardi also? Del Zotto is a bust?
That's fine. Where's the elite talent? This team stuggles to score goals. How do you solve that problem. They might have stockpiled youth, but they are seriously flawed.
One could argue that Goborik is supposed to be the elite goal scorer. Isn't that how teams are supposed to fill out their roster with the pieces they don't have? i.e Free agency.
Problem is that Gaborik blows this year.
They have an elite shutdown D man and an elite goalie. Can't have it all at once drafting where they have been drafting.
I don't disagree that this young team is not an elite young team nor did I expect them to be. However, they are building a nice group of core players.
Again, these pieces are nice. Unless they find elite talent, the team will be what it — mediocre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade
Living in the moment there are issues. No doubt about that. But the Rangers have a number of pieces in place and have publicly stated their direction.
I don't see stockpiling prospects/pieces as being a direction. It should be part of a direction
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade
Lundqvist is not a keeper? Sauer is in his rookie season... not a keeper? Time to jettison Girardi also? Del Zotto is a bust?
Not sure where these questions are coming from. My questions were those that I think need to be address this summer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade
Who are you trading these guys for?
I don't know. But you need to make bold moves. Philly traded Pitkanen. Boston traded Kessel. Those are bold move that paid off. I want to see moves that aren't expected. Be creative. They have all these pieces, some capspace and 3 picks in the first two rounds.
One could argue that Goborik is supposed to be the elite goal scorer. Isn't that how teams are supposed to fill out their roster with the pieces they don't have? i.e Free agency.
Problem is that Gaborik blows this year.
They have an elite shutdown D man and an elite goalie. Can't have it all at once drafting where they have been drafting.
The problem is Gaborik is an injury concern and was when he was signed.
Where have they been drafting? Find the talent. Other teams do.
I don't know. But you need to make bold moves. Philly traded Pitkanen. Boston traded Kessel. Those are bold move that paid off. I want to see moves that aren't expected.
Bit of a different situation. Kessel was demanding too much for Boston's liking...if he had wanted a mil less in pay, he'd still be there.
Again, these pieces are nice. Unless they find elite talent, the team will be what it — mediocre.
Yes they need elite forwards. Gaobik has been a bust. I'll give you that.
Quote:
I don't see stockpiling prospects/pieces as being a direction. It should be part of a direction
What else should they do in conjunction at the moment or should have done prior to the season?
Quote:
Not sure where these questions are coming from. My questions were those that I think need to be address this summer.
You listed four guys who you would keep. I listed a few others that I consider core and questioned if you feel Del Zotto is a bust since you didn't include him in the keeper group.
Quote:
I don't know. But you need to make bold moves. Philly traded Pitkanen. Boston traded Kessel. Those are bold move that paid off. I want to see moves that aren't expected.
Pitkanen was a 4th overall pick. Of course he had value. Philly were lucky to parley a piece of that into Pronger or else it was a horrible trade (Lupul and Smith) that reeked of impatience. Kessel has paid off? Jury out on that one. Lets see if Seguin lives up to expectations and out performs Kessel before we make such declarations. Right now Toronto are on the rise and the chances of another lottery pick for Boston are diminished. To date Toronto got the best player in that trade.
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.
Even if we drafted perfectly we would not have sniffed the playoffs before the lockout. Not by just "rebuilding" anyway. All of Smith's late 90's draft picks busted: Brown, Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark (plus Cherneski who was lost to injury) and he traded our 1st in 2000.
Even coming away with Kovaluchuk/Spezza in '01, Nash in '02, and whoever in '03, plus late rounds steals, the team would likely have not made the playoffs. And that is with everything breaking perfectly.
Really the only way those teams make the playoffs is by drafting perfectly, trading for Jagr instead of Lindros, signing successful free agents and somehow having those teams have chemistry. And of course Richter avoiding injury.
I think because Smith was so likable people tend to forget how horrendous the team was when he left, in pretty much every area.
Then I would think that you would be more bothered by the incredibly terrible job that Sather did in the first half of his time here. The mistakes of those years caused negative consequences whose impact can still be felt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey
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.
Yes, they did at the beginning of the 2005-2006 season. Look what happened following that season. The 05-06 team had a little success, and the level of devotion to the rebuild slowly but surely started to drop. I understand that the 06-07 team had some success and it was exciting because of previous futility, but signing two $7M players does not really fit in with the concept of a team that's rebuilding.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even when Sather committed to rebuilding, he didn't really fully commit to rebuilding. In 07, still rebuilding time according to him, he reverted to his pre-lockout habits of signing free agents to large, undeserved contracts. It was bad enough with Bobby Holik in 2002, except back then a bad signing wasn't nearly as damaging since there were no cap ramifications. Severe mistakes were made even in the middle of this "rebuild".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey
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.
Will Brad Richards really help accelerate the process? It's strange, because I can remember people saying the same things about the Drury and Gomez signings. People thought that those signings would help accelerate the "rebuilding" process and help us to compete sooner. It didn't happen; if anything, the team got worse after they arrived.
Are you really that eager to offer another free agent a 6+ million dollar contract? I know that Brad Richards is a better player than Gomez/Drury, but do you really want to invest, say $6.5 million over 5 years in him after he's been concussed? I know Richards isn't old at about 31, but he's on the downside of his career. I would be very, very wary about signing him given some of the past free agent mistakes we've made.
Even if we drafted perfectly we would not have sniffed the playoffs before the lockout. Not by just "rebuilding" anyway. All of Smith's late 90's draft picks busted: Brown, Malhotra, Brendl, Lundmark (plus Cherneski who was lost to injury) and he traded our 1st in 2000.
In hindsight, bad moves. But they were bold moves with the goal of getting younger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Even coming away with Kovaluchuk/Spezza in '01, Nash in '02, and whoever in '03, plus late rounds steals, the team would likely have not made the playoffs. And that is with everything breaking perfectly.
Maybe not. But look at what this team would be if they had a Kovlachuck, Spezza or Nash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Really the only way those teams make the playoffs is by drafting perfectly, trading for Jagr instead of Lindros, signing successful free agents and somehow having those teams have chemistry. And of course Richter avoiding injury.
But isn't that what a GM's job is? Aside from Richter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
I think because Smith was so likable people tend to forget how horrendous the team was when he left, in pretty much every area.
He had awful years later on. He never should have let Mess go. He got worked when Colorado matched what he thought was an unmatchable contract. Then he panicked and said they were going with a defensive system and signed Skrudland and Keane. But they're a whole easier to swallow when you're only few years removed from winning the Cup and your farm system is bare because you made trades that played a part in winning that Cup. And as bad as the farm system was, Sather did nothing to fix it in his first few years.
