PDA

View Full Version : Strong-Arm Slats: Love It Or Hate It?



Ranger Lothbrok
07-08-2014, 12:32 PM
This article is almost 3 years old already, but I only came across it recently after brushing up on some of our older drafts. It's about an Oilers draft pick, very highly touted, named Jason Bonsignore. If you're a younger fan and haven't heard the name, well, here's why:


Hockey nuts who have been around the game for a few decades will recognize the name Jason Bonsignore. He was the 4th overall pick in the 1994 Entry Draft by the Edmonton Oilers—drafted ahead of guys like Jeff Friesen, Ethan Moreau, Jeff O’Neill, and Edmonton’s own Ryan Smyth. In his draft year, he scored 22 goals and 64 assists for 86 points in his time with the Newmarket Royals and Niagara Falls Thunder (OHL). He was a 6’4” playmaking forward who looked like a sure thing. He even scored a goal in his first NHL game.

Unfortunately, that was the only goal he would ever score for the Edmonton Oilers. In 20 more games, he would score two assists as he started bouncing around more North American hockey teams than he guys who work for NHL’s Central Scouting. His final NHL totals read like a 5th rounder who was brought up to fill in the gaps: 79 games, 3 goals, and 13 assists.

How could a player with that size and potential flame out before ever really getting started? For a long time, Bonsignore has been hesitant to tell his side of the story. People just assumed that he was a “bust;” the type of player who shouldn’t have been drafted as high as he was. Of course, that still could partly be true.


“It kind of got to the point at one stage where a couple of the veterans even went to the staff and said “You know you’re going to break this kid.” At this point, I was having absolutely no fun at all and was just miserable. Then you get put into the games, for five minutes, maybe get five minutes of playing on the fourth line and you’re expected to be a scorer. If you’re not scoring or producing points, then you’re a bust or they’re down on you. It was just really tough. I did get an opportunity to play sparingly there, but I was just so rusty and out of game shape, not physically but mentally and timing wise from not playing at all.


“At this point in the press box I just said “Well Glen why don’t you just trade me.” And he says, “Nobody wants you, nobody wants you.” And at this point my agent told me that three or four teams had made some really attractive offers for me at this point with some big name players involved which I was quite honoured to hear and Glen tried to tell me I was lying.

“I just knew it was going nowhere. He just sort of pushed me and said “Have a nice career.” I was obviously pretty angry and I thought that if I tried to get back at him, or to try have a push and shove contest, or take a swing at him, that this is definitely the end of my career. And, I walked away. Then, 2 days later, my agent called me and said that Glen wants to have a meeting with me and apologize and I appreciated it, but they wanted me to come to camp the next fall? I mean how am I supposed to come back to camp after all of this and feel like I’m going to get a fair chance again or like its water under the bridge.”


The stories that Bonsignore tells are like a guidebook for ruining a prospect. From the former prospect’s description of events, GM Glen Sather and the entire Edmonton organization pushed him too far and put him in a position to fail. In a day and age that drafting and developing prospects has become tremendously important for an organization’s success, the narrative gives an example of how fragile 18-year-olds can be as they enter the world’s toughest league.


James van Riemsdyk, Cody Hodgson, Braden Schenn, and a wealth of other prospects represent the new way of thinking for NHL teams. Each and every organization wants to maximize the potential of every player they draft. They need to if they want to become successful. As long as they remain patient, each of their players will have an opportunity to become the best player possible.

Bonsignore was never given the chance.
Matt Reitz, "The cautionary tale of Jason Bonsignore", ProHockey Talk (NBC Sports), http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/01/the-cautionary-tale-of-jason-bonsignore/

Granted, the article is about prospect drafting and development, but I want to use it to open a more broad discussion. There's a lot of down-time in the hockey world right now, so we could use a discussion point.

I pointed out the article as evidence of Slats' general tactics and attitude, whether it be toward younger players or toward retaining guys he already has. Too often we've seen Slats give guys the silent treatment instead of working with them to keep them in the organization. The breakdown in negotiations with Dubi put the writing on the wall for his exit long before it happened. After an incredibly productive playoffs playing a VERY valuable role, we didn't even have discussions with Dominic Moore (at least according to beat writers) until the FA came around. I'm glad we were eventually able to retain him at a very reasonable price, but why play with fire like that? Especially when his heart was on his sleeve for the world to see in all of May and June?

This is how Slats operates in general. Players are underlings and assets, not colleagues and people. In trades that seems to help him. He won't break or even flex, and several times he's come out on top. With our own players, however, these tactics seem to distance them from the organization. Many times we've wondered why we had to pay so much just to keep guys around, and we've written it off saying, "well, that's what they'd get on the FA." And while the days of hometown discounts are essentially gone, wouldn't you like to see more cooperation and less bickering between management and our players?

I know the likely responses: this Bonsignore guy is making excuses for a terrible career, he's a crybaby, Slats isn't the problem, etc.. But I, for one, am not a fan of his negotiation tactics, nor am I a fan of his patience with younger players or valuation of draft picks. Despite the salary cap, part of him still seems to believe that a winner can be bought. When the season ends, it shouldn't be radio silence and blackout regarding valuable players like Zook, Brassard and Moore. We'd see a lot less filing for arbitration if Slats weren't intent on giving them the cold shoulder before negotiations even started.

What say you? Is Slats' style of GMing an asset or a liability? I personally feel that he's what's holding us back, and that he's had far too long a leash to get it right. But he could be better if he'd just get out of his own way and allow the process to happen, instead of continually trying to force it via strong-arm negotiation tactics, trades that hurt the farm system, and breaking open the checkbook every July 1st.

There's a reason LA is somehow $4 mil under the cap and will be able to retain 19/20 of their Cup-winning players. Just like there's a reason why we have to cut salary and let people go just to make it work. And maybe I'm heaping all the blame on one guy, but in my earnest opinion, Slats is holding us back.

josh
07-08-2014, 12:39 PM
Before I start to read 2 paragraphs here, Jason Bosignore is a grade A Ass.

Patrick Bateman
07-08-2014, 12:40 PM
I think most of the questioning comes from people not really understanding the role of the GM. He's not supposed to be buddy buddy with these guys.

It really confuses me when someone complains about his negotiation tactics, and him handing our large contracts in the same breath

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 12:43 PM
People were up in arms when Kreider was passed around from Hartford to New York like a two dollar hooker, not so much with JT Miller which confuses me a little, but to me, if you don't think those things have an effect on a player, you're mistaken.

Yeah, maybe this dude is just a bust. Could be. But We see teams "give up" on players really early in their careers ALL THE TIME and it's hard to say what kind of effect that has on a kid but it's hard for me to imagine it's easy to mentally overcome something like that. We have seen 30 year old guys struggle with the mental aspect of the game in NYC for decades now, what makes anyone think a kid can handle it better?

That said, I like how patient they've been with players like McIlrath and Allen and Kreider and even Stepan to some extent. I doubt that's Glen's doing but the fact that he surrounded himself with guys like Clarke and Gorton makes him a smart man in itself.

Pete
07-08-2014, 12:44 PM
This article is almost 3 years old already, but I only came across it recently after brushing up on some of our older drafts. It's about an Oilers draft pick, very highly touted, named Jason Bonsignore. If you're a younger fan and haven't heard the name, well, here's why:










Matt Reitz, "The cautionary tale of Jason Bonsignore", ProHockey Talk (NBC Sports), http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/01/the-cautionary-tale-of-jason-bonsignore/

Granted, the article is about prospect drafting and development, but I want to use it to open a more broad discussion. There's a lot of down-time in the hockey world right now, so we could use a discussion point.

I pointed out the article as evidence of Slats' general tactics and attitude, whether it be toward younger players or toward retaining guys he already has. Too often we've seen Slats give guys the silent treatment instead of working with them to keep them in the organization. The breakdown in negotiations with Dubi put the writing on the wall for his exit long before it happened. After an incredibly productive playoffs playing a VERY valuable role, we didn't even have discussions with Dominic Moore (at least according to beat writers) until the FA came around. I'm glad we were eventually able to retain him at a very reasonable price, but why play with fire like that? Especially when his heart was on his sleeve for the world to see in all of May and June?

This is how Slats operates in general. Players are underlings and assets, not colleagues and people. In trades that seems to help him. He won't break or even flex, and several times he's come out on top. With our own players, however, these tactics seem to distance them from the organization. Many times we've wondered why we had to pay so much just to keep guys around, and we've written it off saying, "well, that's what they'd get on the FA." And while the days of hometown discounts are essentially gone, wouldn't you like to see more cooperation and less bickering between management and our players?

I know the likely responses: this Bonsignore guy is making excuses for a terrible career, he's a crybaby, Slats isn't the problem, etc.. But I, for one, am not a fan of his negotiation tactics, nor am I a fan of his patience with younger players or valuation of draft picks. Despite the salary cap, part of him still seems to believe that a winner can be bought. When the season ends, it shouldn't be radio silence and blackout regarding valuable players like Zook, Brassard and Moore. We'd see a lot less filing for arbitration if Slats weren't intent on giving them the cold shoulder before negotiations even started.

What say you? Is Slats' style of GMing an asset or a liability? I personally feel that he's what's holding us back, and that he's had far too long a leash to get it right. But he could be better if he'd just get out of his own way and allow the process to happen, instead of continually trying to force it via strong-arm negotiation tactics, trades that hurt the farm system, and breaking open the checkbook every July 1st.

There's a reason LA is somehow $4 mil under the cap and will be able to retain 19/20 of their Cup-winning players. Just like there's a reason why we have to cut salary and let people go just to make it work. And maybe I'm heaping all the blame on one guy, but in my earnest opinion, Slats is holding us back.

Players are assets. Clubs hold their rights. They aren't colleagues. They are employees.

That said, Sather did the same shit with Grachev (not that Granchev would have been anything, anyway), but when he was traded, Sather said he was trying to trade the guy for 3 years and no one wanted him (this is the same GM that got a 3rd for Dorsett and a 5th for Hollweg).

Sather, at this point, just isn't a very good GM, for a lot of reasons. Bad judgement the main one. That's not to say every choice he's made has been a poor one, but sometimes it seems when the team has success, it's despite management —*not because of it.

josh
07-08-2014, 12:44 PM
As for Slats, I love what he does. I have confidence in him.

Regardless if you like certain players or not, he always acquires guys that fill holes in the team. Rarely do we see him walk away from a guy that goes on to become something special, elsewhere. You could name Prust's insane contract, or Parenteau, but I'd be hesitant to call their post-Rangers career's as "mistakes" on the part of management.

josh
07-08-2014, 12:53 PM
Look at it this way... Hugh Jessiman had a better post-NHL career than Bonsignore.


Bonsignore used to show up at hockey camps and tournaments. Always a dick. Wouldn't sign autographs. showed up late, hungover, left early. Skipped appearances. Talked for 2 minutes and snuck out the back. Takes after his dad. They even forced him to Niagara junior hockey so he could be close to him.

Captain Clutch
07-08-2014, 12:58 PM
I feel like the calling up and sending down of players is more of a coaching thing. Kreider obviously didn't blame Sather for that, he was more angry towards Torts. Hell, Sather even said this off season he wants Miller to have more of a chance with the team. I have a feeling Jason Bonsignore is blaming his failings on Sather rather than blaming his own attitude for what possibly made Ssather treat him in such a way, if it's true at all.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 01:00 PM
Players are assets. Clubs hold their rights. They aren't colleagues. They are employees.

That said, Sather did the same shit with Grachev (not that Granchev would have been anything, anyway), but when he was traded, Sather said he was trying to trade the guy for 3 years and no one wanted him (this is the same GM that got a 3rd for Dorsett and a 5th for Hollweg).

Sather, at this point, just isn't a very good GM, for a lot of reasons. Bad judgement the main one. That's not to say every choice he's made has been a poor one, but sometimes it seems when the team has success, it's despite management —*not because of it.

I mean, this is literally exactly the way I feel. Do you think Sather hand picked that team last year and said, now this is a Stanley cup finals caliber lineup? No fucking chance. There is quite a bit of luck in building a team and a team moving deeper into the playoffs, I get that, but when reporters asked AV if he was told at the beginning of the year that his team would be in the finals his first response was "what are you smoking."

He's hired great coaches in the past few years with Torts and AV, both with drastically different lineups that overachieved and I commend him for that but I don't give him credit for much else at this point.

Pete
07-08-2014, 01:03 PM
I mean, this is literally exactly the way I feel. Do you think Sather hand picked that team last year and said, now this is a Stanley cup finals caliber lineup? No fucking chance. There is quite a bit of luck in building a team and a team moving deeper into the playoffs, I get that, but when reporters asked AV if he was told at the beginning of the year that his team would be in the finals his first response was "what are you smoking."

He's hired great coaches in the past few years with Torts and AV, both with drastically different lineups that overachieved and I commend him for that but I don't give him credit for much else at this point.

To be fair, this was in reference to the bad start, not the opening night roster.

But even so, he's made some really poor deals lately. We gave up a hell of a lot for Clowe, MSL, even though we made the finals, it's not like you don't feel that impact later.

CCCP
07-08-2014, 01:16 PM
As for Slats, I love what he does. I have confidence in him.

Regardless if you like certain players or not, he always acquires guys that fill holes in the team. Rarely do we see him walk away from a guy that goes on to become something special, elsewhere. You could name Prust's insane contract, or Parenteau, but I'd be hesitant to call their post-Rangers career's as "mistakes" on the part of management.
What r your thoughts on Boyle and stralman post slats era? Any predictions?

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 01:21 PM
I think Sather had a plan coming out of the lockout and we're at the end point, one way or the other. There is no way you can look at the Rangers locker room and not recognize the dramatic shift in culture. A lot of that was brought about by the coaching choices as well as some of the deals that we still think of as busts (Gomez, Redden, Drury). The change in philosophy as far as bringing up kids more slowly unless they show they can handle it is another move in the right direction. That's not to say this was all Sather's doing, but I think you're going to get a certain amount of luck and a certain amount of bad luck when it comes to everything in pro sports. So you get your Hanks and Stepans and McDonaghs and Kreiders and you get your Sanguinettes, Grachevs and even Del Zottos. Some undrafted UFAs become Girardi and some Gilroy. Some trades and signings work when they shouldn't and some don't when they should. End of the day, success is about knowing where your organization is at a given time so you can calculate risk.

We're at the tail end of one arch with a couple more chances to make runs before we have to drastically change the makeup of the team from what we've had since the 11/12 run. I expect Sather will take some more risks like he did with the MSL trade and the Boyle signing. I hope he has the good sense to realize when enough is enough and when it's time to rebuild in place around the 28 and under crowd we have left at the time.

josh
07-08-2014, 01:26 PM
What r your thoughts on Boyle and stralman post slats era? Any predictions?

I think 4th liners should get 4th liner money. Although Boyles deal wasn't horrible, I'm not sure I would have wanted that. I could see him having 1 season of offensive success, but his offensive inconsistency is what led him to staying on the 4th line. Also, AV wouldn't try Boyle elsewhere, so I think it was a good time to go different ways.

Stralman - no, I don't pay him that much. He's a dime a dozen kinda guy.

Pete
07-08-2014, 01:27 PM
I think Sather had a plan coming out of the lockout and we're at the end point, one way or the other. There is no way you can look at the Rangers locker room and not recognize the dramatic shift in culture. A lot of that was brought about by the coaching choices as well as some of the deals that we still think of as busts (Gomez, Redden, Drury). The change in philosophy as far as bringing up kids more slowly unless they show they can handle it is another move in the right direction. That's not to say this was all Sather's doing, but I think you're going to get a certain amount of luck and a certain amount of bad luck when it comes to everything in pro sports. So you get your Hanks and Stepans and McDonaghs and Kreiders and you get your Sanguinettes, Grachevs and even Del Zottos. Some undrafted UFAs become Girardi and some Gilroy. Some trades and signings work when they shouldn't and some don't when they should. End of the day, success is about knowing where your organization is at a given time so you can calculate risk.

We're at the tail end of one arch with a couple more chances to make runs before we have to drastically change the makeup of the team from what we've had since the 11/12 run. I expect Sather will take some more risks like he did with the MSL trade and the Boyle signing. I hope he has the good sense to realize when enough is enough and when it's time to rebuild in place around the 28 and under crowd we have left at the time.

Oh, I don't think he had a plan, at all. I don't think he predicted Lundqvist or the Jagr line doing what they did in 05-06. Then he immediately tried to keep adding pieces for more runs, with bad contracts. Shanahan was a good deal, then it was Cullen, Drury, Gomez, etc. I don't think he had some type of long-term play. I don't even think he worries more than a year or two out. You can tell by the trades he makes. He's always trying to un-do his own dirty work.

josh
07-08-2014, 01:28 PM
I feel like the calling up and sending down of players is more of a coaching thing. Kreider obviously didn't blame Sather for that, he was more angry towards Torts. Hell, Sather even said this off season he wants Miller to have more of a chance with the team. I have a feeling Jason Bonsignore is blaming his failings on Sather rather than blaming his own attitude for what possibly made Ssather treat him in such a way, if it's true at all.

Good point. Before the NHL, Bonsignore had everything handed to him. He finally had to prove his worth, and didn't, and then a GM acted like a GM to him.

Pete
07-08-2014, 01:29 PM
Well even if we don't blame Sather for Bonsignore's failure, even as a GM, you don't tell a guy that no one wants you and shove him out of the way. What the fuck is that?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 01:33 PM
What say you? Is Slats' style of GMing an asset or a liability? I personally feel that he's what's holding us back, and that he's had far too long a leash to get it right. But he could be better if he'd just get out of his own way and allow the process to happen, instead of continually trying to force it via strong-arm negotiation tactics, trades that hurt the farm system, and breaking open the checkbook every July 1st.

There's a reason LA is somehow $4 mil under the cap and will be able to retain 19/20 of their Cup-winning players. Just like there's a reason why we have to cut salary and let people go just to make it work. And maybe I'm heaping all the blame on one guy, but in my earnest opinion, Slats is holding us back.

Two completely different questions/scenarios with completely different answers/reasons.

To answer the obvious first, the reason L.A. is $4M under the cap and able to retain 19/20 of their Cup-winning players is two-fold:



1. Because they were a poor enough team for long enough to draft strongly and in high enough positions to take impact players who they developed properly and paid accordingly — guys like Kopitar (11th overall) and Doughty (2nd overall) especially.

2. They took advantage of a precarious situation in Philadelphia (Richards, 24th overall) and Columbus (Carter, 11th overall) where they were able to trade for two more high-end first-round players on long-term contracts with great cap hits that can no longer be achieved under the current CBA.


Combine this with finding suitable supplemental talent via additional trades, free agency and the draft, and you have a recipe for long-term success based entirely on the fact that such a strong emphasis was put on building a team, and not buying it. When you are forced to go to the UFA well year-after-year for your best players, you will pay dearly for it, and your window to win with it is substantially smaller.

--

As to Slats' style being an asset or liability? Both. It depends on the context. You can't treat it in a vacuum. It's worked wonders with some, and been a disaster with others, but he knows how to play the game, and when it comes to handling RFA players, I feel he does a fine job, especially in continuing to believe in the concept of a second contract in this league. Very few exceptions are, and should be made to those types of players who can bypass it (McDonagh being our exception).

If players get boo boo faced over it, too fucking bad. You are not buddies. He's your boss. He shouldn't have that kind of chummy relationship with the players for reasons exactly like that.

josh
07-08-2014, 01:34 PM
Oh, I don't think he had a plan, at all. I don't think he predicted Lundqvist or the Jagr line doing what they did in 05-06. Then he immediately tried to keep adding pieces for more runs, with bad contracts. Shanahan was a good deal, then it was Cullen, Drury, Gomez, etc. I don't think he had some type of long-term play. I don't even think he worries more than a year or two out. You can tell by the trades he makes. He's always trying to un-do his own dirty work.

That Jagr season he brought in a ton of stop-gaps to allow all the youngins to develop (we had an OK group at the time with some draft picks) (Lundmark, Blackburn?, Pock, Immonen, Byers, Dupont).
Weekes, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Rucchin, Malik, Rosizval, Kasparitis.
We had young guys like Moore, PRUUUUUUUU, Betts, Jason Ward (just wont AHL MVP or something)

Its a nice building block. You cant go all old, or all young, or you have Edmonton (lets ignore 3 1st overall for the purpose of me asking) and guys don't develop. That's a solid group of vets to look up to, IMO.

The team overachieved, and he made additions as years went on... that's his job.

josh
07-08-2014, 01:35 PM
Well even if we don't blame Sather for Bonsignore's failure, even as a GM, you don't tell a guy that no one wants you and shove him out of the way. What the fuck is that?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/4737550/rude-awakening-o.gif

Pete
07-08-2014, 01:37 PM
That Jagr season he brought in a ton of stop-gaps to allow all the youngins to develop (we had an OK group at the time with some draft picks) (Lundmark, Blackburn?, Pock, Immonen, Byers, Dupont).
Weekes, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Rucchin, Malik, Rosizval, Kasparitis.
We had young guys like Moore, PRUUUUUUUU, Betts, Jason Ward (just wont AHL MVP or something)

Its a nice building block. You cant go all old, or all young, or you have Edmonton (lets ignore 3 1st overall for the purpose of me asking) and guys don't develop. That's a solid group of vets to look up to, IMO.

The team overachieved, and he made additions as years went on... that's his job.

Well, yes, but more bad than good. And many of the guys you mentioned from that team got flipped for garbage at the deadline, guys who didn't help at all. Yea, they might not have been the best players, but you can't credit Sather with rolling with them and then turn a blind eye when he trades for guys like Derek Morris at the deadline. #stillbitter

josh
07-08-2014, 01:40 PM
Well, yes, but more bad than good. And many of the guys you mentioned from that team got flipped for garbage at the deadline, guys who didn't help at all. Yea, they might not have been the best players, but you can't credit Sather with rolling with them and then turn a blind eye when he trades for guys like Derek Morris at the deadline. #stillbitter

What did any of those guys do after leaving?

And many of those additions were much-needed. We needed a vet C with playoff success - heres 2! We needed a vet secondary scorer - here's Sykora then Shanahan. Need a defenseman? You can go cheap with Ozolinsh or, since that didn't work out, lets pay for a guy like Redden.

Not that I agree with the player, or contract, but the type of player was always accurate, IMO. And none of those deals really 'hurt' us, either. Low risk, high reward... and it almost paid off a month ago.

Pete
07-08-2014, 01:50 PM
What did any of those guys do after leaving?

And many of those additions were much-needed. We needed a vet C with playoff success - heres 2! We needed a vet secondary scorer - here's Sykora then Shanahan. Need a defenseman? You can go cheap with Ozolinsh or, since that didn't work out, lets pay for a guy like Redden.

Not that I agree with the player, or contract, but the type of player was always accurate, IMO. And none of those deals really 'hurt' us, either. Low risk, high reward... and it almost paid off a month ago.

I don't really concern myself with what guys do when the leave. It's irrelevant, to me. If Miller scores 30 goals next year and we trade him for a shit return, and Mille rscores 10 goals over the rest of his career — we still lost a guy who performed, for us. It's the same as losing Stralman or Boyle. I don't care what they do for Tampa. For us, they played important roles which can't be discounted.

It doesn't take a shrewd man to identify team needs. It takes a shrewd one to fill the need with the right player. Sather hasn't done anything but sign the big name in ten years, except Pouliot, last year.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 01:56 PM
Oh, I don't think he had a plan, at all. I don't think he predicted Lundqvist or the Jagr line doing what they did in 05-06. Then he immediately tried to keep adding pieces for more runs, with bad contracts. Shanahan was a good deal, then it was Cullen, Drury, Gomez, etc. I don't think he had some type of long-term play. I don't even think he worries more than a year or two out. You can tell by the trades he makes. He's always trying to un-do his own dirty work.

Repped. This x1000000.

CCCP
07-08-2014, 02:27 PM
Salary cap is the best thing to happen to the rangers fans other than firing slather. With the cap slats was forced to use prospects like cally, dubi, steps etc. I strongly believe that if it wasn't for the salary cap, slats would've traded all picks and prospects.

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Salary cap is the best thing to happen to the rangers fans other than firing slather. With the cap slats was forced to use prospects like cally, dubi, steps etc. I strongly believe that if it wasn't for the salary cap, slats would've traded all picks and prospects.

This has some merit. But at the same time, he did adjust. As easily as he could trade picks/prospects for just past their prime stars, he could also trade the same to remove the last bad contract he acquired to make room for the next one. Just causes destruction a little faster that way under a salary cap.

He's consistently spent Dolan's money or cashed in blackmail chips to get rid of the bad choices he's made, but he has been able to do that so far.

Ranger Lothbrok
07-08-2014, 03:08 PM
Oh, I don't think he had a plan, at all. I don't think he predicted Lundqvist or the Jagr line doing what they did in 05-06. Then he immediately tried to keep adding pieces for more runs, with bad contracts. Shanahan was a good deal, then it was Cullen, Drury, Gomez, etc. I don't think he had some type of long-term play. I don't even think he worries more than a year or two out. You can tell by the trades he makes. He's always trying to un-do his own dirty work.

I think this last sentence sums it up exactly. I mean, we've been over all of his mistakes ad nauseum on this board before. There's already a thread for it. And don't get me wrong; some of his deals have been huge successes, even if some of them are blind luck. I mean, I did a 180 on the MSL trade, but that was based on the ultimate result. And the ultimate result necessarily includes the galvanizing moment of him losing his mother when we were down 3-1, and the whole team rallying around it. People might get made at me saying this, but in my opinion, but for that tragic circumstance this team is out against Pittsburgh in 5.

You can say, "the MSL trade is the reason we went to the SCF's for the first time in 20 years" and be right. But for all we know, had the team not gone through the crucible with Marty after the loss of his mother it could've been a pretty terrible hockey trade. Slats DOES create his own messes, and then he looks for ways to fix it. I think the Nash/Gaborik deals evidence that the best. He gave up younger 2nd and 3rd line role players to bring in the next huge name, and then discovered that the team was MUCH worse off without those supposedly expendable players, and then traded Gaborik to try and fix it. Nowadays (and again this is hindsight is 20/20 logic), there are many among us who would take Dubi for Nash straight up and feel like we got away with a steal.

I feel like with Slats, he's so close and yet so far. We do a great job of drafting and developing our own talent, get a solid group going, and then before we even get to see the ultimate fruits of that effort, Slats attempts to leap from one side to the other instead of continuing to build the bridge. The process is almost cyclical: new group -> developing -> closer -> closer -> closer -> big leap taken to strike while the iron's supposedly hot -> new group -> developing etc. etc. etc..

For me, Slats does all the right things and gets 90% of the way there and then tries to shortcut the last 10%. We went as far as we did as a team, not on the backs of dominant players like Kane and Toews or Crosby and Malkin. And, like Boston, we've been good enough that we're not going to get a chance to draft those guys. We have to work with our lot and be smart about it. And we've done remarkably well in middle and later rounds of the draft. Hell, we've even done pretty well for ourselves in the 1st round. But for some of those guys, the clock seems to just run out, and they become part of an attempt to add the "last piece" of the puzzle, which later forces Slats to patch the holes he himself made.

I don't have a problem with our drafting strategy. What I do have a problem with is Slats' level of patience. It's evident in contract negotiations and it's evident in his construction of a lineup. For guys like Dubi, Artie, DZ, and several others, they just reach a point where Slats fails to recognize their true value and begins to view them as expendable. That, to me, is the sign of someone who is not all that adept at player and asset valuation. It's the sign of someone who's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, but when things don't stick he just tries them again later thinking this time will be different.

If we could keep everything else the same (coaching staff, scouting team, etc.) and just change the guy who makes the ultimate decisions, I think we'd be much, much, much better off. We're doing a good job of laying the foundation...our GM just doesn't have the patience to allow it to take its course. And he keeps getting a new lease on life on the backs of Gordie Clark and staff through their ability to find value in later rounds.

He's stubborn, he's impatient, and he's consistently in the way of his own success. That's what this thread is about: his inability to recognize the value of the pieces he has, his inaccurate assessments of those pieces, and the aloof, impatient and withdrawn manner in which he manages the organization. You can give him credit for hiring the staff that's gotten us to where we are, and you wouldn't be wrong. He saw something in those people. But with credit given for that, you also have to acknowledge his ignorance regarding the value of the fruits of those people's labors, and the impatience that leads to the loss of assets derived from the hirings we gave him credit for making.

Again, he builds something good and then gets in his own way. It's a trend in every facet of his GMing, and I just feel like we're poised to take the next leap but he's the last relic of the past holding us back. We're back to being a respectable organization. Players are taking LESS money to come here. We're getting league-wide recognition as a good team and a good organization. The jokes about us overspending and falling short even with All-Star rosters are gone. We've been consistently outperforming some of our biggest rivals, which we would've never thought possible or even dreamed of in the early 2000's. The Rangers are back in the hockey world in a big way. There's just one stubborn, bull-headed, obnoxious obstacle left in our path, and it's in the form of one man: our GM.

josh
07-08-2014, 03:22 PM
I don't really concern myself with what guys do when the leave. It's irrelevant, to me. If Miller scores 30 goals next year and we trade him for a shit return, and Mille rscores 10 goals over the rest of his career — we still lost a guy who performed, for us. It's the same as losing Stralman or Boyle. I don't care what they do for Tampa. For us, they played important roles which can't be discounted.

It doesn't take a shrewd man to identify team needs. It takes a shrewd one to fill the need with the right player. Sather hasn't done anything but sign the big name in ten years, except Pouliot, last year.

Dude... Boyle and Stralman?

josh
07-08-2014, 03:26 PM
It's just the same discussion we always have. Some of you are stuck on rebuilding, love young player with talent yadda yadda yadda, others of us like that the team is competing on an annual basis.

I'll piggy back on Daves comment, and a comment he made months ago - you cant half ass it, whatever you do. If you are going for it, you go for it. When that fails, you get your lottery picks. You cant get some good guys, and sell off other good guys because you think a 20th overall pick will change what you currently have.

Sather scopes out the cupboards and plans his meals. He'll send Gorton to the store if they need something else, but he's not throwing away spaghetti because he doesn't have any sauce. That's the style I prefer.

Patrick Bateman
07-08-2014, 03:29 PM
I think this last sentence sums it up exactly. I mean, we've been over all of his mistakes ad nauseum on this board before. There's already a thread for it. And don't get me wrong; some of his deals have been huge successes, even if some of them are blind luck. I mean, I did a 180 on the MSL trade, but that was based on the ultimate result. And the ultimate result necessarily includes the galvanizing moment of him losing his mother when we were down 3-1, and the whole team rallying around it. People might get made at me saying this, but in my opinion, but for that tragic circumstance this team is out against Pittsburgh in 5.

You can say, "the MSL trade is the reason we went to the SCF's for the first time in 20 years" and be right. But for all we know, had the team not gone through the crucible with Marty after the loss of his mother it could've been a pretty terrible hockey trade. Slats DOES create his own messes, and then he looks for ways to fix it. I think the Nash/Gaborik deals evidence that the best. He gave up younger 2nd and 3rd line role players to bring in the next huge name, and then discovered that the team was MUCH worse off without those supposedly expendable players, and then traded Gaborik to try and fix it. Nowadays (and again this is hindsight is 20/20 logic), there are many among us who would take Dubi for Nash straight up and feel like we got away with a steal.

I feel like with Slats, he's so close and yet so far. We do a great job of drafting and developing our own talent, get a solid group going, and then before we even get to see the ultimate fruits of that effort, Slats attempts to leap from one side to the other instead of continuing to build the bridge. The process is almost cyclical: new group -> developing -> closer -> closer -> closer -> big leap taken to strike while the iron's supposedly hot -> new group -> developing etc. etc. etc..

For me, Slats does all the right things and gets 90% of the way there and then tries to shortcut the last 10%. We went as far as we did as a team, not on the backs of dominant players like Kane and Toews or Crosby and Malkin. And, like Boston, we've been good enough that we're not going to get a chance to draft those guys. We have to work with our lot and be smart about it. And we've done remarkably well in middle and later rounds of the draft. Hell, we've even done pretty well for ourselves in the 1st round. But for some of those guys, the clock seems to just run out, and they become part of an attempt to add the "last piece" of the puzzle, which later forces Slats to patch the holes he himself made.

I don't have a problem with our drafting strategy. What I do have a problem with is Slats' level of patience. It's evident in contract negotiations and it's evident in his construction of a lineup. For guys like Dubi, Artie, DZ, and several others, they just reach a point where Slats fails to recognize their true value and begins to view them as expendable. That, to me, is the sign of someone who is not all that adept at player and asset valuation. It's the sign of someone who's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, but when things don't stick he just tries them again later thinking this time will be different.

If we could keep everything else the same (coaching staff, scouting team, etc.) and just change the guy who makes the ultimate decisions, I think we'd be much, much, much better off. We're doing a good job of laying the foundation...our GM just doesn't have the patience to allow it to take its course. And he keeps getting a new lease on life on the backs of Gordie Clark and staff through their ability to find value in later rounds.

He's stubborn, he's impatient, and he's consistently in the way of his own success. That's what this thread is about: his inability to recognize the value of the pieces he has, his inaccurate assessments of those pieces, and the aloof, impatient and withdrawn manner in which he manages the organization. You can give him credit for hiring the staff that's gotten us to where we are, and you wouldn't be wrong. He saw something in those people. But with credit given for that, you also have to acknowledge his ignorance regarding the value of the fruits of those people's labors, and the impatience that leads to the loss of assets derived from the hirings we gave him credit for making.

Again, he builds something good and then gets in his own way. It's a trend in every facet of his GMing, and I just feel like we're poised to take the next leap but he's the last relic of the past holding us back. We're back to being a respectable organization. Players are taking LESS money to come here. We're getting league-wide recognition as a good team and a good organization. The jokes about us overspending and falling short even with All-Star rosters are gone. We've been consistently outperforming some of our biggest rivals, which we would've never thought possible or even dreamed of in the early 2000's. The Rangers are back in the hockey world in a big way. There's just one stubborn, bull-headed, obnoxious obstacle left in our path, and it's in the form of one man: our GM.

Are you really going to say shit like that to defend a position you were wrong about? That's absolutely abhorrent

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 04:16 PM
I dont care what happened on our road to the SCF, all i know is that we dont make it there without St.Louis. Anybody saying "well we dont make it here if this happens" or "if this never happened then we never make it to this place" is just not realizing that the team came together at the right time and made a cup run regardless of whose mother passed away. It was almost a damn miracle run and our first cup final in 20 YEARS and if people want to shit on it because they didnt like how we got there then shame on them. 2011-12 and 2013-14 are two of the most emotional hockey seasons i have witnessed, i'm young and was a baby when they won in 94 so when i see people trying to play the what if game, it just hurts, especially if a NYR fan does it. All the bullshit that we deal with, OUR team was finally one of the last 2 teams standing. Not because or a mothers death or any bullshit like that but because the team came together. Even tho we lost, it will be tough to convince me that they were lucky or whatever the hell people called us. The NYR in 11-12 and 13-14 were teams that were like a damn family and not stats or luck will change that. They finally play like a team and still get shit on.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 04:18 PM
Clearly I am not a Sather fan for a number of reasons but I think there is something to be said for hiring the best people to surround yourself. Gorton, Shoenfeld, Messier for a short time, Clarke, etc. Certainly can't get on him for bringing these guys in and I guess ultimately the firing of Tortorella and hiring of AV turned out very well in the end as well.

My biggest gripe with Sather though is his need for big names, big contracts, and big headlines. Not a summer has gone by where we didn't make some kind of "splash." The turnover season after season really irks me to no end and I think the team suffers from it. Like Pete said, I think the team won last season in spite of Sather, not because of him. Same thing with our season two years ago.

CCCP
07-08-2014, 05:01 PM
This has some merit. But at the same time, he did adjust. As easily as he could trade picks/prospects for just past their prime stars, he could also trade the same to remove the last bad contract he acquired to make room for the next one. Just causes destruction a little faster that way under a salary cap.

He's consistently spent Dolan's money or cashed in blackmail chips to get rid of the bad choices he's made, but he has been able to do that so far.
He didn't have the luxury of a complete rebuild, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. And I totally understand what he's trying to do and the ways he's choosing to do it. I don't have as much beef with him post '05 lockout then I did prior.

CCCP
07-08-2014, 05:04 PM
Clearly I am not a Sather fan for a number of reasons but I think there is something to be said for hiring the best people to surround yourself. Gorton, Shoenfeld, Messier for a short time, Clarke, etc. Certainly can't get on him for bringing these guys in and I guess ultimately the firing of Tortorella and hiring of AV turned out very well in the end as well.

My biggest gripe with Sather though is his need for big names, big contracts, and big headlines. Not a summer has gone by where we didn't make some kind of "splash." The turnover season after season really irks me to no end and I think the team suffers from it. Like Pete said, I think the team won last season in spite of Sather, not because of him. Same thing with our season two years ago.

I'm not sure I agree with that. At the end of the day it's sather's team. All trades and signing are of his doing and I don't think u can exclude him from the success this team has been having.

fletch
07-08-2014, 07:30 PM
Under Sather, the Rangers have done a poor job developing their prospects, IMO. Perhaps draft positions have prevented NYR from acquiring first-rate stars (though obvious exceptions like Lundqvist) and forced Sather to rely on trades and free agent signing to acquire top tier talent. When you acquire rather than develop, the players will be older, and contribute for fewer years. This breeds consistent roster turnover, as you are constantly trying to replace older players.

Given a hard salary cap, NYR are at a competitive disadvantage when compared to teams that have developed younger (and cheaper) players on their roster. NYR do have a competitive advantage (that Sather has successfully exploited) in luring free agent talent to an Original Six franchise at MSG.

Franchises keep GMs and coaches that lead them deep in the playoffs, so it's hard for me to knock Sather after the past three years. But do we have the foundation for a perennial Stanley Cup contender, or are we facing a more limited window?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 07:41 PM
Under Sather, the Rangers have done a poor job developing their prospects, IMO. Perhaps draft positions have prevented NYR from acquiring first-rate stars (though obvious exceptions like Lundqvist) and forced Sather to rely on trades and free agent signing to acquire top tier talent. When you acquire rather than develop, the players will be older, and contribute for fewer years. This breeds consistent roster turnover, as you are constantly trying to replace older players.

Given a hard salary cap, NYR are at a competitive disadvantage when compared to teams that have developed younger (and cheaper) players on their roster. NYR do have a competitive advantage (that Sather has successfully exploited) in luring free agent talent to an Original Six franchise at MSG.

Completely agree with this post. It's why I don't ever compare us to teams like the Kings, who almost never purchase players in free agency because of how strongly they draft. They simply use a different method. You could argue for or against it (as they are an example of its success, whereas other clubs show its failures).

I can understand why someone wouldn't prefer this method, but we have no control over which they choose, even if the science behind strong drafting is a clearly more successful model. More successful, mind you, does not equate other methods, like the one the Rangers use, as not successful. Just not as successful. There is a difference.


Franchises keep GMs and coaches that lead them deep in the playoffs, so it's hard for me to knock Sather after the past three years. But do we have the foundation for a perennial Stanley Cup contender, or are we facing a more limited window?

In my opinion, we're closer to a limited window with a strong, albeit small, foundation with which to build on in the event this particular window closes without a championship.

Meaning, fail again with MSL, Dan Boyle, Girardi, etc. and you're likely better served moving those players out, or simply walking away from them if/when they hit UFA, while McDonagh, Kreider, and a few others would give you enough internally, under contract, to not have to completely blow it up in getting your next shot.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:04 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that. At the end of the day it's sather's team. All trades and signing are of his doing and I don't think u can exclude him from the success this team has been having.

No, I agree, and I'm not excluding him. But I also know that sometime you get lucky. Whether that's going to the finals, getting rid of a horrible contract, or simply working in a hot bed where players want to be, there is luck in everything. IMO, Sather has done a better job of undoing than doing.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:06 PM
No, I agree, and I'm not excluding him. But I also know that sometime you get lucky. Whether that's going to the finals, getting rid of a horrible contract, or simply working in a hot bed where players want to be, there is luck in everything. IMO, Sather has done a better job of undoing than doing.



What did he undo?

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:13 PM
What did he undo?

Do I really need to go through the list of horrible contracts/players?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:15 PM
Do I really need to go through the list of horrible contracts/players?


No but since 11-12, has he done more than bad?

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:25 PM
No but since 11-12, has he done more than bad?

Why are we only counting since 11-12?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:28 PM
Why are we only counting since 11-12?



Because i think thats where our window opened with the Richards signing. If you wanna count every other year go right ahead

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:31 PM
No but since 11-12, has he done more than bad?

I'm not going to judge his tenor with the Rangers on two successful seasons. And even in those two seasons, the team WILDLY over achieved. I can't give him credit for building a contender when it seemed like players were coming and going willy-nilly after every season leading up to that point. I can give him credit for building a decent team -- a team that makes the playoffs annually -- but not much else.

I'm looking for a plan. I'm looking to see the dots lined up so that with a move or two you can connect them all. That seemed to be the case in 11-12. There seemed to be an identity building with the Rangers and then in the very next season the team is dismantled and the coach is fired...

AV comes in, doesn't know any of the players, Biron retires, Brad Richards is a shadow of his former self, Kreider is in the minors, Dom Moore hasn't played hockey in 12 months, Pouliot is on the verge of being let go and then slowly AV rallies the troops. Talbot turns out to be a better goalie than Biron, Kreider comes back and plays the best hockey of his career, Dom Moore gets into form, and Brad Richards wakes up just enough to be useful. You know what that looks like to me? That looks like a GM who was bailed out by his team. I give ALL the credit in the world to AV and his staff. To Richards and MSL later on for guiding this team to an unimaginable run. I have nothing negative to say about the team or the players but when it comes to the GM, I think he lucked out that everything came together like it did.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:33 PM
I'm not going to judge his tenor with the Rangers on two successful seasons. And even in those two seasons, the team WILDLY over achieved. I can't give him credit for building a contender when it seemed like players were coming and going willy-nilly after every season leading up to that point. I can give him credit for building a decent team -- a team that makes the playoffs annually -- but not much else.

I'm looking for a plan. I'm looking to see the dots lined up so that with a move or two you can connect them all. That seemed to be the case in 11-12. There seemed to be an identity building with the Rangers and then in the very next season the team is dismantled and the coach is fired...

AV comes in, doesn't know any of the players, Biron retires, Brad Richards is a shadow of his former self, Kreider is in the minors, Dom Moore hasn't played hockey in 12 months, Pouliot is on the verge of being let go and then slowly AV rallies the troops. Talbot turns out to be a better goalie than Biron, Kreider comes back and plays the best hockey of his career, Dom Moore gets into form, and Brad Richards wakes up just enough to be useful. You know what that looks like to me? That looks like a GM who was bailed out by his team. I give ALL the credit in the world to AV and his staff. To Richards and MSL later on for guiding this team to an unimaginable run. I have nothing negative to say about the team or the players but when it comes to the GM, I think he lucked out that everything came together like it did.



Ok makes sense. I do think he deserves come credit tho

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:36 PM
Because i think thats where our window opened with the Richards signing. If you wanna count every other year go right ahead

I dint see why we we wouldn't count the entire body of work.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:38 PM
Ok makes sense. I do think he deserves come credit tho

I'll give him credit for surrounding himself with very smart people. When Glen was running the show by himself it was a disaster. I've never seen a GM be the coach so many damn times.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:39 PM
I dint see why we we wouldn't count the entire body of work.



You could if you want like i just said. I just thought we would start with 11-12 since thats where the success started

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:39 PM
I'll give him credit for surrounding himself with very smart people. When Glen was running the show by himself it was a disaster. I've never seen a GM be the coach so many damn times.



Who made the St. Louis trade?

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:41 PM
Who made the St. Louis trade?

What?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:42 PM
What?


Who made the Martin St Louis trade? He should at least get credit for that

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:43 PM
Who made the St. Louis trade?

Marty did LOL.

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:44 PM
You could if you want like i just said. I just thought we would start with 11-12 since thats where the success started

I guess I'm asking why you'd start judging him when the team got better and ignore when they struggled.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:44 PM
Who made the Martin St Louis trade? He should at least get credit for that

A single trade does not make you a good GM.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:46 PM
I guess I'm asking why you'd start judging him when the team got better and ignore when they struggled.



I dont really thinks its relevant to today but if its about his whole time as GM then he fails

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:47 PM
Credit? Marty asked out. Yzerman called Sather. We have up substantial assets.

Even the jewel, McD...Sather admits to not even knowing who was when they traded for him.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:47 PM
A single trade does not make you a good GM.


Who said it did? I just said he deserves a tiny bit of credit. Sather sucks as a GM but give him a teeny tiny bit of credit

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:48 PM
Credit? Marty asked out. Yzerman called Sather. We have up substantial assets.

Even the jewel, McD...Sather admits to not even knowing who was when they traded for him.



And Sather pulled the trigger is all i'm saying dude

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 08:50 PM
Who said it did? I just said he deserves a tiny bit of credit. Sather sucks as a GM but give him a teeny tiny bit of credit

Like I said, I'lll give him all the credit for surrounding himself with smart, enlightened people who can help him make these types of moves.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:50 PM
Like I said, I'lll give him all the credit for surrounding himself with smart, enlightened people who can help him make these types of moves.


Ok

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 08:50 PM
Why are we only counting since 11-12?

If you have a job for ten years and are bad at it for six, and highly successful for four (the last four), do the first six years really matter, or do they only matter if we're ignoring context?

I get that you could argue that you shouldn't have kept your job to begin with, but you did, and your company is better for it if you view it all in context, or if what have you done for me lately means anything to you.

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:54 PM
And Sather pulled the trigger is all i'm saying dude

It was a no lose, no brainer decision.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:55 PM
It was a no lose, no brainer decision.


Trading 2 1st round picks and our captain was a no lose decision? How do you know?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 08:58 PM
It was a no lose, no brainer decision.

I wouldn't paint it this loosely. He moved the teams' captain for a player who demanded a trade out of a market he had spent the last decade-plus in. From a talent perspective, yes, it was a no-lose, no-brainer decision, but from nearly every other POV, that's quite a risk.

Not to mention the deal included two first-round selections? That's ballsy.

Pete
07-08-2014, 08:58 PM
If you have a job for ten years and are bad at it for six, and highly successful for four (the last four), do the first six years really matter, or do they only matter if we're ignoring context?

I get that you could argue that you shouldn't have kept your job to begin with, but you did, and your company is better for it if you view it all in context, or if what have you done for me lately means anything to you.

I'm not going down the "corporate job as it relates to sports" path. We both know it's comparing apples to curtains. They are nothing alike.

Sather has sacrificed a disproportionate amount of this franchise's money, prospects and future for marginal recent success. So yes, I'll judge him on his body of work. In its totality. As it should be judged.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't paint it this loosely. He moved the teams' captain for a player who demanded a trade out of a market he had spent the last decade-plus in. From a talent perspective, yes, it was a no-lose, no-brainer decision, but from nearly every other POV, that's quite a risk.

Not to mention the deal included two first-round selections? That's ballsy.

Yes, moving a third liner you weren't going to sign for 6 million for the reigning scoring champ, who happened to fall in your lap isn't ballsy, to me. It's common sense.

Ballsy maybe to call the team a contender, at the time, but frankly, over paying isn't really ballsy in my book.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:04 PM
Trading 2 1st round picks and our captain was a no lose decision? How do you know?

It's obvious, because he want signing Callahan anyway. So it was trading to Tampa for MSL or the Sharks for futures. That was the hardest part of the decision.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:04 PM
Basically what Rome said is what i would say. How can you say its a no lose situation? Signing a 70 point center in Richards in his early 30s was a no lose too i assume?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 09:04 PM
I'm not going down the "corporate job as it relates to sports" path. We both know it's comparing apples to curtains. They are nothing alike.

Sather has sacrificed a disproportionate amount of this franchise's money, prospects and future for marginal recent success. So yes, I'll judge him on his body of work. In its totality. As it should be judged.

You know what I'm saying. Make it direct. Same analogy.

You are the GM of an NHL team for a decade and were largely considered bad at it for the first six years, but your team has seen tremendous success over the last four years of your tenure. You are ultimately responsible for every decision the club makes and has made over that entire span.

You have a Stanley Cup Final berth and a Conference Final berth in two of your last three seasons.

Do the first six years still matter?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:05 PM
It's obvious, because he want signing Callahan anyway. So it was trading to Tampa for MSL or the Sharks for futures. That was the hardest part of the decision.



I'm not repeating what Rome said but it wasnt a no lose situation at all but thank god it worked out.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 09:05 PM
Yes, moving a third liner you weren't going to sign for 6 million for the reigning scoring champ, who happened to fall in your lap isn't ballsy, to me. It's common sense.

Ballsy maybe to call the team a contender, at the time, but frankly, over paying isn't really ballsy in my book.

In a vacuum, yes. Not for what it actually cost to get that reigning scoring champ. He paid a hefty trade price to acquire him, regardless of the moral/social implications of the trade by means of fan reaction, etc.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:06 PM
You know what I'm saying. Make it direct. Same analogy.

You are the GM of an NHL team for a decade and were largely considered bad at it for the first six years, but your team has seen tremendous success over the last four years of your tenure. You are ultimately responsible for every decision the club makes and has made over that entire span.

You have a Stanley Cup Final berth and a Conference Final berth in two of your last three seasons.

Do the first six years still matter?

This is what i was trying to say. Good post Rome

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:06 PM
Basically what Rome said is what i would say. How can you say its a no lose situation? Signing a 70 point center in Richards in his early 30s was a no lose too i assume?

Does signing the premier name in free agency take balls? Come on. That's easy as it gets.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:08 PM
You know what I'm saying. Make it direct. Same analogy.

You are the GM of an NHL team for a decade and were largely considered bad at it for the first six years, but your team has seen tremendous success over the last four years of your tenure. You are ultimately responsible for every decision the club makes and has made over that entire span.

You have a Stanley Cup Final berth and a Conference Final berth in two of your last three seasons.

Do the first six years still matter?

Does Sather still have a job under any other owner? Your answer will determine if the first 6 years mattered.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Does signing the premier name in free agency take balls? Come on. That's easy as it gets.

It does take balls. You are spending a lot of money on a guy that can come here and shit the bed. Injuries might happen too. You act as if every trade and signing is a no lose no risk situation.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:10 PM
Does Sather still have a job under any other owner? Your answer will determine if the first 6 years mattered.


How would we know if he has another job under another owner?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:11 PM
It does take balls. You are spending a lot of money on a guy that can come here and shit the bed. Injuries might happen too. You act as if every trade and signing is a no lose no risk situation. not when the owner said he'll never fire you, dude!

OK. Fine, it takes balls. It certainly doesn't take brains. Giving the biggest name the most money for the most years isn't hard.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 09:12 PM
Does Sather still have a job under any other owner? Your answer will determine if the first 6 years mattered.

No, but that's not the context of this discussion. I'd have fired him long ago, but I also won't deny that despite his repeated failures, especially early on, and despite his obvious negatives, he is in fact the architect of this team, which means he deserves the credit for its success these last four seasons.

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 09:12 PM
Since the lockout, I do see a very clear change of approach that has been consistent. We drafted Staal 12th and Sauer 40th with our first two picks in the 2005 draft. He brought in Tom Renney, who began putting a defensive system in place and is aided by Jagr an co. putting up tremendous offensive numbers. The following draft in 2006 we select Sanguinetti with the 21st overall pick. Defensive system keeps developing. The running joke on Renney is that he's cerebral. He's cognizant. But a plan was what we needed. Next draft (2007) we pick up Cherepanov 17th overall. We bring in Gomez and Drury, two cup winners, but not flashy superstars, but good team guys. We start to see some young gritty forwards start to come up through the system who will be mentored by these two. The following draft (2008) we go with Del Zotto at the 20 spot. Bringing in some skill. We move on to Tortorella. Torts is all about conditioning and sacrifice. Next it's Kreider at 19th (2009) to add some speed and size. In the off season, we make the Gomez trade. In Torts' first full season, we bring in Gaborik but we miss the playoffs. We've brought up more young forwards and our defensive has solidified quite a bit. We take McIlrath 10th (2010). The team is buying in more, but Gaborik is injured and struggles. Stepan makes the quick jump to the NHL. We've seen Callahan, Dubinsky, Anismov, Del Zotto and Stepan all come up from within, adding to Staal, Girardi and Sauer and of course Hank, to make up our home grown core. Drury goes out with a whimper, although there was that game against the Devils to get us into the playoffs. We select JT Miller in the 15th spot. 2011/2012 we bring in Richards. Carl Hagelin and Ryan McDonagh are the latest young players to join the ranks. We put it all together, have a terrific season, a bumpy playoffs where it takes us too long to close out teams in early rounds and we run out of steam in the Conference finals. We trade some of the home grown talent we've developed for Nash, trying to add that one other offensive piece. The lock out year is the one year we don't add any young players from our system. We trade a struggling Gaborik around the deadline for Brassard, Dorsett and Moore because the team is a bubble team and needs some sort of spark. That move motivates the club, but again they fizzle in the playoffs. Out goes Torts, in comes AV to take a team that has been developed over the course of 7 years, first learning a defensive scheme, then adding determination and conditioning and he starts to add an offensive game plan.

To me, it's all a process that got us to this point. There's been turnover. We've traded some of the young players we've developed to try to find missing pieces. Whether we can keep this process going, time will tell. More than anything, it will depend on some of McIlrath, Allen and Skjei on the back end and Miller, Nieves, Tambellini, Buchenvich and Duclair becoming the next waive of young players to make an impact. And a few surprises as well.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:13 PM
You know what I'm saying. Make it direct. Same analogy.

You are the GM of an NHL team for a decade and were largely considered bad at it for the first six years, but your team has seen tremendous success over the last four years of your tenure. You are ultimately responsible for every decision the club makes and has made over that entire span.

You have a Stanley Cup Final berth and a Conference Final berth in two of your last three seasons.

Do the first six years still matter?

Of course the first 6 years mattered. Why the hell else are we watching this stuff? Like I said earlier in regards to something else, I think it applies here too, 11-12 and 13-14 were in spite of Sather. You also can't blanket "his last four years have been good" when they haven't. Sather has had two good seasons in NY and that's it. I'll give him credit for building a decent team -- a playoff team -- but the Rangers did not go to the finals because of some master plan.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:13 PM
not when the owner said he'll never fire you, dude!

OK. Fine, it takes balls. It certainly doesn't take brains. Giving the biggest name the most money for the most years isn't hard.

Ok?

Ok but you said it doesnt take balls not brains. We arent talking about brains we are talking about you saying they are all no lose situations. How?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:14 PM
How would we know if he has another job under another owner?

Is this a serious question?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:15 PM
Of course the first 6 years mattered. Why the hell else are we watching this stuff? Like I said earlier in regards to something else, I think it applies here too, 11-12 and 13-14 were in spite of Sather. You also can't blanket "his last four years have been good" when they haven't. Sather has had two good seasons in NY and that's it. I'll give him credit for building a decent team -- a playoff team -- but the Rangers did not go to the finals because of some master plan.


What team did go to the finals because of a master plan? What the heck?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:15 PM
Ok?

Ok but you said it doesnt take balls not brains. We arent talking about brains we are talking about you saying they are all no lose situations. How?

Because he'll never lose his job for any of it.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:16 PM
Is this a serious question?


You asked if he has another job under another owner and i asked how should we know? Has he worked for another owner? Maybe if he worked somewhere else things turn out different? Who knows?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:16 PM
You asked if he has another job under another owner and i asked how should we know? Has he worked for another owner? Maybe if he worked somewhere else things turn out different? Who knows?

OK.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:17 PM
What team did go to the finals because of a master plan? What the heck?

Kings? Hawks? Bruins? Pretty much most of the good teams in the NHL today. They all have a direct path to greatness. Some include top picks, others don't, but they all have an identity that their franchise sticks to and builds around.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:17 PM
Because he'll never lose his job for any of it.


But it can have a negative impact on the team right? Are we talking about firing Sather or the trades and signings he has made?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Of course the first 6 years mattered. Why the hell else are we watching this stuff? Like I said earlier in regards to something else, I think it applies here too, 11-12 and 13-14 were in spite of Sather. You also can't blanket "his last four years have been good" when they haven't. Sather has had two good seasons in NY and that's it. I'll give him credit for building a decent team -- a playoff team -- but the Rangers did not go to the finals because of some master plan.

So the teams would have won regardless of whether he was here or not, is what you are saying? Because I don't believe that to be true.

Does any other GM make the deals he makes? Does Dean Lombardi trade two first-rounders and Callahan for MSL? I don't think he does with how much he relies/insists on draft value, so does this team even make the Cup Final last year with a less ballsy GM willing to sacrifice like that and pay that kind of price?

Whether there's a master plan or not, he's the architect, intended or unintended.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Kings? Hawks? Bruins? Pretty much most of the good teams in the NHL today. They all have a direct path to greatness. Some include top picks, others don't, but they all have an identity that their franchise sticks to and builds around.

All teams that we cant be compared to. Nice. I think we are doing pretty good without top picks

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:23 PM
All teams that we cant be compared to. Nice. I think we are doing pretty good without top picks

And why can't we be compared to them? They're the cream of the NHL. Perennial contenders. Is that not what we're discussing? How Sather putters about in the middle of the league for 10 years and suddenly strikes gold with a team that overachieves? "Pretty good" without our top picks is right. We're a decent team who's lucky enough to sign almost anyone they want, yet for 20 years we've gone to the finals once and celebrate it like it's the best thing that's ever happened.

No. Sather is not a good GM. Two good seasons does not make a Ranger career. Especially when those seasons took shape like they did.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:25 PM
So the teams would have won regardless of whether he was here or not, is what you are saying? Because I don't believe that to be true.

Does any other GM make the deals he makes? Does Dean Lombardi trade two first-rounders and Callahan for MSL? I don't think he does with how much he relies/insists on draft value, so does this team even make the Cup Final last year with a less ballsy GM willing to sacrifice like that and pay that kind of price?

Whether there's a master plan or not, he's the architect, intended or unintended.

I don't know how you can put Dean Lombardi in a negitive light when the man is dealing with a dynasty right now. Is Sather "ballsy-er?" I don't know. All I know is that Lombardi doesn't put himself in that situation to begin with. He has a plan on how he's going to build the team and sticks to it.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:29 PM
So the teams would have won regardless of whether he was here or not, is what you are saying? Because I don't believe that to be true.

Does any other GM make the deals he makes? Does Dean Lombardi trade two first-rounders and Callahan for MSL? I don't think he does with how much he relies/insists on draft value, so does this team even make the Cup Final last year with a less ballsy GM willing to sacrifice like that and pay that kind of price?

Whether there's a master plan or not, he's the architect, intended or unintended.

Lombardi doesn't often trade picks because he doesn't have to. He actually has a prospect pool to deal from. And he isn't scared to deal guys.

And he traded a 2nd and conditional 3rd for GABORIK, while we trade that for CLOWE.
And he traded 2 2nds for Regher.
And he traded a 1st and Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.
And he traded Schenn Simmonds and a 2nd for Mike Richards.

That's a shrewd GM. Sather hasn't come out the clear winner of a trade since Jagr/Carter. He doesn't even get credit for McD.

Maybe Prust for Higgins...?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:30 PM
But it can have a negative impact on the team right? Are we talking about firing Sather or the trades and signings he has made?

And so what if it does? Then what? Then nothing. The team is bad. OK. And what are the consequences of that? Nothing.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:30 PM
And why can't we be compared to them? They're the cream of the NHL. Perennial contenders. Is that not what we're discussing? How Sather putters about in the middle of the league for 10 years and suddenly strikes gold with a team that overachieves? "Pretty good" without our top picks is right. We're a decent team who's lucky enough to sign almost anyone they want, yet for 20 years we've gone to the finals once and celebrate it like it's the best thing that's ever happened.

No. Sather is not a good GM. Two good seasons does not make a Ranger career. Especially when those seasons took shape like they did.


What the hell are you talking about? How can you compare us to those teams when we built our team completely different?
Making the finals is the best thing that ever happened to some of us because some of us never experienced it before. Dont shit it on because it wasnt good enough for you. Overachieved my ass dude. Why does everyone else get credit but us?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:31 PM
And so what if it does? Then what? Then nothing. The team is bad. OK. And what are the consequences of that? Nothing.


How do you know what the consequences are?? When has the team been bad recently??

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:33 PM
Lombardi doesn't often trade picks because he doesn't have to. He actually has a prospect pool to deal from. And he isn't scared to deal guys.

And he traded a 2nd and conditional 3rd for GABORIK, while we trade that for CLOWE.
And he traded 2 2nds for Regher.
And he traded a 1st and Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.
And he traded Schenn Simmonds and a 2nd for Mike Richards.

That's a shrewd GM. Sather hasn't come out the clear winner of a trade since Jagr/Carter. He doesn't even get credit for McD.

Maybe Prust for Higgins...?

The Brian Boyle trade is a good one.

When we traded for Clowe, was Gaborik available for a 2nd and 3rd? No, we got Brassard, Dorsett and Moore in return, we won that trade. Dubinsky, AA, Erixon and a 1st for Nash. We won that trade too

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:33 PM
What the hell are you talking about? How can you compare us to those teams when we built our team completely different?
Making the finals is the best thing that ever happened to some of us because some of us never experienced it before. Dont shit it on because it wasnt good enough for you. Overachieved my ass dude. Why does everyone else get credit but us?

The word "overachieving" is not a slight, dude. It's a compliment to the team and the coach. You're projecting now and putting words in my mouth.

...and I can compare to those teams because those are the teams we want to be. When did Boston have the #1 pick? Seguin? They certainly didn't build around him.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:35 PM
How do you know what the consequences are?? When has the team been bad recently??

Dude, are you serious? DO you really not know that Sather has a lifetime contract, and that Dolan has basically said he'll never get fired, and Sather has the job as long as he wants to do it?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:35 PM
The word "overachieving" is not a slight, dude. It's a compliment to the team and the coach. You're projecting now and putting words in my mouth.


But you are saying that like they werent supposed to make it to a cup. God forbid they win for once

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:36 PM
Dude, are you serious? DO you really not know that Sather has a lifetime contract, and that Dolan has basically said he'll never get fired, and Sather has the job as long as he wants to do it?


If we ever started to go downhill and miss the playoffs year after year after year like the Oilers, you think Sather will remain?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:37 PM
The Brian Boyle trade is a good one.

When we traded for Clowe, was Gaborik available for a 2nd and 3rd? No, we got Brassard, Dorsett and Moore in return, we won that trade. Dubinsky, AA, Erixon and a 1st for Nash. We won that trade tooUm, not in my opinion. And we lost the Gaby trade, too, because we failed to get a first back. Dorsett has been shipped out, Moore hasn't progressed, and Gaborik has a ring.

When we traded for Clowe, we had Goabrik, so I'm not sure what the question is.

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:38 PM
If we ever started to go downhill and miss the playoffs year after year after year like the Oilers, you think Sather will remain?

I gather that's that "he has the job as long as he wants it" means.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:40 PM
Um, not in my opinion. And we lost the Gaby trade, too, because we failed to get a first back. Dorsett has been shipped out, Moore hasn't progressed, and Gaborik has a ring.

When we traded for Clowe, we had Goabrik, so I'm not sure what the question is.

How did we lose the Nash trade? We almost won a cup with him. What has Colombus done?

Dorsett was turned into multiple draft picks actually

We did get a 1st rounder back, Moore was a 1st rounder and he isnt bad.
Is Gaborik on Colombus? No he isnt so how the hell do we lose that trade?


Who cares if Gaborik has a cup? What does that mean?

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:41 PM
But you are saying that like they werent supposed to make it to a cup. God forbid they win for once

They weren't supposed to make it to the cup! lol. Lord have mercy. Who were the favorites going into the Playoffs? Who were the best teams? We overachieved. I'm thrilled that we did. But we were NOT the best team in the East this season, let alone the NHL, not even close. And THAT is why I cannot give Sather all the credit. We were just as good as we were last year when we got bounced in the second round. Guess what? We almost got bounced in the second round AGAIN! A miracle happend and I no matter the reason why the team came together, I'm thrilled they did, but this team was not build like a Final-bound team. The coach and the players get all the credit for making themselves one.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:42 PM
I gather that's that "he has the job as long as he wants it" means.
But based on what? Have we went through 5 losing seasons in a row and he has remained GM? We are making the playoffs almost every year, why would he fire Sather?

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 09:44 PM
They weren't supposed to make it to the cup! lol. Lord have mercy. Who were the favorites going into the Playoffs? Who were the best teams? We overachieved. I'm thrilled that we did. But we were NOT the best team in the East this season, let alone the NHL, not even close. And THAT is why I cannot give Sather all the credit. We were just as good as we were last year when we got bounced in the second round. Guess what? We almost got bounced in the second round AGAIN! A miracle happend and I no matter the reason why the team came together, I'm thrilled they did, but this team was not build like a Final-bound team. The coach and the players get all the credit for making themselves one.

In like the last sixty games of the regular season we had like the second best record in the NHL if memory serves. We were as low in the standings as we were because of the first twenty or so games.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:44 PM
They weren't supposed to make it to the cup! lol. Lord have mercy. Who were the favorites going into the Playoffs? Who were the best teams? We overachieved. I'm thrilled that we did. But we were NOT the best team in the East this season, let alone the NHL, not even close. And THAT is why I cannot give Sather all the credit. We were just as good as we were last year when we got bounced in the second round. Guess what? We almost got bounced in the second round AGAIN! A miracle happend and I no matter the reason why the team came together, I'm thrilled they did, but this team was not build like a Final-bound team. The coach and the players get all the credit for making themselves one.


Fuck the favorites dude. WE WON THE EASTERN TITLE which means we were the BEST TEAM in the east. Who was better? What eastern beat us? Did we get bounced in the 2nd round? Almost doesnt mean shit when you look at the big picture

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:44 PM
But based on what? Have we went through 5 losing seasons in a row and he has remained GM? We are making the playoffs almost every year, why would he fire Sather?

You must have missed the first half of Sather's tenor when we did just that, missed the playoffs with the highest payroll in the NHL and Sather kept his job.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:46 PM
You must have missed the first half of Sather's tenor when we did just that, missed the playoffs with the highest payroll in the NHL and Sather kept his job.

Tell me, what kind of situation did he come in to? Did he take over a team that had young top line potential or did he take over a team that had washed up stars?

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:46 PM
How did we lose the Nash trade? We almost won a cup with him. What has Colombus done?We almost won a Cup get NOTHING from NASH, while Dubinsky was a FORCE. 6 games, 6 points. Nash, 25 games, 10 points. It's comical, really.


Dorsett was turned into multiple draft picks actuallyYes, I'm aware, I'm actually the one who told you this when you were complaining about Glass for 4 days straight.


We did get a 1st rounder back, Moore was a 1st rounder and he isnt bad.
Is Gaborik on Colombus? No he isnt so how the hell do we lose that trade?We didn't get a first rounder back. We got a player. Essentially, we gave them Gaborik, Dubi, AA, Erixon, 1st and got back Nash, Brassard, Dorsett and Moore. We're still down a pick.



Who cares if Gaborik has a cup? What does that mean?Hard to say we won a trade when the guy we gave up just beat us in the finals...

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:47 PM
Fuck the favorites dude. WE WON THE EASTERN TITLE which means we were the BEST TEAM in the east. Who was better? What eastern beat us? Did we get bounced in the 2nd round? Almost doesnt mean shit when you look at the big picture

Are we still hung up on the term overachieved? I'm not sure why you're making that out to be something negative. Unless, of course, you though that this team in mid december was good enough to go to the finals.

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 09:47 PM
EVERYONE TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH PLEASE.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:48 PM
Are we still hung up on the term overachieved? I'm not sure why you're making that out to be something negative. Unless, of course, you though that this team in mid december was good enough to go to the finals.
We had one of the best records the second half of the season tho. The team played great hockey in the 2nd half. Why couldnt they make it to a cup? Who thought LA was good enough to make it to the cup? They couldnt score a damn goal in the regular season

Pete
07-08-2014, 09:51 PM
Fuck the favorites dude. WE WON THE EASTERN TITLE which means we were the BEST TEAM in the east. Who was better? What eastern beat us? Did we get bounced in the 2nd round? Almost doesnt mean shit when you look at the big picture

We actually had the most favorable match ups. We owned Philly, Columbus would have given us a problem, Boston would have, as well. The Kings are just the Jackets, but better in every way. We'd have been better off playing Chicago.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:52 PM
We almost won a Cup get NOTHING from NASH, while Dubinsky was a FORCE. 6 games, 6 points. Nash, 25 games, 10 points. It's comical, really.

Yes, I'm aware, I'm actually the one who told you this when you were complaining about Glass for 4 days straight.

We didn't get a first rounder back. We got a player. Essentially, we gave them Gaborik, Dubi, AA, Erixon, 1st and got back Nash, Brassard, Dorsett and Moore. We're still down a pick.


Hard to say we won a trade when the guy we gave up just beat us in the finals...


Lmfao Dubinsky was playing with his thumbs while Nash was in the stanley cup final. Really?

John Moore was what, 19-20? Basically a 1st rounder .Erixon didnt become anything

So did we trade Gahorik to LA? He beat us but are we the ones who sent him to LA? Stop it

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:53 PM
We actually had the most favorable match ups. We owned Philly, Columbus would have given us a problem, Boston would have, as well. The Kings are just the Jackets, but better in every way. We'd have been better off playing Chicago.
Would have lol but its too late and none of that happened so its irrelevant now. We played the Kings and would have won if we had a good PP. I can play the would have game too

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:56 PM
Tell me, what kind of situation did he come in to? Did he take over a team that had young top line potential or did he take over a team that had washed up stars?

Tell me, from 2000-2006, what did he do? He continued to get washed up stars, culminating in a team with Pavel Bure, Jaromir Jagr, Alex Kovalov, Mark Messier, and Eric Lindros all on the same roster. The best thing that ever happened to us as fans is the salary cap or we might still be in that same spot.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 09:59 PM
We had one of the best records the second half of the season tho. The team played great hockey in the 2nd half. Why couldnt they make it to a cup? Who thought LA was good enough to make it to the cup? They couldnt score a damn goal in the regular season

Who thought? Well, probably a lot of people considering they had mostly the same roster as when they won the cup and went to the WC finals in consecutive years prior to this year. And that's before Gabby was added.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:59 PM
Tell me, from 2000-2006, what did he do? He continued to get washed up stars, culminating in a team with Pavel Bure, Jaromir Jagr, Alex Kovalov, Mark Messier, and Eric Lindros all on the same roster. The best thing that ever happened to us as fans is the salary cap or we might still be in that same spot.

Those guys were 100 years old. Stop

How does any of that matter now? It happened almost 10 years ago

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:01 PM
Who thought? Well, probably a lot of people considering they had mostly the same roster as when they won the cup and went to the WC finals in consecutive years. And that's before Gabby was added.
And we had one of the best records in the NHL in the second half of the season with 4 good lines and 3 good dlines and the best goalie so why not us?

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 10:04 PM
Those guys were 100 years old. Stop

How does any of that matter now? It happened almost 10 years ago

I know they were. That's the point. You asked what Sather came into in 2000. He came into a mess of old/washed up dudes and he made it worse by adding more old washed up dudes.

Here's the question: Would you be happy if Sather stepped down tomorrow and Jeff Gorton took over? Do you think the Rangers would be worse if that happened? Or better? Or the same?

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:06 PM
Lmfao Dubinsky was playing with his thumbs while Nash was in the stanley cup final. Really?

John Moore was what, 19-20? Basically a 1st rounder .Erixon didnt become anything

So did we trade Gahorik to LA? He beat us but are we the ones who sent him to LA? Stop itRegarding the bolded, I'm discussing this with you like an adult. I'd urge you to do the same.

Nash was playing with his thumbs IN the Stanley Cup final.

Moore was 23. No, he's not basically a 1st rounder. He was a body.

We're still down a draft pick. End of story.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:07 PM
I know they were. That's the point. You asked what Sather came into in 2000. He came into a mess of old/washed up dudes and he made it worse by adding more old washed up dudes.

Here's the question: Would you be happy if Sather stepped down tomorrow and Jeff Gorton took over? Do you think the Rangers would be worse if that happened? Or better? Or the same?


I think of it more like stop gaps. How many 1st rounders did he trade?

And i dont think there would be much of a differenc. Do you? Do you think there will be an evil spell lifted off of us and we will win 2 cups in 3 years or something?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:10 PM
Regarding the bolded, I'm discussing this with you like an adult. I'd urge you to do the same.

Nash was playing with his thumbs IN the Stanley Cup final.

Moore was 23. No, he's not basically a 1st rounder. He was a body.

We're still down a draft pick. End of story.

Was Nash or Dubinsky IN the stanley cup final? Nash

Moore was a 1st rounder who was still developing so he was basically the 1st rounder in the trade. He has a spot on our team tho right? Guess he helped

What has Colombus done since the trade? Any ECF appearances? Any cup appearances?

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:11 PM
Lmfao Dubinsky was playing with his thumbs while Nash was in the stanley cup final. Really?

John Moore was what, 19-20? Basically a 1st rounder .Erixon didnt become anything

So did we trade Gahorik to LA? He beat us but are we the ones who sent him to LA? Stop it


Would have lol but its too late and none of that happened so its irrelevant now. We played the Kings and would have won if we had a good PP. I can play the would have game too


Those guys were 100 years old. Stop

How does any of that matter now? It happened almost 10 years ago

This is me, telling you to cut this out if you want to continue in the thread. Debate like an adult, or not at all.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 10:11 PM
I don't know how you can put Dean Lombardi in a negitive light when the man is dealing with a dynasty right now. Is Sather "ballsy-er?" I don't know. All I know is that Lombardi doesn't put himself in that situation to begin with. He has a plan on how he's going to build the team and sticks to it.

You are missing the point if you think my point was that I wanted to paint DL in a negative light.

My point wasn't to rip Lombardi. It was to point out that intended or not, Sather is the architect of this team, so I'm not sure how we can pin it's failures on him, but refuse to award it's successes to him in the same breath. Everything he did wrong is his fault, but everything he did right he didn't actually do, or has some caveat attached that mitigates his influence, potentially to zero?

That screams bias to me. And I'm no Sather fan, either. I'm just trying to preserve some semblance of objectivity in this discussion, as it's clear to me that while I don't even feel he's that good of a GM, this team has shown tremendous success in his last four years, and he is at the helm of it — again, intended or unintended.


Lombardi doesn't often trade picks because he doesn't have to. He actually has a prospect pool to deal from. And he isn't scared to deal guys.

And he traded a 2nd and conditional 3rd for GABORIK, while we trade that for CLOWE.
And he traded 2 2nds for Regher.
And he traded a 1st and Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.
And he traded Schenn Simmonds and a 2nd for Mike Richards.

That's a shrewd GM. Sather hasn't come out the clear winner of a trade since Jagr/Carter. He doesn't even get credit for McD.

Maybe Prust for Higgins...?

Just since 2005 or so:

Brian Boyle for a 2010 3rd-round pick (Jordan Weal)
Sean Avery for Jason Ward, Marc Andre Cliche and Jan Marek
Trading up for Marc Staal
Derek Dorsett for a 2014 3rd-round pick

--

Few extra bounces our way and we'd be listing out the Nash deal, the MSL deal, the Richards signing, etc. in the same fashion you are doing in favor of DL for Regher (who didn't even play in the Final, to my recollection), Gáby, Carter (who was probably the biggest cancer in the NHL when he was traded for, mind you) and Mike Richards.

Since taking over the Rangers, Sather has had his team in the playoffs nine times out of fourteen years (missed the first four).
Since taking over the Kings, Lombardi has had his team in the playoffs four out of eight years (missed the first four).

The difference between these two men is really simple — Slats has given out more July 1st-type contracts that have not paid off with a championship compared to DL, and DL has had a better return on drafted forwards. That's the difference. That's why they have two championships in the last three years and the Rangers don't, because over the last four years, I'm willing to bet both rosters have had similar success rates in the regular season in terms of scoring, points, playoff position, etc.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:12 PM
This is me, telling you to cut this out if you want to continue in the thread. Debate like an adult, or not at all.


I am debating. Whats the problem? I didnt say anything wrong dude

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:13 PM
Was Nash or Dubinsky IN the stanley cup final? Nash

Moore was a 1st rounder who was still developing so he was basically the 1st rounder in the trade. He has a spot on our team tho right? Guess he helped

What has Colombus done since the trade? Any ECF appearances? Any cup appearances?Count the players going back and forth,

Nash — Gaborik
Dubinsky — Brassard
Anisimov — Dorsett
Erixon — Moore
1st rounder — ???

How long are you going to ignore Nash doing next to nothing, Gaborik leading the league in playoff goals, etc?

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:14 PM
I am debating. Whats the problem? I didnt say anything wrong dude

Replying to people having an adult conversation with "Stop it", "LMAO" and "would LOL" is inflammatory and disrespectful. That's HFBoards behavior and it's not tolerated here.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:15 PM
Count the players going back and forth,

Nash — Gaborik
Dubinsky — Brassard
Anisimov — Dorsett
Erixon — Moore
1st rounder — ???

How long are you going to ignore Nash doing next to nothing, Gaborik leading the league in playoff goals, etc?



Are you saying we should have kept Gaborik? Or is trading Gaborik the reason we didnt win the cup?

How does Gaborik scoring for LA have anything to do with the trade??? Gaborik needed to go and we got depth back that we just reached a cup with.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:15 PM
Replying to people having an adult conversation with "Stop it", "LMAO" and "would LOL" is inflammatory and disrespectful. That's HFBoards behavior and it's not tolerated here.
Didnt know that. Sorry about that

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 10:15 PM
I think of it more like stop gaps. How many 1st rounders did he trade?

And i dont think there would be much of a differenc. Do you? Do you think there will be an evil spell lifted off of us and we will win 2 cups in 3 years or something?

The fact that you, arguing pro-Sather at the moment, doesn't think there would be much of a difference kind of proves my point. I give credit for Sather for hiring smart guys around him. I don't think there's any coincidence Jeff Gorton came on as assistant GM in 2011/2012.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:16 PM
The fact that you, arguing pro-Sather at the moment, doesn't think there would be much of a difference kind of proves my point. I give credit for Sather for hiring smart guys around him. I don't think there's any coincidence Jeff Gorton came on as assistant GM in 2011/2012.


But Sather runs the show no matter who his assistants are.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:18 PM
You are missing the point if you think my point was that I wanted to paint DL in a negative light.

My point wasn't to rip Lombardi. It was to point out that intended or not, Sather is the architect of this team, so I'm not sure how we can pin it's failures on him, but refuse to award it's successes to him in the same breath. Everything he did wrong is his fault, but everything he did right he didn't actually do, or has some caveat attached that mitigates his influence, potentially to zero?

That screams bias to me. And I'm no Sather fan, either. I'm just trying to preserve some semblance of objectivity in this discussion, as it's clear to me that while I don't even feel he's that good of a GM, this team has shown tremendous success in his last four years, and he is at the helm of it — again, intended or unintended.



Just since 2005 or so:

Brian Boyle for a 2010 3rd-round pick (Jordan Weal)
Sean Avery for Jason Ward, Marc Andre Cliche and Jan Marek
Trading up for Marc Staal
Derek Dorsett for a 2014 3rd-round pick

--

Few extra bounces our way and we'd be listing out the Nash deal, the MSL deal, the Richards signing, etc. in the same fashion you are doing in favor of DL for Regher (who didn't even play in the Final, to my recollection), Gáby, Carter (who was probably the biggest cancer in the NHL when he was traded for, mind you) and Mike Richards.

Since taking over the Rangers, Sather has had his team in the playoffs nine times out of fourteen years (missed the first four).
Since taking over the Kings, Lombardi has had his team in the playoffs four out of eight years (missed the first four).

The difference between these two men is really simple — Slats has given out more July 1st-type contracts that have not paid off with a championship compared to DL, and DL has had a better return on drafted forwards. That's the difference. That's why they have two championships in the last three years and the Rangers don't, because over the last four years, I'm willing to bet both rosters have had similar success rates in the regular season in terms of scoring, points, playoff position, etc.

The difference is 2 rings, IMO, and Lombardi has just made better deals than Sather. It's obvious. Who cares if Carter was a cancer? What was Avery? I"m not sure what Regher not playing has anything to to with anything. He was injured. You said Lombardi wouldn't trade picks. That's clearly untrue. He trades lost of them. He just trades them for better quality.

Also, did any of those deals yield Sather a Cup? Because Lombardi won the Cup twice...Recently.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 10:19 PM
But Sather runs the show no matter who his assistants are.

From SNY (http://snyrangersblog.com/coachesgm/jeff-gorton/read-jeff-gorton-needs-to-be-the-choice-to-replace-glen-sather/).


In his role right now, Gorton “is responsible for all aspects of hockey administration for the team, including matters relating to the hockey club’s salary structure and to the team’s interaction with the National Hockey League regarding player contracts, player movement and Collective Bargaining Agreement issues. He oversees the day to day work of the hockey operations area, including the administration of all player and staff contracts. Gorton represents the club in salary arbitration matters, assists in negotiation of player contracts and coordinates team research projects. He also continues his involvement with the club’s professional and amateur scouting operations.”

I'd argue that since 2011, Glen has become a figurehead more than anything. Him admitting to not even knowing who McDonagh was is my proof.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:21 PM
From SNY.



I'd argue that since 2011, Glen has become a figurehead more than anything. Him admitting to not even knowing who McDonagh was is my proof.


And i'm sure he reports to Sather about everything

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:22 PM
Are you saying we should have kept Gaborik? Or is trading Gaborik the reason we didnt win the cup?

How does Gaborik scoring for LA have anything to do with the trade??? Gaborik needed to go and we got depth back that we just reached a cup with.

Gaborik didn't need to go. In hindsight, Torts did. If you're going to fire the coach, you don't trade the star. Trading Gabork was simply rectifying the mistake Sather made in gutting the team for Nash.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 10:24 PM
The difference is 2 rings, IMO, and Lombardi has just made better deals than Sather. It's obvious. Who cares if Carter was a cancer? What was Avery? I"m not sure what Regher not playing has anything to to with anything. He was injured. You said Lombardi wouldn't trade picks. That's clearly untrue. He trades lost of them. He just trades them for better quality.

Also, did any of those deals yield Sather a Cup? Because Lombardi won the Cup twice...Recently.

It's not that simple. There's a context to everything. The difference is in tactic and a few bounces. On paper, the Kings "abused" the Rangers, but what paper won't give you is the context that it required two OT victories and one 2OT victory to secure their second Cup in three years. Again, a few more bounces and that Cup might be in New York, not LA, which puts a ring on both men's hand.

Who cares if Carter was a cancer? That depends entirely on the post-season success of the Kings. If the Kings don't win the Cup in the last three years but make the Cup Final and the Conference Final, is that trade still good? My point is that all of DL's moves are being labeled successes because his team won the Cup. If they don't, or even if they don't win this year, the picture changes a bit.

Remember, I'm not trying to paint Sather into a great light. I'm trying to point out that you can't take his successes from him if you are going to assign him his failures. Not in this fashion. If he is the one responsible for all the teams' failures, then he is the one responsible for their successes as well. He's either running the show or he isn't.

No, none of his moves won him a Cup, but if they win one this year, we're talking about all of this, his tenure, in an entirely different light, and when you do the side-by-side math, both GM's have seen tremendous success the last four years. The difference is that DL's choices got him over the hump and Sather's didn't.

ThirtyONE
07-08-2014, 10:26 PM
And i'm sure he reports to Sather about everything

I'm sure. But don't you find it a little strange that since Gorton came on as assistant GM the Rangers have been sick?

I'm not going to change your mind on any of this. We're too dug in at the moment. But personally, I think you'd be happy if tomorrow morning you woke up and saw that Glen Sather had stepped down. I think we all would, honestly...

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:27 PM
Gaborik didn't need to go. In hindsight, Torts did. If you're going to fire the coach, you don't trade the star. Trading Gabork was simply rectifying the mistake Sather made in gutting the team for Nash.


Do you think we could have afforded Gaborik? Why not trade him and get assets back? And he wasnt good with us that season. If Gaborik didnt win a cup this year, you would never bring him up. He has a good playoffs and now he is a superstar again, i'm not buying that. He stepped into a stacked team and put up points with some good players. Good for him but i still take Nash

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:28 PM
I'm sure. But don't you find it a little strange that since Gorton came on as assistant GM the Rangers have been sick?

I'm not going to change your mind on any of this. We're too dug in at the moment. But personally, I think you'd be happy if tomorrow morning you woke up and saw that Glen Sather had stepped down. I think we all would, honestly...


No not really

And i agree with that. I dont think anybody likes Sather

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:29 PM
It's not that simple. There's a context to everything. The difference is in tactic and a few bounces. On paper, the Kings "abused" the Rangers, but what paper won't give you is the context that it required two OT victories and one 2OT victory to secure their second Cup in three years. Again, a few more bounces and that Cup might be in New York, not LA, which puts a ring on both men's hand.

Who cares if Carter was a cancer? That depends entirely on the post-season success of the Kings. If the Kings don't win the Cup in the last three years but make the Cup Final and the Conference Final, is that trade still good? My point is that all of DL's moves are being labeled successes because his team won the Cup. If they don't, or even if they don't win this year, the picture changes a bit.

Remember, I'm not trying to paint Sather into a great light. I'm trying to point out that you can't take his successes from him if you are going to assign him his failures. Not in this fashion. If he is the one responsible for all the teams' failures, then he is the one responsible for their successes as well. He's either running the show or he isn't.

No, none of his moves won him a Cup, but if they win one this year, we're talking about all of this, his tenure, in an entirely different light, and when you do the side-by-side math, both GM's have seen tremendous success the last four years. The difference is that DL's choices got him over the hump and Sather's didn't.

Yes, I watched the games. I'm aware of how close they were. If the Rangers won, but they didn't. So if is not relevant.

You're listing Sather's best trades as a laundry list of middle 6 guys. You're listing Sather's big "wins" as Boyle and Avery...Lombardi is grabbing Jeff Carter, Mike Rchards and Marian Gaborik. See the difference?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:30 PM
Yes, I watched the games. I'm aware of how close they were. If the Rangers won, but they didn't. So if is not relevant.

You're listing Sather's best trades as a laundry list of middle 6 guys. You're listing Sather's big "wins" as Boyle and Avery...Lombardi is grabbing Jeff Carter, Mike Rchards and Marian Gaborik. See the difference?

To be fair, Philly would have never traded us Richards and Carter. Kings were lucky to win the cup this year

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 10:31 PM
Yes, I watched the games. I'm aware of how close they were. If the Rangers won, but they didn't. So if is not relevant.

You're listing Sather's best trades as a laundry list of middle 6 guys. You're listing Sather's big "wins" as Boyle and Avery...Lombardi is grabbing Jeff Carter, Mike Rchards and Marian Gaborik. See the difference?

Yes, because the team didn't win.

If the Rangers won this year, I think you'd have to also include the Nash trade, despite his not really being that big of a factor in the playoffs, as well as the MSL trade in the same fashion the Mike Richards (who was on the Kings' fourth line nearly all year, and nearly bought out) and Jeff Carter trades — neither of which was championed until the Kings won their first Cup.

If I recall correctly, the Richards' trade was actually kinda ripped because of how much of a riff he had turn in the Philly locker room with all that shit going down the way it did with Pronger, his partying, his protesting ever speaking to the media (as team captain), etc.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:33 PM
To be fair, Philly would have never traded us Richards and Carter.True, but LA got Carter from Colombus...

Kings were lucky to win the cup this yearMaybe, maybe not. BUt if we'd have won, we'd have been lucky, too.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:34 PM
Yes, because the team didn't win.

If the Rangers won this year, I think you'd have to also include the Nash trade, despite his not really being that big of a factor in the playoffs, as well as the MSL trade in the same fashion the Mike Richards (who was on the Kings' fourth line nearly all year, and nearly bought out) and Jeff Carter trades — neither of which was championed until the Kings won their first Cup.

If I recall correctly, the Richards' trade was actually kinda ripped because of how much of a riff he had turn in the Philly locker room with all that shit going down the way it did with Pronger, his partying, his protesting ever speaking to the media (as team captain), etc.

All that does is prove how much smarter Lombardi is than everyone else.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:37 PM
True, but LA got Carter from Colombus...
Maybe, maybe not. BUt if we'd have won, we'd have been lucky, too.


But LA got Gaborik from Colombus too so how does Gaborik still keep getting talked about with the Nash trade?


I agree. Just dont say LA was this dominant force (not saying you did) because they werent close

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:38 PM
Do you think we could have afforded Gaborik? Why not trade him and get assets back? And he wasnt good with us that season. If Gaborik didnt win a cup this year, you would never bring him up. He has a good playoffs and now he is a superstar again, i'm not buying that. He stepped into a stacked team and put up points with some good players. Good for him but i still take Nash

Afforded Gaborik? He just signed for less than $5 mil. So who knows. Not sure what that has to do with it, though.

Why not trade him? Well, we're looking for a goal scoring winger now, no?

He wasn't good because he had beef with Torts. Is Torts here?

If...if...if...But he did.

You'd take Nash why? Based on what factors? Because you want to win an argument? OK. I'd take Gaborik, Dubi and AA back over Nash, any day.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:39 PM
But LA got Gaborik from Colombus too so how does Gaborik still keep getting talked about with the Nash trade?


I agree. Just dont say LA was this dominant force (not saying you did) because they werent closeYOu're confusing these issues, but it's not really worth going back into. It's all in the thread.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 10:41 PM
All that does is prove how much smarter Lombardi is than everyone else.

Considering the parity in this league, that's a pretty relative term — smarter. One missed shot, no matter how close you get to a championship, and all of a sudden you're not so smart, ya know? Like if Slats pulls off the Cup this year, the MSL deal is money. Every talking head in the world goes on and on for weeks about how smart he was to move a UFA Callahan and two picks that are going to end up being end-of-rounders for the reigning scoring champion who carried/rallied the Rangers when it mattered most. But he didn't, so now there are people questioning whether it was worth it or not, and if we don't win next year either, and MSL walks, then you'll really hear about it, depending on who the Lightning end up drafting with those two selections and how successful they are with Callahan (regardless of how fair it would be to compare his success with the Lightning in a vacuum to the Rangers' success without him).

For the record, I actually think Lombardi is smarter than Sather, specifically because he's held onto his first-round selections and has run a really successful draft program that's given the Kings a lot of effective players that they've been able to groom into NHL contributors. The difference is, at least for me, outside of that, they're a bit of a wash these last four years.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:44 PM
Afforded Gaborik? He just signed for less than $5 mil. So who knows. Not sure what that has to do with it, though.

Why not trade him? Well, we're looking for a goal scoring winger now, no?

He wasn't good because he had beef with Torts. Is Torts here?

If...if...if...But he did.

You'd take Nash why? Based on what factors? Because you want to win an argument? OK. I'd take Gaborik, Dubi and AA back over Nash, any day.


Youre just reaching for things now dude. At the time of the trade, nobody knew what would happen a year or two later

How much was he making with us? 7 mil or 5 mil?

I could have sworn we needed a center.

You based your whole argument on what ifs so now its a problem if someone else uses them?

Gaborik was done here. Dubinsky and AA were good players but Gaborik is a different story. Gaborik is the one who sucked that year

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:44 PM
Considering the parity in this league, that's a pretty relative term — smarter. One missed shot, no matter how close you get to a championship, and all of a sudden you're not so smart, ya know? Like if Slats pulls off the Cup this year, the MSL deal is money. Every talking head in the world goes on and on for weeks about how smart he was to move a UFA Callahan and two picks that are going to end up being end-of-rounders for the reigning scoring champion who carried/rallied the Rangers when it mattered most. But he didn't, so now there are people questioning whether it was worth it or not, and if we don't win next year either, and MSL walks, then you'll really hear about it, depending on who the Lightning end up drafting with those two selections and how successful they are with Callahan (regardless of how fair it would be to compare his success with the Lightning in a vacuum to the Rangers' success without him).Again, Phil...It's all if, if, if...But it didn't. The Rangers didn't win. So "if" doesn't matter.



For the record, I actually think Lombardi is smarter than Sather, specifically because he's held onto his first-round selections and has run a really successful draft program that's given the Kings a lot of effective players that they've been able to groom into NHL contributors. Outside of that, IMO, they're a bit of a wash these last four years.This doesn't make any sense. They're a wash, except the draft program Lombardi is responsible for running is way better, and he's acquired better players, and won the Cup more times.

"...the only difference between me and that guy...





























is an astounding $40,000..."

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:48 PM
Youre just reaching for things now dude.Uh, no. You not agreeing with my points doesn't mean I'm reaching.
At the time of the trade, nobody knew what would happen a year or two laterYea, that's how trades go.


How much was he making with us? 7 mil or 5 mil?How much was he making with LA? Same amount as here, no? Then he re-signed...for less.


I could have sworn we needed a center.Aren't we replacing Pouliot with a better scorer?


You based your whole argument on what ifs so now its a problem if someone else uses them?No idea what you're even talking about here. Where did I say "What if?" Show me the post, because I don't see it...But maybe I forgot?


Gaborik was done here. Dubinsky and AA were good players but Gaborik is a different story. Gaborik is the one who sucked that yearWell he doesn't now.

AmericanJesus
07-08-2014, 10:49 PM
Afforded Gaborik? He just signed for less than $5 mil. So who knows. Not sure what that has to do with it, though.

Why not trade him? Well, we're looking for a goal scoring winger now, no?

He wasn't good because he had beef with Torts. Is Torts here?

If...if...if...But he did.

You'd take Nash why? Based on what factors? Because you want to win an argument? OK. I'd take Gaborik, Dubi and AA back over Nash, any day.

Wonder if we get MSL if we kept Gaborik. That would be sick RW depth. Nash, Gaborik, MSL and then MZA, Kreider and Hagelin on the left. Center would be an even bigger issue.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:52 PM
Wonder if we get MSL if we kept Gaborik. That would be sick RW depth. Nash, Gaborik, MSL and then MZA, Kreider and Hagelin on the left. Center would be an even bigger issue.

Good question. Gotta think Cally gets moved for futures.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:52 PM
Uh, no. You not agreeing with my points doesn't mean I'm reaching. Yea, that's how trades go.

How much was he making with LA? Same amount as here, no? Then he re-signed...for less.

Aren't we replacing Pouliot with a better scorer?

No idea what you're even talking about here. Where did I say "What if?" Show me the post, because I don't see it...But maybe I forgot?

Well he doesn't now.


I'm not agreeing because it makes zero sense. I'm not spending any more time on this. All you are doing is making ridiculous statements. Youre saying the trade was bad because Gaborik won a cup 2 years later, as if we were all supposed to know Gaborik would turn into Gretzky in a playoff run. There is no money to replace Pouliot with a better scorer. Gaborik is making 5 mil....for 7 years. Enjoy the night dude.

And i may have got you mixed up with the what if stuff with the other guy, if so my bad.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 10:53 PM
Wonder if we get MSL if we kept Gaborik. That would be sick RW depth. Nash, Gaborik, MSL and then MZA, Kreider and Hagelin on the left. Center would be an even bigger issue.


What happened to the salary cap?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 10:53 PM
Again, Phil...It's all if, if, if...But it didn't. The Rangers didn't win. So "if" doesn't matter.

It does matter in the context of this discussion. My point is that if you are looking back, and your only measure for success is a Cup, then 29 teams are failures every year, including the club who makes the Cup Final but loses. I don't really subscribe to that line of thinking.

To me there are winners, teams that are nearly winners/on the path to winning, teams that are losing, and losers. Right now, the Rangers, under Sather these last four years, are a team on the path to winning. That's indicative of their post-season success despite not having won a championship yet.


This doesn't make any sense. They're a wash, except the draft program Lombardi is responsible for running is way better, and he's acquired better players, and won the Cup more times.

"...the only difference between me and that guy...

is an astounding $40,000..."

"Way better" is not what I said. The Rangers have gotten similar contribution out of their second, third and fourth-round selections. The difference is the first rounders which they have given up and not gotten the same impact out of regarding the draft record of both men.

And as I just said, "acquired better players" is a relative phrase. If the Rangers win, we are talking about Nash, Richards and MSL in the same light as we're praising Lombardi for with Richards, Carter and Gáborík. That matters. It absolutely matters. I know the facts, and I know that it didn't happen. That's not the point. The point is that the reason DL is praised for those moves is because they won the Cup. If they don't, even if the Rangers don't win, he doesn't receive nearly the same praise for those picks and players moved out because his team didn't win. It's why the same applies to Sather.

Pete
07-08-2014, 10:55 PM
I'm not agreeing because it makes zero sense. I'm not spending any more time on this. All you are doing is making ridiculous statements. Youre saying the trade was bad because Gaborik won a cup 2 years later, as if we were all supposed to know Gaborik would turn into Gretzky in a playoff run. There is no money to replace Pouliot with a better scorer. Gaborik is making 5 mil....for 7 years. Enjoy the night dude.

And i may have got you mixed up with the what if stuff with the other guy, if so my bad.

I'm really not going to warn you again about calling other people's opinions ridiculous because you don't agree.

Last time: Find a better way to disagree.

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:00 PM
It does matter in the context of this discussion. My point is that if you are looking back, and your only measure for success is a Cup, then 29 teams are failures every year, including the club who makes the Cup Final but loses. I don't really subscribe to that line of thinking.

To me there are winners, teams that are nearly winners/on the path to winning, teams that are losing, and losers. Right now, the Rangers, under Sather these last four years, are a team on the path to winning. That's indicative of their post-season success despite not having won a championship yet.



"Way better" is not what I said. The Rangers have gotten similar contribution out of their second, third and fourth-round selections. The difference is the first rounders which they have given up and not gotten the same impact out of regarding the draft record of both men.

And as I just said, "acquired better players" is a relative phrase. If the Rangers win, we are talking about Nash, Richards and MSL in the same light as we're praising Lombardi for with Richards, Carter and Gáborík. That matters. It absolutely matters. I know the facts, and I know that it didn't happen. That's not the point. The point is that the reason DL is praised for those moves is because they won the Cup. If they don't, even if the Rangers don't win, he doesn't receive nearly the same praise for those picks and players moved out because his team didn't win. It's why the same applies to Sather.

"If" doesn't matter. If the South won is what you're saying. It's sports. Who wins matters. It defines you. The stars aligned for Sather. MSL fell in his lap.

You're basically saying it's just an illusion that one GM is better than another because his moves worked.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:04 PM
"If" doesn't matter. If the South won is what you're saying. It's sports. Who wins matters. It defines you. The stars aligned for Sather. MSL fell in his lap.

You're basically saying it's just an illusion that one GM is better than another because his moves worked.


MSL didnt fall into his lap, he paid a hell of a price for him

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:05 PM
MSL didnt fall into his lap, he payed a hell of a pricr for him

Sure he did. The player requested a trade to one team. What else would you call that?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 11:06 PM
"If" doesn't matter. If the South won is what you're saying. It's sports. Who wins matters. It defines you. The stars aligned for Sather. MSL fell in his lap.

You're basically saying it's just an illusion that one GM is better than another because his moves worked.

An illusion? No. Both men worked for their successes. Both were the beneficiaries of some level of luck and good bounces, and both were the beneficiaries of things more in their control. At it's most base form, yes, the real difference is two championships to zero in favor of DL, but if we're discussing the water for it's parameters and not what the reflection of the surface looks like, then the context and details absolutely matter.

So no, it's not an illusion because one man's moves worked and the others didn't, but if we're measuring these two men over the last four years, the differences are not that great outside of those rings.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:07 PM
Sure he did. The player requested a trade to one team. What else would you call that?


Sather got him for free? He paid a hell of a price

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:10 PM
Sather got him for free? He paid a hell of a price

Did I say he got him for free?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:11 PM
Did I say he got him for free?
You said he fell into his lap, how?

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:12 PM
An illusion? No. Both men worked for their successes. Both were the beneficiaries of some level of luck and good bounces, and both were the beneficiaries of things more in their control. At it's most base form, yes, the real difference is two championships to zero in favor of DL, but if we're discussing the water for it's parameters and not what the reflection of the surface looks like, then the context and details absolutely matter.

So no, it's not an illusion because one man's moves worked and the others didn't, but if we're measuring these two men over the last four years, the differences are not that great outside of those rings.

The state of the franchises is totally different, as well. Cap room, farm system, everything.

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:14 PM
You said he fell into his lap, how?
Right here.

Sure he did. The player requested a trade to one team. What else would you call that?
What do you call that?

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 11:15 PM
The state of the franchises is totally different, as well. Cap room, farm system, everything.

Yup. All of that is part of the parameters. It's largely why I'm not a fan of Sather, just to be clear, but I'm sorta operating from the position of "windows" here. Until this particular window closes on the Rangers, I just think it's premature to tear Sather apart for the Rangers' failure to win this year. That's all I'm really saying. They still have another window next season, and maybe a bit beyond that, but it's definitely closing.

Basically, I look at Sather a lot like I look at Mike Gillis. If the Canucks win, he's not fired. He still has a job and is probably being championed for putting together a Cup-winning roster instead of the Canucks now tearing it down and basically looking to rebuild again.

Sather is close to the same scenario right now, today, especially once you factor in the farm, the cap situation, the age of the teams' best players, etc. But the trap hasn't snapped on his neck just yet, so I'm not ready to pronounce a time of death.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:16 PM
Right here.

What do you call that?
Requesting a trade. Sather still needs to make a package to trade for him. 2 1st rounders and Callahan is a pretty big price to pay.

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:35 PM
Yup. All of that is part of the parameters. It's largely why I'm not a fan of Sather, just to be clear, but I'm sorta operating from the position of "windows" here. Until this particular window closes on the Rangers, I just think it's premature to tear Sather apart for the Rangers' failure to win this year. That's all I'm really saying. They still have another window next season, and maybe a bit beyond that, but it's definitely closing.

Basically, I look at Sather a lot like I look at Mike Gillis. If the Canucks win, he's not fired. He still has a job and is probably being championed for putting together a Cup-winning roster instead of the Canucks now tearing it down and basically looking to rebuild again.

Sather is close to the same scenario right now, today, especially once you factor in the farm, the cap situation, the age of the teams' best players, etc. But the trap hasn't snapped on his neck just yet, so I'm not ready to pronounce a time of death.I'm beating him up for their failure to win and the shitty state of the franchise, period, dude. It's not about this year.

I really can't keep getting into the "ifs" with you. If Gillis wins it means his moves worked. So why would he be fired?

I'm just confused as to what your metric for success is. The cup finals appearance shouldn't fool anyone into thinking this franchise is tending up. MSL for the most part has not been good. Nash was awful in the playoffs. The team has had a ton of turnover, is cap strapped, and has limited internal options to fill holes.

How is any of this good?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:38 PM
I'm beating him up for their failure to win and the shitty state of the franchise, period, dude. It's not about this year.

I really can't keep getting into the "ifs" with you. If Gillis wins it means his moves worked. So why would he be fired?

I'm just confused as to what your metric for success is. The cup finals appearance shouldn't fool anyone into thinking this franchise is tending up. MSL for the most part has not been good. Nash was awful in the playoffs. The team has had a ton of turnover, is cap strapped, and has limited internal options to fill holes.

How is any of this good?


But the core is still here, most of the defense and Hank is healthy. Its not as bad as you make it out to be

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:38 PM
Requesting a trade. Sather still needs to make a package to trade for him. 2 1st rounders and Callahan is a pretty big price to pay.

And yet the 2 other premier players who asked for trades (Spezza and Kesler) got less of a return, somehow...

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:39 PM
And yet the 2 other premier players who asked for trades (Spezza and Kesler) got less of a return, somehow...
Spezza and Kesler are not recent scoring champions are they? You arent comparing Kesler and Spezza to St Louis are you? St Louis is way better than both

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:40 PM
But the core is still here, most of the defense and Hank is healthy. Its not as bad as you make it out to be

I'm stating facts. I didn't make it out to be anything other than what it is. And you, yourself, said this team isn't as good as last year's, right now. So what's your stance?

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:40 PM
Spezza and Kesler are not recent scoring champions are they? You arent comparing Kesler and Spezza to St Louis are you? St Louis is way better than both

If you say so.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:42 PM
If you say so.


How are they better or just as good? There is no reason they should be compared to St Louis

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:44 PM
I'm stating facts. I didn't make it out to be anything other than what it is. And you, yourself, said this team isn't as good as last year's, right now. So what's your stance?


Its not but is it the end of the world? Most of our guys are still here and are a year older with cup experience. Kings had 2 young kids step in and produce, why cant we?

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:45 PM
How are they better or just as good? There is no reason they should be compared to St Louis

I'm not going to sit and debate who's "better". Sather was bidding against himself. MSL was only coming here, and Sather still paid a premium.

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:46 PM
Its not but is it the end of the world? Most of our guys are still here and are a year older with cup experience. Kings had 2 young kids step in and produce, why cant we?

Because their prospect pool is deeper and better.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:46 PM
I'm not going to sit and debate who's "better". Sather was bidding against himself. MSL was only coming here, and Sather still paid a premium.


So? Did he get him here at the end of the day? St Louis had a lot of value, what can you do?

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:48 PM
Because their prospect pool is deeper and better.


How? Pearson is a late pick and so is Toffoli. Maybe we can get similar production from JT Miller and Fast or Lindberg. And if we dont then we dont, its not the end of the world. You make it seem like we are in a horrible place

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:49 PM
How? Pearson is a late pick and so is Toffoli. Maybe we can get similar production from JT Miller and Fast or Lindberg. And if we dont then we dont, its not the end of the world. You make it seem like we are in a horrible place

Again, I'm not making it seem anything. I'm stating facts. Interpret them as you wish.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:51 PM
Again, I'm not making it seem anything. I'm stating facts. Interpret them as you wish.
I will. If you think its a fact then thats your opinion

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:54 PM
I will. If you think its a fact then thats your opinion

What about this part of my post that you choose to address isn't fact?

The team has had a ton of turnover
Is cap strapped
Has limited internal options to fill holes

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 11:57 PM
What about this part of my post that you choose to address isn't fact?

The team has had a ton of turnover
Is cap strapped
Has limited internal options to fill holes

I agree with it. You said other things that i disagree with. We were talking about the MSL trade

Pete
07-08-2014, 11:58 PM
I agree with it. You said other things that i disagree with. We were talking about the MSL trade

Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize which part of the debate you were referring to.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 12:01 AM
Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize which part of the debate you were referring to.
Yeah, i agree with the other stuff

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 12:06 AM
I'm beating him up for their failure to win and the shitty state of the franchise, period, dude. It's not about this year.

I really can't keep getting into the "ifs" with you. If Gillis wins it means his moves worked. So why would he be fired?

I'm just confused as to what your metric for success is. The cup finals appearance shouldn't fool anyone into thinking this franchise is tending up. MSL for the most part has not been good. Nash was awful in the playoffs. The team has had a ton of turnover, is cap strapped, and has limited internal options to fill holes.

How is any of this good?

It's good within the window they are operating as a contender.

My measure of success is in winning and/or progression to it. Right now, today, despite the bleaker picture two, three, four years down the road, the Rangers are still progressing to winning. They still have a window to operate in. Slather is responsible for that, just as he will be the state of the franchise win or lose (especially if lose), when this window is shut.

Until then, I'm reserving judgement.

Pete
07-09-2014, 06:01 AM
The Rangers had a magic carpet ride this year, not many players exceeded expectations. However we lost 5 players while adequately replacing 1...

AmericanJesus
07-09-2014, 07:38 AM
The Rangers had a magic carpet ride this year, not many players exceeded expectations. However we lost 5 players while adequately replacing 1...

It's a little early to know how we've replaced guys for next season but right now it's hard to disagree.

I've said it a bunch but I'll say it again, I wouldn't trade the moves Sather made to get us to our recent success, but we had a lot go our way last season.

We were not a team that won despite bad breaks. We were a team that lost most of the time when we didn't get the good bounce or good call. In that regard, the 11/12 team was stronger. Last year's team had enough go right at the right time including, a kid taking a dumb high sticking penalty for Philly along with their starter being out for some games, the unfortunate turning point against Pittsburgh and Kreider taking out Price.

We got no breaks against LA and it ended our season just short of our ultimate goal.

After all that going right, our roster is weaker right now than that team that needed the bounces. And our future is dimmer because of the cost to get where we were last year. Once the window does shut, we are a franchise in trouble.

momentum
07-09-2014, 08:39 AM
And yet the 2 other premier players who asked for trades (Spezza and Kesler) got less of a return, somehow...

True but MSL is a player on a different level of them, an elite scorer who just recently had won the art ross trophy, yes 38 but everyone who watched him could see he didn't really show his age much. I'm not saying you're wrong about Sather, just saying that in the case of these players in comparison they're not at the same levels IMO.

Pete
07-09-2014, 08:41 AM
True but MSL is a player on a different level of them, an elite scorer who just recently had won the art ross trophy, yes 38 but everyone who watched him could see he didn't really show his age much. I'm not saying you're wrong about Sather, just saying that in the case of these players in comparison they're not at the same levels IMO.

Until he got here lol.

momentum
07-09-2014, 08:42 AM
Until he got here lol.

Right but that's 20/20 hindsight :) And I will wait and see how he does this season before my final judgment.

Pete
07-09-2014, 08:46 AM
Right but that's 20/20 hindsight :) And I will wait and see how he does this season before my final judgment.

It's pretty easy to judge the winner of a trade a year and a half later. Not really a bold move, dude.

Whatever, Dallas managed to land Spezza, who is still a top tier player in this league, without surrendering a first round pick. We sent 2, and Callahan. Not to mention Sather didn't have to out bid anyone.

Ballsy move if you win, short sighted if you lose, but that's sports. "If" doesn't matter.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 09:27 AM
It's a little early to know how we've replaced guys for next season but right now it's hard to disagree.

I've said it a bunch but I'll say it again, I wouldn't trade the moves Sather made to get us to our recent success, but we had a lot go our way last season.

We were not a team that won despite bad breaks. We were a team that lost most of the time when we didn't get the good bounce or good call. In that regard, the 11/12 team was stronger. Last year's team had enough go right at the right time including, a kid taking a dumb high sticking penalty for Philly along with their starter being out for some games, the unfortunate turning point against Pittsburgh and Kreider taking out Price.

We got no breaks against LA and it ended our season just short of our ultimate goal.

After all that going right, our roster is weaker right now than that team that needed the bounces. And our future is dimmer because of the cost to get where we were last year. Once the window does shut, we are a franchise in trouble.

Which I don't think you can use as an excuse, or more importantly as a knock against a club who has been, in the last three years, to the Eastern Final and the Stanley Cup Final. When you look at last year in a vacuum, sure, a lot of things went right and went our way. Thanks Montréal for beating Boston, who no one thought the Rangers could beat (mind you, few thought they could beat the Pens either). Thanks for being hurt, Carey Price. Thanks MSL for requesting a trade to only one team. The list goes on and on. But, the reason I don't think you can use any of this as an excuse is because nearly every year you can point to the stars aligning for at least one team that makes it to the Final. You can point to one or two or three or more events over the course of the playoffs or the year that benefited them greatly, that had that not happened, they may not be where they are.

Pete just spent the night arguing against the idea of "ifs", and how "ifs" don't matter. Well, if they don't, then what does it matter what the circumstances are behind why a team makes it to the Final or not? If MSL doesn't request a trade here, maybe we don't make it — well, he did. If Carey Price isn't hurt maybe we don't beat the Habs — well, he was. If Boston beats Montréal, maybe the Rangers don't get past them either — well, they did. The list goes on and on there.

Long story short, what I keep seeing in this thread is essentially the act of talking out of both sides of our mouths.

How is it all of Sather's negatives he owns 100%, and are completely his fault, yet the successes under his tenure are being mitigated and made excuses for?
How is it the Rangers make the Cup Final but it's also being mitigated and made excuses for?

That bounces argument works both ways. A few extra our way and we are hoisting the Cup, not the Kings. It took two OT games and a 2OT game to put the Rangers away. That's one bounce. One shot. One goal in each game. Or do "ifs" still not matter?

I guess my point here is this — why are we so focused on the failures of what hasn't happened yet with the roster and the franchise when the window clearly hasn't shut yet? Why are we talking about this team postmortem in a discussion like this when they're still very alive and kicking?

Pete
07-09-2014, 09:53 AM
Which I don't think you can use as an excuse, or more importantly as a knock against a club who has been, in the last three years, to the Eastern Final and the Stanley Cup Final. When you look at last year in a vacuum, sure, a lot of things went right and went our way. Thanks Montréal for beating Boston, who no one thought the Rangers could beat (mind you, few thought they could beat the Pens either). Thanks for being hurt, Carey Price. Thanks MSL for requesting a trade to only one team. The list goes on and on. But, the reason I don't think you can use any of this as an excuse is because nearly every year you can point to the stars aligning for at least one team that makes it to the Final. You can point to one or two or three or more events over the course of the playoffs or the year that benefited them greatly, that had that not happened, they may not be where they are.

Pete just spent the night arguing against the idea of "ifs", and how "ifs" don't matter. Well, if they don't, then what does it matter what the circumstances are behind why a team makes it to the Final or not? If MSL doesn't request a trade here, maybe we don't make it — well, he did. If Carey Price isn't hurt maybe we don't beat the Habs — well, he was. If Boston beats Montréal, maybe the Rangers don't get past them either — well, they did. The list goes on and on there.

Long story short, what I keep seeing in this thread is essentially the act of talking out of both sides of our mouths.

How is it all of Sather's negatives he owns 100%, and are completely his fault, yet the successes under his tenure are being mitigated and made excuses for?
How is it the Rangers make the Cup Final but it's also being mitigated and made excuses for?

That bounces argument works both ways. A few extra our way and we are hoisting the Cup, not the Kings. It took two OT games and a 2OT game to put the Rangers away. That's one bounce. One shot. One goal in each game. Or do "ifs" still not matter?

I guess my point here is this — why are we so focused on the failures of what hasn't happened yet with the roster and the franchise when the window clearly hasn't shut yet? Why are we talking about this team postmortem in a discussion like this when they're still very alive and kicking?

I don't think I could disagree more with this statement. Every year a team that goes to the final gets lucky? Sorry, I just don't agree. Had the Rangers won the Cup this year, no one would have been happier than me. But I'm under no illusions that this team was some type of juggernaut. The didn't just get one or two breaks, they got every possible break leading to the SCF. Best matchups, star players getting hurt (oh, hey, today it comes out that Crosby was hurt and is having wrist surgery...how fortuitous for us!), the list goes on and on.

Why are we talking about it? Because someone created a thread on it. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to. The fact is, Sather is a running joke in the NHL regarding how he's kept a job for so long despite winning...NOTHING — and we both know this.

It's very easy to pin failure on him, but not credit him with success. Ever see Major League?

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:01 AM
I don't think I could disagree more with this statement. Every year a team that goes to the final gets lucky? Sorry, I just don't agree. Had the Rangers won the Cup this year, no one would have been happier than me. But I'm under no illusions that this team was some type of juggernaut. The didn't just get one or two breaks, they got every possible break leading to the SCF. Best matchups, star players getting hurt (oh, hey, today it comes out that Crosby was hurt and is having wrist surgery...how fortuitous for us!), the list goes on and on.

Why are we talking about it? Because someone created a thread on it. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to. The fact is, Sather is a running joke in the NHL regarding how he's kept a job for so long despite winning...NOTHING — and we both know this.

It's very easy to pin failure on him, but not credit him with success. Ever see Major League?

No, nearly every year you can point to a slew of things that occurred that season that you would attribute to luck, that had they not happened, you could argue that team wouldn't have seen the success they did. That's not the same thing as "every year a team goes to the Final that is just lucky".

I don't disagree with you about Sather being a running joke, or the fact he still has a job being part of it — we've covered this. What we disagree with is this concept that keeps reoccuring in this thread where the successes of this team the last four years are being taken away from him, while the failures of the club are being assigned to him, and only him. You can't have your cake and eat it to. He either runs the show or he doesn't, which means he's either responsible for all their failures and their successes, or he's only partially responsible for the same. It can't be both.

I have seen Major League, and I think you know what I'm going to say in response to it. That's absurd. This team did not win to spite Sather. Sather didn't intentionally sabotage their chances in an attempt to sell the franchise by trading away their best players and barely affording them standard accommodations. He never walked into the room after a wain only to point out all the flaws in all of their games as a means to get them to lose confidence, etc. That analogy just flat out does not work. It's an absurdity adapted for film for added drama.

Unless you are trying to justify signing players to bad contracts as a form of sabotaging the team, I'm just now sure how the Major League thing holds any weight whatsoever.

AmericanJesus
07-09-2014, 10:05 AM
Which I don't think you can use as an excuse, or more importantly as a knock against a club who has been, in the last three years, to the Eastern Final and the Stanley Cup Final. When you look at last year in a vacuum, sure, a lot of things went right and went our way. Thanks Montréal for beating Boston, who no one thought the Rangers could beat (mind you, few thought they could beat the Pens either). Thanks for being hurt, Carey Price. Thanks MSL for requesting a trade to only one team. The list goes on and on. But, the reason I don't think you can use any of this as an excuse is because nearly every year you can point to the stars aligning for at least one team that makes it to the Final. You can point to one or two or three or more events over the course of the playoffs or the year that benefited them greatly, that had that not happened, they may not be where they are.

Pete just spent the night arguing against the idea of "ifs", and how "ifs" don't matter. Well, if they don't, then what does it matter what the circumstances are behind why a team makes it to the Final or not? If MSL doesn't request a trade here, maybe we don't make it — well, he did. If Carey Price isn't hurt maybe we don't beat the Habs — well, he was. If Boston beats Montréal, maybe the Rangers don't get past them either — well, they did. The list goes on and on there.

Long story short, what I keep seeing in this thread is essentially the act of talking out of both sides of our mouths.

How is it all of Sather's negatives he owns 100%, and are completely his fault, yet the successes under his tenure are being mitigated and made excuses for?
How is it the Rangers make the Cup Final but it's also being mitigated and made excuses for?

That bounces argument works both ways. A few extra our way and we are hoisting the Cup, not the Kings. It took two OT games and a 2OT game to put the Rangers away. That's one bounce. One shot. One goal in each game. Or do "ifs" still not matter?

I guess my point here is this — why are we so focused on the failures of what hasn't happened yet with the roster and the franchise when the window clearly hasn't shut yet? Why are we talking about this team postmortem in a discussion like this when they're still very alive and kicking?

I think you're missing my point. What you're saying is absolutely true. I'm not looking at last year as anything less than what it was. The vast majority of teams need to be good, need to stay healthy and need to catch some breaks to win a cup or even make it to the Stanley Cup Finals. All those things don't come together too often. The only part of those things that are replicate-able are having a good team.

Now, having a great team, like LA, Chicago and Boston, get you more knocks on the door because you have more ability to overcome a bad bounce, call or "luck". The more knocks you get, the better chance you have of winning a cup. I look at our team running back the last few years as being a tier below those teams. The reason for that is mostly how much of our developed talent and potential talent (draft picks) we've had to move to get to where we are. And as I've said, the window hasn't closed yet. But it's closing. And closing faster than it will for LA, Chicago and maybe Boston. Those teams were able to recoup losses with more youth than we have lately.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:15 AM
No, nearly every year you can point to a slew of things that occurred that season that you would attribute to luck, that had they not happened, you could argue that team wouldn't have seen the success they did. That's not the same thing as "every year a team goes to the Final that is just lucky".

I don't disagree with you about Sather being a running joke, or the fact he still has a job being part of it — we've covered this. What we disagree with is this concept that keeps reoccuring in this thread where the successes of this team the last four years are being taken away from him, while the failures of the club are being assigned to him, and only him. You can't have your cake and eat it to. He either runs the show or he doesn't, which means he's either responsible for all their failures and their successes, or he's only partially responsible for the same. It can't be both.

I have seen Major League, and I think you know what I'm going to say in response to it. That's absurd. This team did not win to spite Sather. Sather didn't intentionally sabotage their chances in an attempt to sell the franchise by trading away their best players and barely affording them standard accommodations. He never walked into the room after a wain only to point out all the flaws in all of their games as a means to get them to lose confidence, etc. That analogy just flat out does not work. It's an absurdity adapted for film for added drama.

Unless you are trying to justify signing players to bad contracts as a form of sabotaging the team, I'm just now sure how the Major League thing holds any weight whatsoever.

Don't be silly, I don't think he's trying to sabotage the team. I'm just saying, sometimes a team can win despite numerous questionable moves by the GM. Winning covers everything.

Jesus, Neil Smith traded for 6 guys at the deadline, if the Rangers don't win the Cup he's fired and is a laughingstock. But they did, so "if" doesn't matter. Only winning matters. When Sather wins something, we can talk about his role in it.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:19 AM
I think you're missing my point. What you're saying is absolutely true. I'm not looking at last year as anything less than what it was. The vast majority of teams need to be good, need to stay healthy and need to catch some breaks to win a cup or even make it to the Stanley Cup Finals. All those things don't come together too often. The only part of those things that are replicate-able are having a good team.

Now, having a great team, like LA, Chicago and Boston, get you more knocks on the door because you have more ability to overcome a bad bounce, call or "luck". The more knocks you get, the better chance you have of winning a cup. I look at our team running back the last few years as being a tier below those teams. The reason for that is mostly how much of our developed talent and potential talent (draft picks) we've had to move to get to where we are. And as I've said, the window hasn't closed yet. But it's closing. And closing faster than it will for LA, Chicago and maybe Boston. Those teams were able to recoup losses with more youth than we have lately.

Oh, I completely agree. I said earlier in this thread, when I was first trying to establish that I'm not actually a fan of Sather's, that there are multiple models for building a foundation and potentially winning a championship in the NHL. The model with the most success coming out of the '05 lock out, if your goal is a championship every year, is to have a strong drafting record being that this is a salary capped league. I mean, it's just head and shoulders above the rest. There's no "debate" there. The facts speak for themselves through the success of multi-time championship teams and teams that are consistently in that title picture — Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.

The math is overwhelmingly in your favor if you use that model because the younger and more dynamic your talent, the more effective they are likely to be for longer and for cheaper than if your model is designed backwards where you are buying your best talents year-after-year in free agency where the window for success is much shorter, sometimes with a steep, sharp, sudden drop off (Drury, Gomez).

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:22 AM
Don't be silly, I don't think he's trying to sabotage the team. I'm just saying, sometimes a team can win despite numerous questionable moves by the GM. Winning covers everything.

Jesus, Neil Smith traded for 6 guys at the deadline, if the Rangers don't win the Cup he's fired and is a laughingstock. But they did, so "if" doesn't matter. Only winning matters. When Sather wins something, we can talk about his role in it.

Well, the Major League analogy was too far out there for me to take at face. I get what you are saying, I just didn't like that particular example is all, because it really doesn't apply.

I do agree that this team has in fact won in spite of a lot of obstacles thrown their way — age of best performers and contract value being the two biggest issues there. And winning does cover everything, but the thing I was trying to drive home earlier to this point was that Sather is still the architect of the team, be it in their most successful years or their least. I just don't see how we can assign all their failures to him and none of their successes. That seems disingenuous.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:25 AM
Well, the Major League analogy was too far out there for me to take at face. I get what you are saying, I just didn't like that particular example is all, because it really doesn't apply.

I do agree that this team has in fact won in spite of a lot of obstacles thrown their way — age of best performers and contract value being the two biggest issues there. And winning does cover everything, but the thing I was trying to drive home earlier to this point was that Sather is still the architect of the team, be it in their most successful years or their least. I just don't see how we can assign all their failures to him and none of their successes. That seems disingenuous.

Because the proof is right there! Who were Sather's biggest acquisitions in recent memory?

Richards — Speaks for itself.
Nash — Did nothing in the playoffs.
MSL — Player ONLY wanted to come to the Rangers, Sather still paid top dollar, disappeared in the finals.

And the team won in the post season DESPITE getting not very much from these guys.

Who are the best players on the team?

Lundqvist —*Many in the front office didn't even want to draft him.
McDonagh — Sather never saw him play, didn't know who he was.

I mean come on.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:29 AM
All this tells me is that he's not that great of a GM, but he's still responsible for this year. Just as he was responsible for the year prior, and the one before that and so on.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 10:29 AM
Because the proof is right there! Who were Sather's biggest acquisitions in recent memory?

Richards — Speaks for itself.
Nash — Did nothing in the playoffs.
MSL — Player ONLY wanted to come to the Rangers, Sather still paid top dollar, disappeared in the finals.

And the team won in the post season DESPITE getting not very much from these guys.

Who are the best players on the team?

Lundqvist —*Many in the front office didn't even want to draft him.
McDonagh — Sather never saw him play, didn't know who he was.

I mean come on.

Nash didnt score but he did play defense and he was still a threat, sort of like A-Rod was. Even if he doesnt score, other teams know when he is on the ice and pay attention. Hockey isnt all about scoring

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:36 AM
All this tells me is that he's not that great of a GM, but he's still responsible for this year. Just as he was responsible for the year prior, and the one before that and so on.

Which is exactly the point I'm making.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:38 AM
Nash didnt score but he did play defense and he was still a threat, sort of like A-Rod was. Even if he doesnt score, other teams know when he is on the ice and pay attention. Hockey isnt all about scoringHockey actually is about scoring. You need more goals than the other team to win.

He wasn't a threat. At all. Nash's job is to score. That's his role on the team. Defense is great, but no one pays $7.8 million for strictly defense.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:38 AM
But we agree there? What was the point in all of this? I've said numerous times since last night that I'm not a fan of his, and that I don't think he's that great. I just didn't like the idea of not awarding him credit for the success of teams he was clearly the GM of.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:38 AM
Hockey actually is about scoring. You need more goals than the other team to win.

He wasn't a threat. At all. Nash's job is to score. That's his role on the team. Defense is great, but no one pays $7.8 million for strictly defense.

Lundqvist?

> RunsAwayLaughing.gif

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:44 AM
Lundqvist?

> RunsAwayLaughing.gif

You bastard.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:45 AM
But we agree there? What was the point in all of this? I've said numerous times since last night that I'm not a fan of his, and that I don't think he's that great. I just didn't like the idea of not awarding him credit for the success of teams he was clearly the GM of.

Well then you're in the boat with ThirtyONE. Sather only gets credit for surrounding himself with the guys who find the diamonds in the rough. The high-profile players, he always swings big, and always misses.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:49 AM
Well then you're in the boat with ThirtyONE. Sather only gets credit for surrounding himself with the guys who find the diamonds in the rough. The high-profile players, he always swings big, and always misses.

But do we really have evidence to support this? I mean, again, I feel the need to preface this with the fact that I'm not a fan of Sather's, but why is he responsible for all the high-profile player signings/trades that are swing-and-a-miss, but it's the hockey minds he's surrounded with who get the credit for everything that's gone right in New York under his tenure? McDonagh I'll give you. With him, clearly, that's the case with Sather admitting to never having even seen him play, so he was obviously relying on the word/trust of his scouting staff, but are we assuming that is true for every draft pick made, or for every young player brought into the organization? That's a lot of assuming.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:52 AM
But do we really have evidence to support this? I mean, again, I feel the need to preface this with the fact that I'm not a fan of Sather's, but why is he responsible for all the high-profile player signings/trades that are swing-and-a-miss, but it's the hockey minds he's surrounded with who get the credit for everything that's gone right in New York under his tenure? McDonagh I'll give you. With him, clearly, that's the case with Sather admitting to never having even seen him play, so he was obviously relying on the word/trust of his scouting staff, but are we assuming that is true for every draft pick made, or for every young player brought into the organization? That's a lot of assuming.Lundqvist?

The franchises 2 best players he eithe never saw, or didn't want.

Redden bought out.
Drury bought out.
Gomez traded for franchise player he never saw.
Richards bought out.

I mean I don't know how much more evidence you need, but I'm pretty clear on where I stand. This team, in recent memory, has had exactly 1 big-name UFA success story: Marian Gaborik. And there will even be people who debate that.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 10:58 AM
Lundqvist?

The franchises 2 best players he eithe never saw, or didn't want.

Redden bought out.
Drury bought out.
Gomez traded for franchise player he never saw.
Richards bought out.

I mean I don't know how much more evidence you need, but I'm pretty clear on where I stand. This team, in recent memory, has had exactly 1 big-name UFA success story: Marian Gaborik. And there will even be people who debate that.

But why are all of these failures laid at his feet, while none of the successes of the club are awarded to him? That's my issue here.

What about other successful signings, re-signings and trades? Are those all the work of men he's surrounded with?

The trouble I'm having here is that we see "Glen Sather, President and GM of the New York Rangers" next to "Rangers sign Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, etc" and respond accordingly, but in that same breath, we see "Rangers trade for Brian Boyle, Sean Avery, etc" or "Rangers re-sign Ryan McDonagh to deal worth $4.7M per year", etc. and all of a sudden it's quiet as a mouse, or we're talking about how it's not really Sather running the show, but Gorton and all the other guys around him? That sure is convenient, no? Every time something goes horribly wrong, it's all his fault, but any time something goes even mildly right, he's not really running the show anyway?

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 11:02 AM
Unfortunately, Sather has Isiah Thomas status with Dolan. He's here until he retires or dies. This team in my opinion won't start being different until he is no longer in charge. I just wish he could step down as the GM and let someone else have autonomy. Keep the prestige of being Team President etc, but let someone else shape this team the way it needs too. It has been said already, so I won't rehash. There has been a lot of luck with the construction of this team, and I really can't wait for the day in which we start developing the superstars of tomorrow I love Lundqvist, but man it would be awesome seeing us develop a Crosby, a Toews, Kopitar, Kane etc.

Watching Kreider is cool, but seeing a budding forward star develop in front of my eyes for my team is something I'd love to see. Acquiring them in the downhill part of their career is not. Sather has done a lot for hockey, and he has done some good things for this team, but the sell by date is overdue with Glen.

Pete
07-09-2014, 11:03 AM
But why are all of these failures laid at his feet, while none of the successes of the club are awarded to him? That's my issue here.I've explained this already.

What about other successful signings, re-signings and trades? Are those all the work of men he's surrounded with?


The trouble I'm having here is that we see "Glen Sather, President and GM of the New York Rangers" next to "Rangers sign Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, etc" and respond accordingly, but in that same breath, we see "Rangers trade for Brian Boyle, Sean Avery, etc" or "Rangers re-sign Ryan McDonagh to deal worth $4.7M per year", etc. and all of a sudden it's quiet as a mouse, or we're talking about how it's not really Sather running the show, but Gorton and all the other guys around him? That sure is convenient, no? Every time something goes horribly wrong, it's all his fault, but any time something goes even mildly right, he's not really running the show anyway?Because the scales are tipped too heavily against him.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 11:51 AM
Hockey actually is about scoring. You need more goals than the other team to win.

He wasn't a threat. At all. Nash's job is to score. That's his role on the team. Defense is great, but no one pays $7.8 million for strictly defense.

its also about stopping the other team from scoring goals. If Nash didnt score enough then its too bad, he wasnt horrible tho. He helped in other ways and he had chances, it happens, just gotta deal with it

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 12:17 PM
its also about stopping the other team from scoring goals. If Nash didnt score enough then its too bad, he wasnt horrible tho. He helped in other ways and he had chances, it happens, just gotta deal with it

While I agree that scoring a goal is = to preventing a goal, this guy wanted to come to NY. His contract is what it is, and there's no excuse for a player that has either paced or scored 30 goals in all but 1 season of his career to not come through during the playoffs.

Some guys don't have it in them to be that player and that is fine. Some guys are bred for the clutchness of the playoffs. Guys like Glenn Anderson, Justin Williams, Butch Goring, Danny Briere, etc. These guys have a knack of getting the job done, and others just can't mentally handle the extra pressure.

I'll say this though, Nash does help get us to the playoffs, and that is something to notice. However, his goal production throughout his career in the playoffs is just downright terrible.

Ultimately we had an unsuccessful season in the grand scheme of things, and Nash isn't exempt from criticism because he didn't do what he was supposed to. I was a staunch Nash defender during the playoffs, but when it comes down to it, he really needed to bring more.

It was the little things. Driving the net more, being more apt when it came to protecting the puck and making plays. He took the easy way out at times, and after looking back at it I can understand why I was in the minority at the time when it came to championing his ability to become a defensive dynamo.

I love Nash, but the London, ON native needs to bury the biscuit.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 12:22 PM
While I agree that scoring a goal is = to preventing a goal, this guy wanted to come to NY. His contract is what it is, and there's no excuse for a player that has either paced or scored 30 goals in all but 1 season of his career to not come through during the playoffs.

Some guys don't have it in them to be that player and that is fine. Some guys are bred for the clutchness of the playoffs. Guys like Glenn Anderson, Justin Williams, Butch Goring, Danny Briere, etc. These guys have a knack of getting the job done, and others just can't mentally handle the extra pressure.

I'll say this though, Nash does help get us to the playoffs, and that is something to notice. However, his goal production throughout his career in the playoffs is just downright terrible.

Ultimately we had an unsuccessful season in the grand scheme of things, and Nash isn't exempt from criticism because he didn't do what he was supposed to. I was a staunch Nash defender during the playoffs, but when it comes down to it, he really needed to bring more.

It was the little things. Driving the net more, being more apt when it came to protecting the puck and making plays. He took the easy way out at times, and after looking back at it I can understand why I was in the minority at the time when it came to championing his ability to become a defensive dynamo.

I love Nash, but the London, ON native needs to bury the biscuit.


But can we give him one more chance? My god. He is supposed to score goals i agree but he had chances and his defensive game was good. Nash had to bring more and so did a lot of other players on the team, yet Nash is being singled out because of his salary? Why does salary mean so much to fans? Lets make the playoffs and see how he does and if the same thing happens, then we can panic. He was just snakebitten, when he shot that puck at the open net in OT and it tipped someones stick, it just wasnt meant to be.

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 12:29 PM
But can we give him one more chance? My god. He is supposed to score goals i agree but he had chances and his defensive game was good. Nash had to bring more and so did a lot of other players on the team, yet Nash is being singled out because of his salary? Why does salary mean so much to fans? Lets make the playoffs and see how he does and if the same thing happens, then we can panic. He was just snakebitten, when he shot that puck at the open net in OT and it tipped someones stick, it just wasnt meant to be.

Im not saying we can't give him another chance. All I am saying is that at the end of the day a goal scorer needs to score sometime when his team needs it.

Pete
07-09-2014, 01:03 PM
its also about stopping the other team from scoring goals. If Nash didnt score enough then its too bad, he wasnt horrible tho. He helped in other ways and he had chances, it happens, just gotta deal with itAbsolutely not. Sports is a results oriented business.

Pete
07-09-2014, 01:07 PM
But can we give him one more chance? My god. He is supposed to score goals i agree but he had chances and his defensive game was good. Nash had to bring more and so did a lot of other players on the team, yet Nash is being singled out because of his salary? Why does salary mean so much to fans? Lets make the playoffs and see how he does and if the same thing happens, then we can panic. He was just snakebitten, when he shot that puck at the open net in OT and it tipped someones stick, it just wasnt meant to be.Yea, I heard all that after 2013 playoffs.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 01:49 PM
Absolutely not. Sports is a results oriented business.


It is too bad because no matter what the results are, we cant change them, just gotta deal with them. Nash didnt score in the playoffs, what can we do?

Pete
07-09-2014, 01:53 PM
It is too bad because no matter what the results are, we cant change them, just gotta deal with them. Nash didnt score in the playoffs, what can we do?

Trade him.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 01:58 PM
Trade him.

For who? Who is taking him?

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:06 PM
For who? Who is taking him?

Already been discussed in quite a few threads.

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?14057-Trade-Nash

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13333-The-Feasability-of-Trading-Rick-Nash

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:09 PM
Already been discussed in quite a few threads.

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?14057-Trade-Nash

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13333-The-Feasability-of-Trading-Rick-Nash

But i want your opinion. Who do we trade Rick Nash for? You wanna trade him so you must have an idea?

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:13 PM
But i want your opinion. Who do we trade Rick Nash for? You wanna trade him so you must have an idea?

Read the threads, my opinion is there.

Basically, a team that needs salary to hit the cap floor, sell tickets, and doesn't need to worry about making the playoff. A team like Florida. But I'm not going to rehash this debate in this thread.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:19 PM
Read the threads, my opinion is there.

Basically, a team that needs salary to hit the cap floor, sell tickets, and doesn't need to worry about making the playoff. A team like Florida. But I'm not going to rehash this debate in this thread.
Not once do you mention any players, just Florida. Give me a package that you think Florida gives up for Nash

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:21 PM
Not once do you mention any players, just Florida. Give me a package that you think Florida gives up for Nash

I've already said I'm not rehashing this topic. Two threads exist. Read them.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:22 PM
I've already said I'm not rehashing this topic. Two threads exist. Read them.

I did, you dont mention any players tho.

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:26 PM
I did, you dont mention any players tho.

OK, I'm still not going to turn this thread into a thread about trading Nash. It's already been hijacked enough.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:27 PM
OK, I'm still not going to turn this thread into a thread about trading Nash. It's already been hijacked enough.

True. All i asked was to give me a package that you think Florida would trade for Nash but thats fine

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:30 PM
True. All i asked was to give me a package that you think Florida would trade for Nash but thats fine

I understand that, but if I posted that, then you'd reply, and then I'd reply, and then that's how treads are derailed.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:31 PM
I understand that, but if I posted that, then you'd reply, and then I'd reply, and then that's how treads are derailed.
Yeah thats true. We'll save it for the next time a trade Nash thread pops up, i'm sure there will be a few during the season ;)

Pete
07-09-2014, 02:33 PM
Yeah thats true. We'll save it for the next time a trade Nash thread pops up, i'm sure there will be a few during the season ;)

I hope there are only Rick Nash appreciation threads for his 40 goal output!

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 02:34 PM
I hope there are only Rick Nash appreciation threads for his 40 goal output!

I agree with that 1000%

Ranger Lothbrok
07-09-2014, 03:00 PM
Are you really going to say shit like that to defend a position you were wrong about? That's absolutely abhorrent

No shit it's abhorrent. And that's why I wasn't saying it. You can go back and look at how many times I said I was wrong about the trade. I admit to it, and I own up to it. I'm not evading anything, I'm taking my lumps. The point I was getting at is that there's no way Sather could have known that was going to happen and change the morale of the locker room. You can look at the result and say what a smart deal, but up until that point we were heading toward an early playoff exit.

I'll give him credit for finding a star player that was available for a price we could afford, and evading an unpleasant situation in Callahan while doing so. I will not, however, credit Slats for having the crystal ball necessary to predict that a tragic circumstance would force the team to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and show up for one of their teammates.

I swear, some people are just looking to be contentious.

Ranger Lothbrok
07-09-2014, 03:26 PM
With the whole Nash thing, it's a tougher situation than it sounds. I would love to flip him for a futures-heavy package to recoup some of our investments, but what player with a NMC is going to willingly go to a franchise trying to reach the cap floor? Those teams are not often ones that are contenders, and the ones that are contenders are often operating at the cap or just below it. That NMC, his nearly $8 mil contract, his playoff performance, and his more recent concussion issues make him a relatively volatile asset. Whether you love him or hate him, and whether you think he'll rebound or not, there's no question that Rick Nash now is worth less in a trade than Rick Nash in the summer of 2012.

I think we can all agree that he hasn't lived up to expectations. And when we traded what we did, we had those expectations in mind. In other words, those expectations = Dubi/Arty/Erixon/1st. Unless he morphs in to the 30-40 goal, 70-80 point guy who dominates in the playoffs that we all thought he'd be, when we inevitably flip him for less than Dubi/Arty/Erixon/1st, the trade is a loss. There are only two ways a trade can be good: it meets or exceeds expectations, or you can undo it without suffering any tangible detriment.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 03:31 PM
With the whole Nash thing, it's a tougher situation than it sounds. I would love to flip him for a futures-heavy package to recoup some of our investments, but what player with a NMC is going to willingly go to a franchise trying to reach the cap floor? Those teams are not often ones that are contenders, and the ones that are contenders are often operating at the cap or just below it. That NMC, his nearly $8 mil contract, his playoff performance, and his more recent concussion issues make him a relatively volatile asset. Whether you love him or hate him, and whether you think he'll rebound or not, there's no question that Rick Nash now is worth less in a trade than Rick Nash in the summer of 2012.

I think we can all agree that he hasn't lived up to expectations. And when we traded what we did, we had those expectations in mind. In other words, those expectations = Dubi/Arty/Erixon/1st. Unless he morphs in to the 30-40 goal, 70-80 point guy who dominates in the playoffs that we all thought he'd be, when we inevitably flip him for less than Dubi/Arty/Erixon/1st, the trade is a loss. There are only two ways a trade can be good: it meets or exceeds expectations, or you can undo it without suffering any tangible detriment.
Thats the thing, what kind of package will a team give up for Nash? And will he even go to that team?

I think 30-35 goals with 60-65 points is more reasonable for Nash. If he has a 50 point season and doesnt score 30, i'll be very disappointed

Ranger Lothbrok
07-09-2014, 04:11 PM
By the way, I know we've directed back to the whole "how do you build a winner in NY" discussion, and the thread's become a "does Sather suck or not?" debate, but the original motivation for the thread was the article I found and Slats' style of GMing.

I think you can break the league down in to a few market categories. And while I won't pretend to be able to define them exactly, some examples include:
-Cash-strapped bottom feeders who often pick high and blow it
-Teams with a core of franchise players who are in "maintain" mode (not looking to change much, just keep it consistent since it's a perennial contender)
-Teams gradually on the rebound with affordable young talent
-Teams in huge markets that are handcuffed by certain expectations

We're not the only ones who have a city, and an owner, that won't tolerate a wholesale rebuild. The Leafs have not been good for years, but other than opening up the checkbook on FA day (and even failing there), they haven't really changed a whole lot. They're going to keep plugging away with what they have, and make what small changes they can afford to. And I don't mean afford in the literal financial sense. I mean working with the assets they have and fan expectations. That makes your opportunities to improve MUCH more limited.

You won't get away with saying to Montreal or Toronto, "just FYI, we're going to suck the next few years, but stick with us! I promise in about a decade, maybe even less, it will have all been worth it!" And while no teams have ever outright made a statement like that, there ARE franchises that take that approach.

So when we're comparing Glen Sather to other GMs, I think it's a bit easier if the category is more narrowly defined. I would throw teams like Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Detroit, Boston, etc.. in the same situation as us. There are probably a few more. So when those guys are your basis for comparison, and you ONLY look at the bottom line (two ECF appearances, one SCF appearance, in the past 3 years), we'd appear to be better off than the vast majority of that group.

That having been said, I think we've had the chance to rise to the top of that group and Sather's been what's held us back. I hate when people do this (ask rhetoricals that require research to dispute), so I'll tip my hat if I'm proven wrong. But does anyone else feel like the top teams in our "group" so to speak don't make the same kinds of moves we do? I mean, Philly/Toronto/Vancouver are always looking to make that massive free agency splash. The two teams that have won Cups recently though (Detroit and Boston) don't seem to do that. Nor do they seem to throw draft picks around like candy on Halloween while taking a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. Their GMs don't seem to operate with the belief that they can always dig themselves out of a whole if the move they make creates one. And maybe Slats operates that way because his relationship with Dolan allows him to.

I think we can all agree that, no matter what the team situation, cost-effective young talent is ESSENTIAL to building a winner. Let's look at the highlight reel of what we've done in the draft during Slats' time:
Dominic Moore, Henrik Lundqvist, Lauri Korpikoski, Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky, Marc Staal, Michael Sauer, Artem Anisimov, Carl Hagelin, Michael Del Zotto, Derek Stepan, Dale Weise, Chris Kreider, Jesper Fast, J.T. Miller, and these three which I'm including just based on what we've heard about them - Brady Skjei, Pavel Buchnevich, Anthony Duclair.

That, to me, is a pretty damn good track record. We've turned a quality NHLer out of almost every draft. And I understand you can't keep everyone. Contract disputes happen, situations change, emotions play in, etc.. But we've shown an ability to make good use of our draft picks, which makes me wonder why Slats seems to use them as his starting point in every trade negotiation. There's a reason other teams jump on those kinds of offers. Keeping your team young, talented and (most importantly) cost effective is absolutely essential. And every time he throws those picks in to trade offers, he's risking missing out on the next big thing for our team.

My problem with Slats, therefore, is not with his staff or drafting results. It's with his asset valuation. Plenty of people on here, when Nash didn't live up to expectations, said stuff like, "well look at his career numbers. He's actually performing like he always does. This isn't a surprise exactly." If that's the case, how could a GM who has been in the business for so long not see that potential outcome? And what a surprise: he pushes homegrown role players out the door, and throws in a prospect (former 1st rounder) and a draft pick (another 1st rounder) while doing so. And then he finds himself trading a guy who scored 40 goals with the Rangers, twice, just to cover up for the mistake he recognized he made.

Now you can see him doing a similar thing. We didn't have a 1st rounder in 2013, we didn't have one in 2014, and we won't have one in 2015. So now you can see him scrambling to make up for that with signing all these undrafted young players. It's the old Slats adage of putting himself in a hole, rolling the dice and hoping he gets lucky by getting out of it. Breaking even should NEVER be a best-case scenario.

This brings me back to his GM philosophy and attitude. The aloof silence with regard to media, the stiff-arm approach given to his homegrown players, the poor trades and dumb gimmes (like letting guys like Parenteau and Weise walk for nothing), and throughout it all, the most offensive characteristic: a blatant refusal to change. He often makes mistakes, but it never impacts his philosophy or mule-headedness. He'll keep trying the same thing, and when he whiffs (which is often) he'll scramble to cover it. If relations were souring with Torts, Gaborik should've never been shopped based on that relationship. Trading Gaborik wouldn't have been necessary if Slats had been smarter about the Nash trade. And lo and behold, the cycle continues.

I don't know. I feel like we would be better off if everything else stayed the same and the guy responsible for the ultimate decisions were gone. I think the only reason he's come close to building a winner is because he's tried everything else first, not because he's been planning it all along. He only changes his ways when he has to. I guess my questions are:
-Why do the winning teams in similar situations not seem to make the same kinds of moves Slats does?
-I get that players are now willing to take less money to come here as UFA's, but why do we seem to have such difficulty retaining the ones we already have? And why does it seem like we're overpaying several players given their production and the value of their services, just to keep them around?
-Why do certain players just seem to "sour" on management, break off communication, and ultimately get pushed out the door? I don't see this happening much with other teams in our situation.
-Why after seeing what patient drafting and developing has done for the team would Slats choose to abandon it for his old ways?

This whole thread was about my taking umbrage with Slats' stubbornness, poor recognition of what value he has, consistent repeated mistakes, difficulty with keeping our own players around, and his impatience. I know Phil won't agree with this, because it is in fact heaping the bad on Slats without attributing to him any of the good, but I honestly feel like we've gotten as far as we have in spite of Sather, not because of Sather.