PDA

View Full Version : 70. Success, Bust or In Between: Brad Richards



Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 02:55 PM
Most of you know the series by now, but for those of you who don't, here's the run down:



• Former talents of the New York Rangers (players, coaches, general managers) are to be critiqued and voted on regarding their career/years with the club, and only their career/years with the club.
• Any performances by the player, coach or general manager from outside their time spent with the New York Rangers should absolutely not factor into your vote.
• You can vote them either a success, a bust or in between if you don't feel they deserve either extreme.


While no one will punish you for not backing up your vote with an argument, we'd prefer you include a reason why you are voting for whatever you're voting for.

----------

Next in the series is…

BRAD RICHARDS

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4334542/BSBH/SBI/BRichards_SBI.jpg


Regular Season Statistics:


2011-12
82 GP, 25-41-66, 0.80 P/G, -1, 22 PIM, 7 PPG, 1 SHG

2012-13
46 GP, 11-23-34, 0.74 P/G, +8, 14 PIM, 3 PPG, 1 SHG

2013-14
82 GP, 20-31-51, 0.62 P/G, -8, 18 PIM, 5 PPG, 0 SHG


Awards:


None

--

Regular Season Totals:


210 GP, 56-95-151, 0.72 P/G, 54 PIM


Playoffs Statistics:


2011-12
20 GP, 6-9-15, -2, 8 PIM, 2 PPG, 0 SHG

2012-13
10 GP, 1-0-1, -3, 2 PIM, 0 PPG, 0 SHG

2013-14
25 GP, 5-7-12, -2, 4 PIM, 2 PPG, 0 SHG

--

Playoffs Totals:


55 GP, 12-16-28, 14 PIM


----------

Previous Poll Results:

Success

66. Brandon Prust (100%)
41. Mike Richter (99%)
16. Michael Nylander (98%)
36. Brian Leetch (97%)
8. Mike Gartner (97%)
12. Pat Verbeek (97%)
34. Adam Graves (94%)
29. Mathew Barnaby (94%)
15. Jaromir Jágr (94%)
61. Vinny Prospal (93%)
50. Blair Betts (93%)
43. (C) Mike Keenan(91%)
14. Sean Avery (91%)*
35. Mark Messier (88%)**
68. Marián Gáborík (85%)
18. Martin Straka (84%)
7. Wayne Gretzky (84%)
31. Jason Strudwick (78%)**
53. Glen Healy (73%)
67. Ruslan Fedotenko (73%)
23. Mike York (73%)
47. Colton Orr (72%)
42. (C) Tom Renney (69%)
5. Theoren Fleury (62%)
48. Paul Mara (60%)
44. (GM) Neil Smith (58%)
21. Martin Rucinsky (46%)**
26. Darius Kasparaitis (45%)
4. Petr Nedved (44%)**
2. Pavel Bure: Success (41%)

In Between

58. Niklas Sundstrom (86%)
1. Eric Lindros (80%)
65. Artem Anisimov (71%)
38. Nigel Dawes (67%)
20. Radek Dvorak(67%)
33. John Maclean (65%)
39. Matt Cullen (63%)
22. Jan Hlavac (63%)**
54. Michal Rozsíval (62%)
24. Marek Malík(62%)
40. Markus Näslund (61%)
37. Petr Prucha (60%)
69. Michael Del Zotto (60%)
45. Steve Rucchin (59%)
17. Brendan Shanahan (58%)
56. Derek Boogaard (57%)
63. Steve Valiquette (56%)
9. Bernie Nicholls (55%)
19. Alexei Kovalev (54%)**
49. Nikolai Zherdev (52%)
62. Bryan McCabe (52%)
64. Brandon Dubinsky (51%)
55. Aaron Voros (50%)
28. Tom Poti (50%)
11. Dan Blackburn (49%)
13. Kevin Weekes (43%)


Bust

57. Alex Frolov (100%)
32. Valeri Kamensky (93%)
51. Ales Kotalík (80%)
52. Chris Higgins (77%)
3. Bobby Holík (76%)
30. Ryan Hollweg (73%)
25. Manny Malholtra (69%)
60. Matt Gilroy (62%)
59. Chris Drury (59%)
10. Marcel Dionne (58%)
27. Mike Dunham (58%)
46. Scott Gomez (56%)
6. Luc Robitaille (43%)


----------

Notes

*A player was polled for his first stint, but then returned for a second
**A player with more than one stint, but being judged as a whole

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 03:01 PM
In between for me. He was never the player we expected him to be when he was signed, yet he did definitely add something to the locker room. If his play matched his paycheck, we might have 1 or more championships already. He certainly did fizzle the past two post seasons.

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-29-2014, 03:09 PM
In between, basically for the reasons listed above me

I don't think he had as drastic of an impact as we hoped he had. But it seemed like he quietly put up good numbers and proved himself to be a valuable leader. Overpaid but not bad.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 03:16 PM
See, this I'd actually call a success. I'm totally aware of the end-of-year fall-offs, the healthy scratch in the playoffs, the reduced role, etc. but he was the second highest scoring forward in year one, third highest in years two and three (regular season), and lead the team in scoring in the playoffs in 11-12. We went to the Eastern Conference Final, Eastern Semi Final and Stanley Cup Final in each of his three seasons here, respectively. I don't think you can take that away from him. He may not have been the most important guy statistically, but the way the team rushed to his defense twice now (Tortorella, recapture) says a lot about his value to that locker room.

I think every one of his teammates would line up to praise him as a player and as a team mate, and I think that, coupled with some really solid stretches of production put him just above the mark. The only real knocks on him were that the Rangers signed him at the age of 32, when time was already working against him, and the fact he became an after-the-fact victim of Cap Recapture.

He just makes it to success for me when I account for total picture.

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 03:28 PM
See, this I'd actually call a success. I'm totally aware of the end-of-year fall-offs, the healthy scratch in the playoffs, the reduced role, etc. but he was the second highest scoring forward in year one, third highest in years two and three (regular season), and lead the team in scoring in the playoffs in 11-12. We went to the Eastern Conference Final, Eastern Semi Final and Stanley Cup Final in each of his three seasons here, respectively. I don't think you can take that away from him. He may not have been the most important guy statistically, but the way the team rushed to his defense twice now (Tortorella, recapture) says a lot about his value to that locker room.

I think every one of his teammates would line up to praise him as a player and as a team mate, and I think that, coupled with some really solid stretches of production put him just above the mark. The only real knocks on him were that the Rangers signed him at the age of 32, when time was already working against him, and the fact he became an after-the-fact victim of Cap Recapture.

He just makes it to success for me when I account for total picture.

I'd argue that the Rangers were the benefit of recapture. They were able to remove Redden and now Richards bloated contracts because of it and the amnesty buyouts that came along with that. We'd just be getting rid of Redden on the Summer Cap right now and if we still had Richards on the roster this year (and his $6.67M cap hit), we'd currently be like $5M over the cap. Who would you like to see go so Richards could stay at that number? It would almost have to be Brassard plus another $1M or so elsewhere.

Richards made that choice extremely easy, regardless of how difficult Sather might claim the decision was. Each year he regressed statistically, even though game play wise, he was better this past regular season than the year before. He clearly no longer has the stamina to be an NHL regular in the post season if you expect to play through 4 rounds.

Morphinity
07-29-2014, 03:28 PM
I can't call someone who played 1/3 of his contract before being bought out a success. He had his ups and downs here. He's a classic 'tweener.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 03:29 PM
I'd argue that the Rangers were the benefit of recapture. They were able to remove Redden and now Richards bloated contracts because of it and the amnesty buyouts that came along with that. We'd just be getting rid of Redden on the Summer Cap right now and if we still had Richards on the roster this year (and his $6.67M cap hit), we'd currently be like $5M over the cap. Who would you like to see go so Richards could stay at that number? It would almost have to be Brassard plus another $1M or so elsewhere.

Richards made that choice extremely easy, regardless of how difficult Sather might claim the decision was. Each year he regressed statistically, even though game play wise, he was better this past regular season than the year before. He clearly no longer has the stamina to be an NHL regular in the post season if you expect to play through 4 rounds.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't really change the fact that his tenure as a Ranger was a success... to me, at least.

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-29-2014, 03:33 PM
See, this I'd actually call a success. I'm totally aware of the end-of-year fall-offs, the healthy scratch in the playoffs, the reduced role, etc. but he was the second highest scoring forward in year one, third highest in years two and three (regular season), and lead the team in scoring in the playoffs in 11-12. We went to the Eastern Conference Final, Eastern Semi Final and Stanley Cup Final in each of his three seasons here, respectively. I don't think you can take that away from him. He may not have been the most important guy statistically, but the way the team rushed to his defense twice now (Tortorella, recapture) says a lot about his value to that locker room.

I think every one of his teammates would line up to praise him as a player and as a team mate, and I think that, coupled with some really solid stretches of production put him just above the mark. The only real knocks on him were that the Rangers signed him at the age of 32, when time was already working against him, and the fact he became an after-the-fact victim of Cap Recapture.

He just makes it to success for me when I account for total picture.

It's good points about the team's overall success with him. I think we've definitely had 2, and arguably 3 successful years while he was here. I just feel that he didn't meet what (maybe too high) expectations we had of him enough to call it a success.

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 03:34 PM
I don't disagree, but that doesn't really change the fact that his tenure as a Ranger was a success... to me, at least.

The team was a success over his tenure, but I don't think that's the same thing. I think some of their success was due to him, but some of it was in spite of his failings. And their ultimate failure to win a cup is in part because of his lack of ability to sustain his game through a deep run. He had 2g, 4a against Philly. 2g, 1a against Pittsburgh. 1g, 1a against Montreal. 1a against LA. That's a disappearing act.

Pete
07-29-2014, 03:35 PM
Bust. Complete and total bust.

He was brought here to be a #1 center and PP QB. He couldn't do either of those things, to the point where the entire hockey world was screaming for AV to take him off of the powerplay, and he ended his tenure here as a 4th line player. He had 3 of his worst seasons in the NHL in NY. I think a lot of the "In Betweens" are even because he ended up being the de-facto captain and a likable guy....I think there's some pity being taken on him.

I can't even imagine how he'd be considered a success when he did not do anything he was brought here to do. The fact that the team had some success while he was here is irrelevant to me, he wasn't the reason for the success. They were successful in spite of him, not because of him.

Super-bust for me, and it's not even close.

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-29-2014, 03:42 PM
Those are definitely roles we wanted out of him and he certainly wasn't those roles, but despite that, he managed to produce and find his own ways to help us win. That's why I wouldn't call him a bust. It definitely reflects that he couldn't be a success though

Morphinity
07-29-2014, 04:03 PM
Bust. Complete and total bust.

He was brought here to be a #1 center and PP QB. He couldn't do either of those things, to the point where the entire hockey world was screaming for AV to take him off of the powerplay, and he ended his tenure here as a 4th line player. He had 3 of his worst seasons in the NHL in NY. I think a lot of the "In Betweens" are even because he ended up being the de-facto captain and a likable guy....I think there's some pity being taken on him.

I can't even imagine how he'd be considered a success when he did not do anything he was brought here to do. The fact that the team had some success while he was here is irrelevant to me, he wasn't the reason for the success. They were successful in spite of him, not because of him.

Super-bust for me, and it's not even close.

I put value in that.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 04:06 PM
He was brought here to be a top-end scoring center and to provide leadership in gunning for a Stanley Cup. His age/legs failed him over time, and we fell short of a victory for the latter, so as far as I'm concerned, at the very worst, he's an in between. He is miles from a bust. He'd have had to have a Redden-like fall for that word to enter the picture. If we were talking about him coming in and having his P/G get cut in half, for example, where he was a healthy scratch numerous times over a few seasons and basically failed to help the team in any discernible way (think Ville Leino), I'd buy it.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:14 PM
He went from a 90 point player to a 60 point player. Again, the worst seasons of his career in NY. I understand why he was bad, but that doesn't change that for the most part, he was bad. You can't sign a contract like that, have a handful of bright moments, be a a nice locker room guy, and be considered a success, IMO.

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 04:14 PM
Bust. Complete and total bust.

He was brought here to be a #1 center and PP QB. He couldn't do either of those things, to the point where the entire hockey world was screaming for AV to take him off of the powerplay, and he ended his tenure here as a 4th line player. He had 3 of his worst seasons in the NHL in NY. I think a lot of the "In Betweens" are even because he ended up being the de-facto captain and a likable guy....I think there's some pity being taken on him.

I can't even imagine how he'd be considered a success when he did not do anything he was brought here to do. The fact that the team had some success while he was here is irrelevant to me, he wasn't the reason for the success. They were successful in spite of him, not because of him.

Super-bust for me, and it's not even close.

Pete, I did a quick search and saw that for Chris Drury, you voted for In-Between. Now, maybe years removed you don't feel that way any more and instead see him as a bust, but if not, what differences do you see between Richard's tenure with us and Drury's that make you see such a stark difference?

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 04:18 PM
He went from a 90 point player to a 60 point player. Again, the worst seasons of his career in NY. I understand why he was bad, but that doesn't change that for the most part, he was bad. You can't sign a contract like that, have a handful of bright moments, be a a nice locker room guy, and be considered a success, IMO.

Maybe, but that same logic applies in reverse. How is he a bust? You got an average of 0.72 P/G (60 points) for $6M~ on the UFA market plus leadership.

fletch
07-29-2014, 04:22 PM
I appreciate that this thread has three options, but I'm limiting myself to two options: success or bust. My ratiionale - in between is too easy of an option, because it's easy to talk yourself into that option without making a stand one way or another.

Given the choices of success or bust, unfortunately I have to choose bust. Richards certainly made contributions to a team that had two deep post-season runs. However, his on-ice contributions failed to match my expectations. His regular season numbers are OK, but I just didn't see enough quality play from him in the offensive zone during the playoffs. People defending his play would probably focus on his leadership, intangibles, and unsung contribitions during the playoffs - but simply focusing on the on-ice performance deems him a bust for me. He was a veteran presence on a successful team, and I expected more.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:24 PM
Pete, I did a quick search and saw that for Chris Drury, you voted for In-Between. Now, maybe years removed you don't feel that way any more and instead see him as a bust, but if not, what differences do you see between Richard's tenure with us and Drury's that make you see such a stark difference?I figured someone would bring that up. :rolleyes:

Drury put up the same humber of points he usually did, aside from 2 years that were anomalies where he pushed 40 goals and cashed in because of it. Then he started getting hurt. He didn't come here and get immediately worse than he ever was, like Richards did.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:25 PM
Maybe, but that same logic applies in reverse. How is he a bust? You got an average of 0.72 P/G (60 points) for $6M~ on the UFA market plus leadership.

He's a bust because we didn't sign him to be a 60 point player.

Patrick Bateman
07-29-2014, 04:26 PM
They went to the conference finals and the Stanley cup in two of his years here, and I don't think they make it as far without him. He scored some timely goals in 2012, and his leadership played a big role in rallying the team this past season. It's easy to look at his numbers and call him a bust, but looking at the big picture I would say he was a success. He was a big part of the most successful rangers teams we've seen in decades

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:27 PM
They went to the conference finals and the Stanley cup in two of his years here, and I don't think they make it as far without him. He scored some timely goals in 2012, and his leadership played a big role in rallying the team this past season. It's easy to look at his numbers and call him a bust, but looking at the big picture I would say he was a success. He was the big part of the most successful rangers teams we've seen in decades

But he wasn't.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 04:28 PM
He's a bust because we didn't sign him to be a 60 point player.

So you are judging the player on points alone? His leadership, the way the team rallied around him at key points, the way he took players under his wing (Del Zotto especially) mean nothing?

Patrick Bateman
07-29-2014, 04:28 PM
a*

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:29 PM
So you are judging the player on points alone? His leadership, the way the team rallied around him at key points, the way he took players under his wing (Del Zotto especially) mean nothing?

Not enough to push him to In-Between...I mean did he really help Del Zotto? Look where he is now...

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:29 PM
a*

Still wasn't.

Patrick Bateman
07-29-2014, 04:32 PM
If he doesn't score that goal at the end of regulation to force overtime in game 5 the Rangers go home in game 6. He was directly responsible for them advancing that season

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 04:32 PM
I figured someone would bring that up. :rolleyes:

Drury put up the same humber of points he usually did, aside from 2 years that were anomalies where he pushed 40 goals and cashed in because of it. Then he started getting hurt. He didn't come here and get immediately worse than he ever was, like Richards did.

Just for fun, I decided to compare their stats as Rangers and made a startling discovery:

Drury
264gp, 62g, 89a, 151p (.57ppg)
21gp, 4g, 4a, 8p (.38ppg)

Richards:
210gp, 56g, 95a, 151p (.72ppg)
55gp, 12g, 16a, 28p (.51ppg)

How long until that factoid ends up in a Brooks article?

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:35 PM
Just for fun, I decided to compare their stats as Rangers and made a startling discovery:

Drury
264gp, 62g, 89a, 151p (.57ppg)
21gp, 4g, 4a, 8p (.38ppg)

Richards:
210gp, 56g, 95a, 151p (.72ppg)
55gp, 12g, 16a, 28p (.51ppg)

How long until that factoid ends up in a Brooks article?
I'm not really sure how this matters, or why we are comparing players. Drury was never a 90 point player. Drury did the job we signed him to do, be a solid, 2 way, 2nd line center.

Richards didn't do the job we signed him to do.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:36 PM
If he doesn't score that goal at the end of regulation to force overtime in game 5 the Rangers go home in game 6. He was directly responsible for them advancing that season
Well of course, because it's completely out of the realm of possibility that anyone else would score there...

Patrick Bateman
07-29-2014, 04:38 PM
I'm not really sure how this matters, or why we are comparing players. Drury was never a 90 point player. Drury did the job we signed him to do, be a solid, 2 way, 2nd line center.

Richards didn't do the job we signed him to do.

He did though. I'd like to think they sign players who will contribute to the overall success of the team rather than just contribute to their own stat lines

AmericanJesus
07-29-2014, 04:38 PM
I'm not really sure how this matters, or why we are comparing players. Drury was never a 90 point player. Drury did the job we signed him to do, be a solid, 2 way, 2nd line center.

Richards didn't do the job we signed him to do.

I just wanted to see how they stacked up production wise. I often look up these things and compare without even posting them. I just thought the fact that both big ticket UFA centers put up the exact same number of points with the Rangers was too good not to post.

As to asking you about what you saw differently between the two, you've answered with some good points.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 04:41 PM
Not enough to push him to In-Between...I mean did he really help Del Zotto? Look where he is now...

That's just one very specific case.

I think it's kinda clear the impact he had on the room, no? I mean, not to dig up old graves, but the entire post-Tortorella rally, the way the team responded to his playoff scratch (warranted or not), the Brad and Marty show, etc. I mean, they really took to him. The de facto captain stuff really can't be understated, either. The team traded their captain and went captainless into the post-season that year, and all of this with recapture and a buyout looming over his head. He was able to handle off of that and still contribute, even if it was in a role that reduced over time.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:45 PM
That's just one very specific case.

I think it's kinda clear the impact he had on the room, no? I mean, not to dig up old graves, but the entire post-Tortorella rally, the way the team responded to his playoff scratch (warranted or not), the Brad and Marty show, etc. I mean, they really took to him. The de facto captain stuff really can't be understated, either. The team traded their captain and went captainless into the post-season that year, and all of this with recapture and a buyout looming over his head. He was able to handle off of that and still contribute, even if it was in a role that reduced over time.

This has no effect on whether he was a bust. Guys liked him...OK...

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 04:46 PM
This has no effect on whether he was a bust. Guys liked him...OK...

Sure it does. It's not about "guys liking him". It's about him embracing a role on the team, and filling it to a positive outcome/response. Do you honestly believe leadership and the gravity of a player in a locker room are meaningless? I mean, I think I know a guy who'd pretty quickly debunk that (http://blog.nj.com/rangers_main/2009/08/large_mess815.jpg).

I'm not trying to say "he was popular, therefor he was good". In fact, don't even take anything I'm saying here as a justification for my deeming him a success. All I'm doing with this is trying to illustrate how he wasn't a bust.

NYR2711
07-29-2014, 04:48 PM
I went with in between. He wasn't a success to me because he was brought here to be the teams best center and a leading scorer. He was supposed to help out a bad power play, and be our top line center, and he failed to accomplish that. He isn't a bust because while he didn't put up the points we were expecting, he did manage o put up 60 points, and he did have a good locker room presence. I don't put the teams success on him either though. He was just an in between player for me, and I had higher expectations for him than what he did here.

Pete
07-29-2014, 04:58 PM
Sure it does. It's not about "guys liking him". It's about him embracing a role on the team, and filling it to a positive outcome/response. Do you honestly believe leadership and the gravity of a player in a locker room are meaningless? I mean, I think I know a guy who'd pretty quickly debunk that (http://blog.nj.com/rangers_main/2009/08/large_mess815.jpg).

I'm not trying to say "he was popular, therefor he was good". In fact, don't even take anything I'm saying here as a justification for my deeming him a success. All I'm doing with this is trying to illustrate how he wasn't a bust.

I can't even see how you'd compare Richards to Messier. Richards, the player, was a bust. He didn't do what he was signed to do. He wasn't a top level center, he wasn't a PPQB. The one thing that you're claiming he did had the least amount of impact on the ice, and he was brought here to make an impact on the ice first and foremost.

Phil in Absentia
07-29-2014, 05:49 PM
I can't even see how you'd compare Richards to Messier. Richards, the player, was a bust. He didn't do what he was signed to do. He wasn't a top level center, he wasn't a PPQB. The one thing that you're claiming he did had the least amount of impact on the ice, and he was brought here to make an impact on the ice first and foremost.

I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate a point that leadership matters, and that it factors into this type of poll, and his leadership qualities prevent him from being a bust.

Kevin
07-29-2014, 06:06 PM
Although I never really had any love for B Rich, I voted in-between. Not that this is the be-all and end-all but he did play an integral part in a team that went to the Eastern Conference finals and, to a lesser extent, the Stanley Cup Finals. I do think he was a major disappointment for what we expected but the team results were still pretty darn good so I'll give him a little of the credit.

Pete
07-29-2014, 06:18 PM
I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate a point that leadership matters, and that it factors into this type of poll, and his leadership qualities prevent him from being a bust.

Not IMO. His on ice deficiencies are too glaring.

CreaseCrusader91
07-29-2014, 06:34 PM
I am not going to rehash, or at least I will try not to. I voted for all the reasons Rome laid out. The buy out is the buy out, but neither side thought the other was committed for nine years. The Rangers got creative to dilute the cap hit. Had the CBA not been re-written, he'd likely still be a Ranger. If things got worse they would have found a way to trade him because of how the deal was structured. He didn't do the best job on the ice.

However, it is fair to say he changed the culture here. Phil outlined that in talking about his leadership abilities. I think he deserves a ton of praise for restraining himself at times while Cally was here. That takes real leadership to put your trust in someone else, even though your experience etc tells you other wise. We saw the impact he had once Callahan was gone, and this team changed.

Yes the death of MSL's mother kickstarted things in the playoffs, but I feel Richards' example and class spoke volumes. How many other players who have held their tongue after what transpired with back-to-back benchings?

Look, I understand the money argument the point total and all that other stuff. You all know I am a Richards mark. However, I think this is a situation where the team became better, will be better for him being a member of it. In between to me would say he neither helped or hurt this team.

That is just me, but I can understand the logic of others.

The Dude
07-29-2014, 06:42 PM
Bust. Was only a game changer when he first got hete then he fizzled out big time. Confidence, or pressure. IDK. He just never played with that electricity that you expected from such a good player.

His inability to win a draw drove me nuts, along with his consistent place on the PP point where he was extremely ineffective his whole time here.

We saw flashes of a brilliant player. Few and far between imo.

I say bust.

momentum
07-29-2014, 07:12 PM
Bust. Complete and total bust.

He was brought here to be a #1 center and PP QB. He couldn't do either of those things, to the point where the entire hockey world was screaming for AV to take him off of the powerplay, and he ended his tenure here as a 4th line player. He had 3 of his worst seasons in the NHL in NY. I think a lot of the "In Betweens" are even because he ended up being the de-facto captain and a likable guy....I think there's some pity being taken on him.

I can't even imagine how he'd be considered a success when he did not do anything he was brought here to do. The fact that the team had some success while he was here is irrelevant to me, he wasn't the reason for the success. They were successful in spite of him, not because of him.

Super-bust for me, and it's not even close.

Gotta go with Pete on this one, our team had success with him here DESPITE that he didn't bring to the table what we though when signing him, not BECAUSE of it. Who knows how the Stanley Cup final would have ended if we had the Richards who could be the top line center and PP catalyst instead of a 3rd line defensive forward which is effectively what he was at the end.

Respecttheblue
07-29-2014, 11:33 PM
See, this I'd actually call a success. I'm totally aware of the end-of-year fall-offs, the healthy scratch in the playoffs, the reduced role, etc. but he was the second highest scoring forward in year one, third highest in years two and three (regular season), and lead the team in scoring in the playoffs in 11-12. We went to the Eastern Conference Final, Eastern Semi Final and Stanley Cup Final in each of his three seasons here, respectively. I don't think you can take that away from him. He may not have been the most important guy statistically, but the way the team rushed to his defense twice now (Tortorella, recapture) says a lot about his value to that locker room.

I think every one of his teammates would line up to praise him as a player and as a team mate, and I think that, coupled with some really solid stretches of production put him just above the mark. The only real knocks on him were that the Rangers signed him at the age of 32, when time was already working against him, and the fact he became an after-the-fact victim of Cap Recapture.

He just makes it to success for me when I account for total picture.


I'm in the same success camp for the much the same reasons...except I'd perversely add that the amnesty was part of the success. His ended up, for better or worse being the contact that had an escape pod, no matter how unwitting. So we got 2/3 good years and Brad's one fucked up year helped get Tortorella out of here before things went from bad to worse...or we wouldn't be watching the far more entertaining and successful hockey and coaching we are now.

Great leadership from Brad, helped some players be better in unseen ways, but could not do as much as we hoped. Some clutch wizardry scoring on the ice before the wheels started falling off at the end of seasons.

Still a success in that he got 80-90% of the way there. I'm not asking for absolute success, or absolute bang for the buck in a review like this, just close enough.

Now, if he had stayed, I'm think we'd be looking at a $6 million 3rd one center for too many out years and that would not be OK. But we're not. He's not, and we're all good.

Thanks Brad. Wish we could have maybe had you back for the "great deal" price Chicago is getting you for, and for the right role they are putting you in —*now that's a perfect fit.

Mike
07-30-2014, 12:01 AM
Somewhere in the middle of "in between", and "bust". Didn't do what he was brought here to do. Made some adjustments to be serviceable. Not enough, though. Not enough.

lefty9
07-30-2014, 08:26 AM
In between.
If the options were only bust or success, I would go with bust ,he never scored enough, he didnt create enough offense , and was a bust on the power play

Pete
07-30-2014, 09:44 AM
I am not going to rehash, or at least I will try not to. I voted for all the reasons Rome laid out. The buy out is the buy out, but neither side thought the other was committed for nine years. The Rangers got creative to dilute the cap hit. Had the CBA not been re-written, he'd likely still be a Ranger. If things got worse they would have found a way to trade him because of how the deal was structured. He didn't do the best job on the ice.

However, it is fair to say he changed the culture here. Phil outlined that in talking about his leadership abilities. I think he deserves a ton of praise for restraining himself at times while Cally was here. That takes real leadership to put your trust in someone else, even though your experience etc tells you other wise. We saw the impact he had once Callahan was gone, and this team changed.

Yes the death of MSL's mother kickstarted things in the playoffs, but I feel Richards' example and class spoke volumes. How many other players who have held their tongue after what transpired with back-to-back benchings?

Look, I understand the money argument the point total and all that other stuff. You all know I am a Richards mark. However, I think this is a situation where the team became better, will be better for him being a member of it. In between to me would say he neither helped or hurt this team.

That is just me, but I can understand the logic of others.


I'm in the same success camp for the much the same reasons...except I'd perversely add that the amnesty was part of the success. His ended up, for better or worse being the contact that had an escape pod, no matter how unwitting. So we got 2/3 good years and Brad's one fucked up year helped get Tortorella out of here before things went from bad to worse...or we wouldn't be watching the far more entertaining and successful hockey and coaching we are now.

Great leadership from Brad, helped some players be better in unseen ways, but could not do as much as we hoped. Some clutch wizardry scoring on the ice before the wheels started falling off at the end of seasons.

Still a success in that he got 80-90% of the way there. I'm not asking for absolute success, or absolute bang for the buck in a review like this, just close enough.

Now, if he had stayed, I'm think we'd be looking at a $6 million 3rd one center for too many out years and that would not be OK. But we're not. He's not, and we're all good.

Thanks Brad. Wish we could have maybe had you back for the "great deal" price Chicago is getting you for, and for the right role they are putting you in —*now that's a perfect fit.


No, I want to paint Richards as not a bust. I explained that before.

I personally voted him a success, but I'm fine with the idea of others not agreeing. I could live with an In Between response, because I can understand that argument easily. I just don't think he fits the "bust" mold at all.

But that's for the Richards thread.

Even if I agreed, how does this push him from bust, right past in between, to success?

I hope you guys voted Redden a success for being well liked and mentoring youth in Hartford...

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-30-2014, 09:52 AM
Even if I agreed, how does this push him from bust, right past in between, to success?

I hope you guys voted Redden a success for being well liked and mentoring youth in Hartford...

thats really a key point in the success/bust/inbetween discussion. Kind of hard to be anything bust a bust when you are in the minors.

Pete
07-30-2014, 09:53 AM
thats really a key point in the success/bust/inbetween discussion. Kind of hard to be anything bust a bust when you are in the minors.

I could say the same thing when you're made a scratch and demoted to the 4th line in consecutive playoffs...

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-30-2014, 10:05 AM
lol you could

I don't think it's unreasonable to call Richards a bust, I just think that, when you include the other factors and also account for the fact that he still produced a lot and had some key goals (like game 5 vs Washington, scored in game 7 that series, scored in game 7 against Pittsburgh) that it bumps him up to an inbetween. I wouldn't call him a success at all but I think he earned the right to not be a bust.

Phil in Absentia
07-30-2014, 10:41 AM
Even if I agreed, how does this push him from bust, right past in between, to success?

I hope you guys voted Redden a success for being well liked and mentoring youth in Hartford...

In a lot of the same ways I voted Drury a success. A contract is not the player, even if the contract ultimately leads to why that player leaves (like Drury).

He was brought in to be a veteran scoring leader who would take the team far in the playoffs. All check marks completed, even if the after taste at the end isn't as sweet as you envisioned.

But again, I'm not trying to justify my success vote. I'm trying to invalidate your bust vote.

I'd compromise and say in between, but I'm not sure how we get you up from "super bust". I mean, in essence you are lumping him into the same bucket as Bobby Holík and Valeri Kamensky.

Pete
07-30-2014, 10:45 AM
lol you could

I don't think it's unreasonable to call Richards a bust, I just think that, when you include the other factors and also account for the fact that he still produced a lot and had some key goals (like game 5 vs Washington, scored in game 7 that series, scored in game 7 against Pittsburgh) that it bumps him up to an inbetween. I wouldn't call him a success at all but I think he earned the right to not be a bust.

I feel he's a bust, but I could see how somebody could vote in between, I think that's reasonable. I think it's unfathomable to call him a success.

Pete
07-30-2014, 10:59 AM
In a lot of the same ways I voted Drury a success. A contract is not the player, even if the contract ultimately leads to why that player leaves (like Drury).

He was brought in to be a veteran scoring leader who would take the team far in the playoffs. All check marks completed, even if the after taste at the end isn't as sweet as you envisioned.

But again, I'm not trying to justify my success vote. I'm trying to invalidate your bust vote.

I'd compromise and say in between, but I'm not sure how we get you up from "super bust". I mean, in essence you are lumping him into the same bucket as Bobby Holík and Valeri Kamensky.

I feel my bust vote is far more credible than your success vote.

The "all check marks competed" comment, I don't even know what to do with that. You have to really skew the situation to come to that conclusion. He was brought in to be top line player and PPQB. He was neither. He ended his tenure here going from second line left wing to 3rd line center to 4th line center and the PP was shit.

Again, to me, it's unfathomable how anyone can say he did what he was brought in to do.

He didn't take the team anywhere. They had success despite him, not because of him.

We've been over Drury. They don't compare. You know all the reasons why. Do I need to list them?

Morphinity
07-30-2014, 11:01 AM
Well, he was definitely a PPQB for us. He was just not very good at it.

Pete
07-30-2014, 11:04 AM
Well, he was definitely a PPQB for us. He was just not very good at it.

I'd this really even worth getting into? Is anyone ever brought in to be bad at something?

I think you're bored.

Morphinity
07-30-2014, 11:10 AM
I'd this really even worth getting into? Is anyone ever brought in to be bad at something?

I think you're bored.

Chill.

He was brought in to be the PPQB. They tried mightily for him to succeed at being a PPQB. Even when he was on the 4th line, he was still on the powerplay for the most part. He was not good at it, no matter what was done.

I'm just trying to qualify your statement that he wasn't a PPQB. Because he was. He was just not good.

Pete
07-30-2014, 11:12 AM
Chill.

He was brought in to be the PPQB. They tried mightily for him to succeed at being a PPQB. Even when he was on the 4th line, he was still on the powerplay for the most part. He was not good at it, no matter what was done.

I'm just trying to qualify your statement that he wasn't a PPQB. Because he was. He was just not good.

It's pretty irrelevant to the point, but OK.

If you're brought in to QB a PP, and the PP sucks, then you failed, IMO.

momentum
07-30-2014, 11:23 AM
I appreciate that this thread has three options, but I'm limiting myself to two options: success or bust. My ratiionale - in between is too easy of an option, because it's easy to talk yourself into that option without making a stand one way or another.

Given the choices of success or bust, unfortunately I have to choose bust. Richards certainly made contributions to a team that had two deep post-season runs. However, his on-ice contributions failed to match my expectations. His regular season numbers are OK, but I just didn't see enough quality play from him in the offensive zone during the playoffs. People defending his play would probably focus on his leadership, intangibles, and unsung contribitions during the playoffs - but simply focusing on the on-ice performance deems him a bust for me. He was a veteran presence on a successful team, and I expected more.great post, sums it up very well.

G1000
08-01-2014, 11:31 AM
The whole concept of a PPQB is complete and utter buttfuckery anyway.

The idea that one player can magically force shots to go into the net in a team sport from 65 feet away is straight up wrong. Brad Richards can't make Ryan Callahan a more accurate shooter by being a good passer. Brad Richards can't take away Rick Nash's snakebite. Brad Richards can't be an effective passer if nobody fucking finishes.

I'm not saying he was great on the point. I'm saying that the whole idea is utter buffonery because it puts way too much emphasis on something that likely doesn't mean near as much if your forwards aren't professional choke artists.

Pete
08-01-2014, 11:36 AM
The whole concept of a PPQB is complete and utter buttfuckery anyway.

The idea that one player can magically force shots to go into the net in a team sport from 65 feet away is straight up wrong. Brad Richards can't make Ryan Callahan a more accurate shooter by being a good passer. Brad Richards can't take away Rick Nash's snakebite. Brad Richards can't be an effective passer if nobody fucking finishes.

I'm not saying he was great on the point. I'm saying that the whole idea is utter buffonery because it puts way too much emphasis on something that likely doesn't mean near as much if your forwards aren't professional choke artists.

Joe Thornton doesn't agree with you. He seemed to make a number of players better. Setoguchi and Cheechoo come to mind. Also flashes of Steve Bernier.

Niko
08-01-2014, 11:59 AM
I agree with Pete on this. It's like bringing some guy to the board to be a mod and having him never actually moderate anything but make a few good threads while being liked by all on the board. He's not a bad member, but he came here to do a job and didn't do it. So in reality, he failed at his job.

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 12:07 PM
I agree with Pete on this. It's like bringing some guy to the board to be a mod and having him never actually moderate anything but make a few good threads while being liked by all on the board. He's not a bad member, but he came here to do a job and didn't do it. So in reality, he failed at his job.

Why are you calling me out like that, Niko?

Pete
08-01-2014, 12:09 PM
Why are you calling me out like that, Niko?

I didn't wanna say it.

I am Scags
08-01-2014, 01:44 PM
For me he was in between, if not slightly just a hair below in between

PROS:
-was on the team that went to two conference finals and one SCF appearance.
-brought veteran leadership and savvy to the team, especially in this 2014 run to the final.
-Scored one of, if not the most important and clutch goals in eastern semifinals vs the caps to tie up that game 5. If we lose that game we're probably
not in the semis the next week. Everyone always remembers the negatives and missed chances and yet will sometimes forget the more important moments.

CONS:
-Never lived up to the hefty contract he was given. But lets be realistic, what player at that age really does? It was to much to begin with to pay him that, but blame Mr. Sather and not Brad.
-Started aging before our eyes. Now again, a guy his age who was already a seasoned veteran is usually not going to get better. But his aging was alarming, and even if he wasn't payed that contract the Rangers may have still moved or dropped him by now simply because he was providing so little offense to the team.

What will be somewhat disheartening as a fan is to see him really bounce back well in 2014-15 on the Blackhawks. Just like Gaborik was never asked to be "the" guy when he was traded to the Kings, neither will Brad. With so much younger talent already in place theres not going to be that pressure on Brad that he had as a Ranger. His old Ranger contract despite being paid out is ripped up and in the garbage. He gets a fresh new start with a lesser contract and will just be asked to go out there and play.
It will not shock me in any way that come sometime next June, he's somewhere deep in the line of Hawks waiting to get their skate around the ice with the cup.

I am Scags
08-01-2014, 02:43 PM
Even if I agreed, how does this push him from bust, right past in between, to success?

I hope you guys voted Redden a success for being well liked and mentoring youth in Hartford...

I voted Redden a success simply for his hot wife! :cool:

Valriera
08-02-2014, 11:17 AM
This is definitely in between, but don't look at his numbers, those are why he's not a success. Richards played a key leadership role in a time when we needed him to, he stepped up and scored huge goals in numerous games (think against the caps/sens two seasons ago) and in my opinion was certainly a major factor in our cup runs. Not a success, due to poor overall numbers and disappearance at the end of the playoffs, but certainly not a bust.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that Richards was more valuable than most buyout candidates are. His contract awarded by Sather was what ultimately caused him to be bought out. He would have been highly welcome on a more reasonable price, but that's not his fault.

Mike
08-03-2014, 12:08 AM
The Chicago Blackhawks: Where overpaid Rangers go to win a cup.

DrSutton
08-05-2014, 09:48 AM
It's gotta be in-between. Richards slowed down once he got here, but you can't deny the amount of success the team has had in the last 3 years. Sad to see him go.