1998-2004 Rangers: Why were they so bad?

[Sentinel]

I would also add Messier's "captaincy" to that mix. The man clearly lost it in Vancouver and never got it back.

Those Rangers were hideous. I was especially mad at them in 1999. I believe that had they made playoffs that year, Gretzky would stay for a few more seasons. That year he was the only one on the team that was still trying.

 

[Skobel24]

From what I can remember, a few things

1. No chemistry. They signed big names, threw em on a line together. They didn't compliment each other well at all.

2. efense. No D.

3. There was no guidance by the coaching staff. They seemed to have just sent the players out, and let them do what they wanted.

It's insane just how much money they had. Holik at 8 million...

 

[Trottier]

...even though it was fun to laugh at them attempt to build all star teams (with no chemistry) only to be golfing in april, i'm soooooo glad we have a hard cap.

That was (is) the irony.

NYR spent lavi$hly in those years...and had absolutely nothing to show for it. Since they (and 29 other teams) have had to adhere to the cap, Sather has become a much better GM, based on the team's regular playoff appearances since 2005.

It was farcical back in the day, though, to read posters bemoaning how the big market teams could "buy their way to success". NYR was always held up as "Exhibit A", based on leading the league in roster payroll....

...never mind that the team was an also ran on the ice, annually.

 

[Hobnobs]

The DPE rangers teams had no depth of any kind. They either had a top line on the or a bunch of goons. Played classless sore loser hockey. Basically a quality loser team.

That was (is) the irony.

NYR spent lavi$hly in those years...and had absolutely nothing to show for it. Since they (and 29 other teams) have had to adhere to the cap, Sather has become a much better GM, based on the team's regular playoff appearances since 2005.

It was farcical back in the day, though, to read posters bemoaning how the big market teams could "buy their way to success". NYR was always held up as "Exhibit A", based on leading the league in roster payroll....

...never mind that the team was an also ran on the ice, annually.

He has? Seems to me that he keeps making the same mistakes but has been lucky enough to get rid of them.

 

[Tawnos]

He has? Seems to me that he keeps making the same mistakes but has been lucky enough to get rid of them.

This is a debate that seems more or less settled on the Rangers board lately. Yes, he does keep on making mistakes and the Rangers have the power to get rid of them when they turn bad.

After 2004, there was a youth movement on the team. It took a long time to coalesce because it was happening while the team was legitimately competitive. Take a look at the 2004 roster, pre-firesale, and you will find Brian Leetch, Alex Kovalev, Jan Hlavac, Jed Ortmeyer and Jamie Lundmark as the only "homegrown" players to play more than 50 games. Leetch was drafted almost 2 decades earlier and Kovalev/Hlavac spent significant time elsewhere before rejoining the Rangers in 2003. Ortmeyer and Lundmark the only 2 under 25 on the roster, not just homegrown. In 2005-06, you had Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Hollweg, Petr Prucha, Fedor Tyutin, Jed Ortmeyer, and Dominic Moore. Plus Marcel Hossa and Blair Betts being 25 and under and getting their first real shots at regular NHL play. Granted that the general quality of the youth wasn't particularly high. Lundqvist and Tyutin were the only ones to have solid careers as better than 4th line/3rd pair/backup G players.

That kind of thing was the usual case during the Jagr era. If you skip forward to Jagr's last year on the team. 25-and-under, over 50 games: Marc Staal, Brandon Dubinsky, Nigel Dawes, Ryan Callahan, Dan Girardi, Petr Prucha, Fedor Tyutin, Colton Orr, Ryan Hollweg, and Henrik Lundqvist. Orr was the only non-homegrown player there.

It continues and when you skip on to the year the Rangers finished first in the East, the story remains the same, although some of the homegrown guys are a little older then. 25 and under: Del Zotto, Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, Anisimov, Stralman, Dubinsky (Staal played 46 games). Homegrown over 25: Callahan, Girardi, Lundqvist.

And finally, last year when they went to the SCF. 25 and under: J. Moore, Kreider, Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, Brassard, Dorsett (plus Del Zotto, who played the first half of the year with the team). Homegrown over 25: Staal, Zuccarello, Girardi, and Lundqvist (plus, the return of Dominic Moore, Callahan was part of the team until the deadline).

There's a hugely noticeable difference in the way the team is run as far as internal player development since 2004. A lot of people credit the salary cap for that and I think there is some truth. On the other hand, when the Rangers had their firesale in 2004, Sather had convinced ownership that the team needed to go through a rebuild. The team leading into training camp in 2004-05 was absolutely horrendous on paper. There's a pretty good chance that, if there had been a season, Sidney Crosby could have easily ended up a Ranger. As it was, 05-06 was a bit of a surprise. The emergence of Hank and the resurgence of Jagr meant the team was competitive when they weren't planning to be. It changed Sather's entire 5-year plan.

 

[Tawnos]

Just to finish the thought that last post is about. The one thing that's noticeable about the Rangers continuing youth movement is that they haven't yet developed a high end first line forward. Stepan is the closest, and he's been more of a 1A so far. Potentially Kreider. So, with a lack of high end offensive talent, Sather keeps on looking elsewhere to try to get it. Thus the stream of Shanahan, Drury, Gomez, Naslund, Gaborik, Nash, St Louis. In many ways, that's what the GM should be trying to do. The draft is enough of a crapshoot that you're always going to need to supplement your homegrown group with other players. For the Rangers, those other players are top offensive guys, unfortunately.

That doesn't mean some of the signings haven't been mistakes. But at least there's a logical reason for the mistakes. Pre-2004, it was "big name, let's get him."

 

[Hobnobs]

This is a debate that seems more or less settled on the Rangers board lately. Yes, he does keep on making mistakes and the Rangers have the power to get rid of them when they turn bad.

After 2004, there was a youth movement on the team. It took a long time to coalesce because it was happening while the team was legitimately competitive. Take a look at the 2004 roster, pre-firesale, and you will find Brian Leetch, Alex Kovalev, Jan Hlavac, Jed Ortmeyer and Jamie Lundmark as the only "homegrown" players to play more than 50 games. Leetch was drafted almost 2 decades earlier and Kovalev/Hlavac spent significant time elsewhere before rejoining the Rangers in 2003. Ortmeyer and Lundmark the only 2 under 25 on the roster, not just homegrown. In 2005-06, you had Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Hollweg, Petr Prucha, Fedor Tyutin, Jed Ortmeyer, and Dominic Moore. Plus Marcel Hossa and Blair Betts being 25 and under and getting their first real shots at regular NHL play. Granted that the general quality of the youth wasn't particularly high. Lundqvist and Tyutin were the only ones to have solid careers as better than 4th line/3rd pair/backup G players.

That kind of thing was the usual case during the Jagr era. If you skip forward to Jagr's last year on the team. 25-and-under, over 50 games: Marc Staal, Brandon Dubinsky, Nigel Dawes, Ryan Callahan, Dan Girardi, Petr Prucha, Fedor Tyutin, Colton Orr, Ryan Hollweg, and Henrik Lundqvist. Orr was the only non-homegrown player there.

It continues and when you skip on to the year the Rangers finished first in the East, the story remains the same, although some of the homegrown guys are a little older then. 25 and under: Del Zotto, Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, Anisimov, Stralman, Dubinsky (Staal played 46 games). Homegrown over 25: Callahan, Girardi, Lundqvist.

And finally, last year when they went to the SCF. 25 and under: J. Moore, Kreider, Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, Brassard, Dorsett (plus Del Zotto, who played the first half of the year with the team). Homegrown over 25: Staal, Zuccarello, Girardi, and Lundqvist (plus, the return of Dominic Moore, Callahan was part of the team until the deadline).

There's a hugely noticeable difference in the way the team is run as far as internal player development since 2004. A lot of people credit the salary cap for that and I think there is some truth. On the other hand, when the Rangers had their firesale in 2004, Sather had convinced ownership that the team needed to go through a rebuild. The team leading into training camp in 2004-05 was absolutely horrendous on paper. There's a pretty good chance that, if there had been a season, Sidney Crosby could have easily ended up a Ranger. As it was, 05-06 was a bit of a surprise. The emergence of Hank and the resurgence of Jagr meant the team was competitive when they weren't planning to be. It changed Sather's entire 5-year plan.

I'm not saying he hasn't changed at all but he is far removed from the miracle worker he was with the Oilers. And this season he did it again. What is Dan Boyle going to accomplish and with a 35+ NMC contract to boot. Before that it was Richards, Gomez, etc etc etc.

Its good that he has more youth but I would credit that to the system more than Sather himself.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm not saying he hasn't changed at all but he is far removed from the miracle worker he was with the Oilers. And this season he did it again. What is Dan Boyle going to accomplish and with a 35+ NMC contract to boot. Before that it was Richards, Gomez, etc etc etc.

Its good that he has more youth but I would credit that to the system more than Sather himself.

By system, you mean the cap system? No doubt that plays a role. I would point out that Sather started a rebuild before the cap was in place. If you mean the team's development system, that credit goes to Sather too. For a long time in HFNYR, we've had a strange dichotomy of criticizing Sather for his mistakes (not just big ones like Gomez, but signings like Frolov and Kotalik too) without crediting him for his successes. Prior to 2004, the Rangers draft record was terrible, and that includes the drafts Sather ran himself. That's changed. He's also made a bunch of shrewd trades and even has some positive UFA signings to boot. To Glen's credit, he's surrounded himself with some great people. That's the mark of a good manager. Whether it was Dpn Maloney and Tom Renney or the current Jeff Gorton and Gordie Clark... it's working.

Plus, he's had three very solid coaching hires in a row now.

 

[Hobnobs]

By system, you mean the cap system? No doubt that plays a role. I would point out that Sather started a rebuild before the cap was in place. If you mean the team's development system, that credit goes to Sather too. For a long time in HFNYR, we've had a strange dichotomy of criticizing Sather for his mistakes (not just big ones like Gomez, but signings like Frolov and Kotalik too) without crediting him for his successes. Prior to 2004, the Rangers draft record was terrible, and that includes the drafts Sather ran himself. That's changed. He's also made a bunch of shrewd trades and even has some positive UFA signings to boot. To Glen's credit, he's surrounded himself with some great people. That's the mark of a good manager. Whether it was Dpn Maloney and Tom Renney or the current Jeff Gorton and Gordie Clark... it's working.

Plus, he's had three very solid coaching hires in a row now.

Yea its not all negative but the draft. Tbh I hadnt thought of looking at Rags draft picks but to me it doesnt seem to have improved that much but we'll have to see with the latest crops. Did Sather draft in the 2000 draft or was his first the 2001 draft?

Anyways Im just saying that it seems that Sather keeps falling back on old habits of signing the big name on the market.

 

[Trottier]

He has? Seems to me that he keeps making the same mistakes but has been lucky enough to get rid of them.

Eight playoff appearance in the last nine seasons. Compare that record to the rest of the NHL.

I'm a results type of person, hence my assessment. I don't get caught up in this single trade or UFA signing minutia, as one can find errors among every NHL GM (read: human being). What matters is where a team is at the end of a season. NYR has been in the playoffs annually.

And if one wants to get in the weeds, coming out of the '04 lockout, he rebuilt the NHL squad and replenished the pipeline, which resulted in assets over the last decade. (Currently, the pipeline is running thin, to be sure, but that happens with every team.)

Comparing ANYONE including Sather himself against the record of accomplishment of those Oilers teams is unrealistic, to be kind. Once in a lifetime assemblage of talent.

NYR fans had ample reason to want Sather's head in the early 2000s. Anyone suggesting same now is a fool.

 

[Zil]

Yea its not all negative but the draft. Tbh I hadnt thought of looking at Rags draft picks but to me it doesnt seem to have improved that much but we'll have to see with the latest crops. Did Sather draft in the 2000 draft or was his first the 2001 draft?

Anyways Im just saying that it seems that Sather keeps falling back on old habits of signing the big name on the market.

The 2000 draft happened right after Sather was hired, but Maloney did run it. In general, Rangers drafting has been good since 2004.

2004: Korpikoski, Dubinsky, Callahan, Montoya
2005: Staal, Sauer, Pyatt
2006: Anisimov
2007: Hagelin (first round pick Alexei Cherepanov died during KHL game)
2008: Stepan, Del Zotto, Weise
2009: Kreider

It's not perfect, but we've been getting at least one quality player out of every draft.

 

[Johnny Engine]

That doesn't mean some of the signings haven't been mistakes. But at least there's a logical reason for the mistakes. Pre-2004, it was "big name, let's get him."

I remember that the Kasparaitis and Holik signings were pimped by the media as the formerly spineless Rangers loading up on intangibles. Nevermind that Kasparaitis was more of an agitator than an actual defenseman - Lindros and Fleury probably offered as much substance.

 

[Tawnos]

I remember that the Kasparaitis and Holik signings were pimped by the media as the formerly spineless Rangers loading up on intangibles. Nevermind that Kasparaitis was more of an agitator than an actual defenseman - Lindros and Fleury probably offered as much substance.

Yeah, but "intangibles" is not a logical reason.

 

[Hobnobs]

Eight playoff appearance in the last nine seasons. Compare that record to the rest of the NHL.

I'm a results type of person, hence my assessment. I don't get caught up in this single trade or UFA signing minutia, as one can find errors among every NHL GM (read: human being). What matters is where a team is at the end of a season. NYR has been in the playoffs annually.

And if one wants to get in the weeds, coming out of the '04 lockout, he rebuilt the NHL squad and replenished the pipeline, which resulted in assets over the last decade. (Currently, the pipeline is running thin, to be sure, but that happens with every team.)

Comparing ANYONE including Sather himself against the record of accomplishment of those Oilers teams is unrealistic, to be kind. Once in a lifetime assemblage of talent.

NYR fans had ample reason to want Sather's head in the early 2000s. Anyone suggesting same now is a fool.

I obviously mean after Oilers glory days and not the dynasty. and Im not suggesting you guys should take his head.

2004: Korpikoski, Dubinsky, Callahan, Montoya
2005: Staal, Sauer, Pyatt
2006: Anisimov
2007: Hagelin (first round pick Alexei Cherepanov died during KHL game)
2008: Stepan, Del Zotto, Weise
2009: Kreider

Well prior to that you have to factor in the poor draft pools of the dpe but even accounting that...

2003: Nothing good here but no real mistakes either except ofc for the HUGE one.
2002: Prucha
2001: Tyutin, Zidlicky, Hollweg
2000: Lundqvist and Moore

Time will tell I guess.

 

[c9777666]

OP mentions that the Flyers had a similar strategy (they acquired some big names (Gratton, Vanbiesbrouck, Roenick, Primeau, Amonte, Zhamnov), but they made the playoffs not only all the time, but with ease (1998-2004, their lowest seed was #5).

Philly IIRC was not a team with amazing chemistry and their goaltender carousel (and coach carousel rotations too) and they had some players you could argue had some ego, but they never even came close to missing the playoffs.

Defense- other than Desjardins, who exactly did Philly have on the blue line?

Like, how does Team A make splashy moves but always make the playoffs and Team B made some splash moves yet did not?

 

[YEM]

OP mentions that the Flyers had a similar strategy (they acquired some big names (Gratton, Vanbiesbrouck, Roenick, Primeau, Amonte, Zhamnov), but they made the playoffs not only all the time, but with ease (1998-2004, their lowest seed was #5).

Philly IIRC was not a team with amazing chemistry and their goaltender carousel (and coach carousel rotations too) and they had some players you could argue had some ego, but they never even came close to missing the playoffs.

Defense- other than Desjardins, who exactly did Philly have on the blue line?

Like, how does Team A make splashy moves but always make the playoffs and Team B made some splash moves yet did not?

circa 98 through 04 they had a few reliable but unspectacular Dmen who were solid for years:
Chris Therien
Luke Richardson
Dan McGillis
Kim Johnsson

 

[sr edler]

Too much leadership from Messier. The team just overdosed.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

OP mentions that the Flyers had a similar strategy (they acquired some big names (Gratton, Vanbiesbrouck, Roenick, Primeau, Amonte, Zhamnov), but they made the playoffs not only all the time, but with ease (1998-2004, their lowest seed was #5).

Philly IIRC was not a team with amazing chemistry and their goaltender carousel (and coach carousel rotations too) and they had some players you could argue had some ego, but they never even came close to missing the playoffs.

Defense- other than Desjardins, who exactly did Philly have on the blue line?

Like, how does Team A make splashy moves but always make the playoffs and Team B made some splash moves yet did not?

could also be players who still cared carefully selected their teams, while those who no longer gave a crap just took NYR’s bag of money.

case in point: briere goes to philly, drury and gomez go to NYR

roenick signs with philly, NYR signs lindros

 

[VanIslander]

It was a time of transition in the head office.

Neil Smith ended his GM tenure and the organization brought in Sather, who has a keen eye for talent but lacked in the GMing dep't many Oiler fans thought and he made bad decisions early in NY, though he drafted Lundquist, Callahan, Dubinsky and Hagelin.

The lockout gave Sather time to concentrate on his GM job (had jumped behind the bench again, unsuccessfully) and the post-lockout focus on speed over size fit well with Sather's track record in drafting.

 

[Dingo]

some funny posts here. i enjoyed them losing, too.

i remember watching Mystery, Alaska with a buddy in the early 2000s. we agreed it was a way better movie than either of us thought going in, but..

“Well, its still unrealistic, but better than i..... hang on.... a team like that might actually be able to beat the Rangers!”

haha, yep they were a good joke back then.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

OP mentions that the Flyers had a similar strategy (they acquired some big names (Gratton, Vanbiesbrouck, Roenick, Primeau, Amonte, Zhamnov), but they made the playoffs not only all the time, but with ease (1998-2004, their lowest seed was #5).

Philly IIRC was not a team with amazing chemistry and their goaltender carousel (and coach carousel rotations too) and they had some players you could argue had some ego, but they never even came close to missing the playoffs.

Defense- other than Desjardins, who exactly did Philly have on the blue line?

Like, how does Team A make splashy moves but always make the playoffs and Team B made some splash moves yet did not?

Go look at the goals against of the Flyers from 1998 to 2004.

They were constantly top 10, several times top 5.

They had a defensive structure in place, regardless of the shuffle in net and the changes up front.

The Rangers during that time frame were often just a pile of talented individuals that they could not mold into a team.

 

[Randy Marsh]

Go look at the goals against of the Flyers from 1998 to 2004.

They were constantly top 10, several times top 5.

They had a defensive structure in place, regardless of the shuffle in net and the changes up front.

The Rangers during that time frame were often just a pile of talented individuals that they could not mold into a team.

After reading this thread, I realize the Flyers had either great (regular season) goaltending, a coach that thrived in the dead puck era, or both.

 

[Speedtrials]

They were actually a pretty hardworking team the first two years after Messier left. Just were short at center and their key guys were also getting older as well. After that they tried patching up their problems with all sorts of high priced veterans who each had some kind of liability. (Fluery- personal issues and living in NYC, Messier-way past his prime, Lindros-concussions, Bure- damaged knee) Then it continued on, until Jagr and Lundqvist turned things around.

 

[tony d]

I remember their free agency splurge in 1999. Really thought they were good to do great but they did not.

 

[vikash1987]

Short answer: organizational culture and philosophy were way off. They felt that they could simply buy their way to success.

Going a bit further back in time with the Rangers' draft history of 1st round choices:

'96: Jeff Brown, D (22nd overall) -- never played in the NHL, let alone the Rangers
'97: Stefan Cherneski, RW (19th overall) -- never played in the NHL, let alone the Rangers
'98: Manny Malhotra, C (7th overall) -- by Year 2 (or Year 3...I'm forgetting now), it was determined that he would never amount to more than a 3rd-line player...though, in fairness, he was caught in an internal power struggle between Neil Smith, who drafted him, and John Muckler
'99: Pavel Brendl, RW (4th overall) -- total bust: never played with the Rangers, was part of the Lindros deal, didn't do much afterward
'99: Jamie Lundmark (9th overall) -- less of a bust, but still pretty bad...though in fairness (again), his ice time wasn't managed well

I know the Rangers were stacked with veterans and were never building around their draft picks during this period, but I wonder how things could've been different had some of these choices been different or actually panned out.