Machinehead
The Olli react should add points!
As far as I recall, they were very top heavy.
Those teams had some iconic first lines but what else did they have?
Those teams had some iconic first lines but what else did they have?
1998-2004 Rangers: Why were they so bad?
- Thread starter Randy Marsh
- Start date
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,305
- 4,675
Going back 15-20 years later and looking at those rosters...Other than immediately before the lockout (Holik and Bure added, Kovalev and Jagr soon to follow) I don't know why anyone really expected those Ranger teams to be particularly good. A team with guys like Radek Dvorak, Tom Poti, and Petr Nedved in key roles doesn't scream Cup contender with 20/20 hindsight, and I'm not really sure why it did at the time. I get the excitement that names like Bure and Lindros created, but it was pretty clear by 2003 or so that those guys were not what they used to be.
There's a general sense that they couldn't defend and had goaltending issues after Richter declined, and that's true. But looking back, that team was hilariously bad offensively in 2003 and 2004 considering who was on the roster.
There's a general sense that they couldn't defend and had goaltending issues after Richter declined, and that's true. But looking back, that team was hilariously bad offensively in 2003 and 2004 considering who was on the roster.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,736
- 19,417
brings up another question: why were those rangers so into czech players?
like i know why pittsburgh had straka, hrdina, lang, slegr, roszival, nedved, beranek, frank kucera, and all those failed czech and slovakian draft picks (kraft, surovy, dome, melichar). and i know why the rangers had straka, roszival, sykora, marek malik, and karel rachunek after the lockout.
but why did the pre-jagr rangers have nedved, dvorak, hlavac, rucinsky, then the huge holik signing, plus cameos by grosek, ales pisa, tomas kloucek, milan hnilicka, and slovakians like ciger, petrovicky, richard lintner, and jozef balej? and in those years they used high picks on pavel brendl, filip novak, ivan baranka (their 2nd rounder in 2003, one of three czechoslovakian-born players they picked after jessiman that day); later picks in those years included zidlicky and prucha.
i'm interested because i know why the canucks are so swede-y. thomas gradin is their main european scout and he had a big hand in advocating drafting ohlund, the sedins, edler, pettersson, and so on. the red wings have hakan andersson, who brought in his own army of swedish players. so who was the czech advocate on the rangers' scouting staff?
they say glen sather loved finnish players, and it showed on the oilers, with kurri, tikkanen, matti hagman, siltanen, ruotsalainen, and summanen.
why did dallas of the lehtinen, jussi jokinen, miettinen, nik hagman, niko kapanen era love finns (cameos by lumme, numminen, and niinimaa)? why did ottawa of the hossa, chara, meszaros / bonk, havlat, rachunek, prusek, prospal, varada era love slovaks and czechs?
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,444
- 2,796
Kim Johnsson obviously. He was louded for his play while with the Rangers which eventually led him to be valued highly enough to be traded for Eric Lindros.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Johnsson was a good player, but he wasn’t providing high quality defensive play. His D was decent, but at the time he was more of a mobile player. His D did improve over time and he became solid in that part of the game, but he doesn’t qualify as an answer to my question in 00-01.
Leetch, too, played decent D... but that wasn’t my question.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
They had just won the Olympics with a team containing an unusual amount of players based in Europe, maybe they thought they had found the second coming of Sathers Oilers philosophy regarding europeans?
In reality it was Hasek that brought them the gold medal.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,179
I don't think they were ever "Cup contenders" in any given year after 1997. So in the years you are asking I certainly can't remember any expectation of them that way. But a regular playoff team? Sure, they were that. But it wasn't that they had such a rich roster, it was the fact that they overpaid everyone and it was all at the wrong time of their careers too. Fleury going to rehab, Kamensky wasn't the same anymore, Lindros was not the physical beast anymore, Bure's knee problems were obvious by then and then there was the play of Leetch and Richter. Two players who strangely did much worse in their 30s than in their 20s even though they both played a position that lets you age better than a forward.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,736
- 19,417
the interesting thing about the early 2000s rangers is how incredibly little they gave up to acquire basically the highest level of ticket-selling superduperstars. yeah, all were damaged goods, but they got lindros, bure, and jagr for a combined cost of kim johnsson, jan hlavac, pavel brendl, igor ulanov, filip novak, anson carter four months from unrestricted free agency, and a 2002 1st, a 2003 3rd and 4th, and a swap of 2002 2nds with florida. other than the picks (and losing the 2003 picks was kind of a mercy killing given how allergic NYR was to getting value from that draft) the only things of value was kim johnsson, who at that point was a 25 year old defenseman who hadn't really distinguished himself in any meaningful way and basically made the rangers' top four in his second season in new york by default.
i mean seriously look at this tire fire of a defense in the season before the lindros trade--
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]
i mean seriously look at this tire fire of a defense in the season before the lindros trade--
| Player | Age | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | PIM | EV | PP | SH | GW | EV | PP | SH | S | S% | TOI | ATOI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Leetch* | 32 | D | 82 | 21 | 58 | 79 | -18 | 34 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 27 | 27 | 4 | 241 | 8.7 | 2407 | 29:21 |
| Kim Johnsson | 24 | D | 75 | 5 | 21 | 26 | -3 | 40 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 3 | 1 | 104 | 4.8 | 1595 | 21:16 |
| Sylvain Lefebvre | 33 | D | 71 | 2 | 13 | 15 | 3 | 55 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 39 | 5.1 | 1289 | 18:10 |
| Rich Pilon | 32 | D | 69 | 2 | 9 | 11 | -2 | 175 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 8.3 | 1164 | 16:52 |
| Tomas Kloucek | 20 | D | 43 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -3 | 74 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 4.5 | 719 | 16:43 |
| Brad Brown | 25 | D | 48 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 107 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 7.1 | 697 | 14:31 |
| Alexei Gusarov | 36 | D | 26 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 21 | 4.8 | 508 | 19:33 |
| Dale Purinton | 24 | D | 42 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 180 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0.0 | 401 | 9:33 |
| Mike Mottau | 22 | D | 18 | 0 | 3 | 3 | -6 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 0.0 | 275 | 15:18 |
| Peter Smrek | 21 | D | 14 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0.0 | 235 | 16:47 |
| Vladimir Malakhov | 32 | D | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.0 | 57 | 19:07 |
| Drew Bannister | 26 | D | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.0 | 32 | 10:47 |
| Jason Doig | 24 | D | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | 20 | 6:35 |
| David Wilkie | 26 | D | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | 12 | 11:33 |
| Bert Robertsson | 26 | D | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 5:37 | |
| Team Total | 82 | 250 | 424 | 674 | -114 | 1504 | 169 | 65 | 16 | 33 | 283 | 123 | 18 | 2345 | 10.7 |
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TFOOT] [/TFOOT]
mrhockey193195
Registered User
Christ, outside of Leetch they had 12 goals by defensemen that year? (I know offense wasn't the big problem, but still...that's nuts!)
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,444
- 2,796
Ok so the guy Rags used against the oppositions top players and on the top PK unit werent providing high quality defensive play. Weird...
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Uh yeah... the team sucked and part of the reason is because they had to use players like Johnsson in those roles. This whole discussion is about why the Rangers were so bad during this period.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,444
- 2,796
The Rangers didnt suck because Kim Johnsson didnt play high quality defense. They sucked because their depth players sucked or were injured. Behind Johnsson, Leetch and Lefevbre you had Pilon and a glutton of defensemen missing 30+ games. Same goes with rags offense. Their depth lines were beyond terrible and/or injured. Grosek, Taylor, MacLean, Forbes, McCarthy, Lacroix, Whitehall, Ulmer.... It was a mishmash of suckage.
That was rags "real" problem. As well as the top lines motivational issues considering how they were often called out for being lazy.
BPD
Registered User
Part of this was some god-awful luck - specifically Cherneski, Blackburn, Lindros, Bure, and to an extent, Brendl and Lundmark. Cherneski was a pretty solid player for the time, but shattered his kneecap in his D+2 season and was never really able to play. Blackburn with his nerve damage in his catching arm, Lindros and Bure with their respective injuries (keep in mind that barring these injuries, both players likely were Rangers through 2009 or so, and the Rangers ostensibly got them for nothing).
Part of it was this almost manic GMing. As great as some of those trades were - again, barring injuries - Smith and Sather both oversaw near-atrocious scouting work and talent development. The Rangers routinely whiffed in the top rounds of the draft and played fast and loose with overseas prospects later on, and when they became the proverbial blind squirrel, they almost had no idea what to do with it. So, instead of keeping players like Marc Savard (and yeah, there was more to that one), Nik Sundstrom, Marek Zidlicky, and Mike York, we found ways to off these players in different ways.
It was fortunate that the lockout came when it did, and also very unfortunate that when it came, Lindros and Bure had already played their last games with us. It'd have been a pleasure like no other to see some of those later Jagr teams plus those two.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Again, the point isn't that Johnsson didn't play high quality defense. The point is that they barely had anyone who did. Johnsson's role on the team is a symptom of a problem, not that he was problem himself.
I watched nearly every single game during that period of time. Their defense sucked and it wasn't just a depth problem. Lefebvre was the only one capable of quality defensive play. Except for Kloucek, none of the other D were capable of it, and yes... Kloucek did get hurt (bad day for Rangers fans). But among the other players? No one.
I really don't know why you're choosing to argue this.
Gretzky was unhappy that the Rangers did not trade for Pavel Bure. Had the Rangers gotten Bure in 1999, he would have played another 1-2 seasons.
JianYang
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 18,516
- 22,746
It was the dying years of the non cap era.
The rangers have always had the pull to attract free agents with cache, and they had the money to close those deals.
They just seemed to be an organization that had no care at all about how much money it took to land a player they wanted. They gave holik 9 Mil per year, I think.
Developing prospects, and drafting just seemed to be a real low priority. It was all about getting those veteran free agents with name recognition, and whatever it took to get those deals done.
The rangers have always had the pull to attract free agents with cache, and they had the money to close those deals.
They just seemed to be an organization that had no care at all about how much money it took to land a player they wanted. They gave holik 9 Mil per year, I think.
Developing prospects, and drafting just seemed to be a real low priority. It was all about getting those veteran free agents with name recognition, and whatever it took to get those deals done.
It was also the struggle between ownership and the GM. As early as the mid 90s Smith wanted to rebuild but Checketts and Dolan wouldn't let him. After Gretzky retired he really wanted to tear it down but they insisted open the checkbook and sign everything in sight. I understand both sides really Smith knew all of the trades and moves they made in the 90s had depleted their farm system and prospect pool, however ownership saw the Devils and Flyers being top teams and the Islanders as a young and upcoming team and wanted to say relevant. Also those late 90s early 00s drafts were pretty bad. When Sather came in his agenda was exactly the same he wanted to tear it down and ownership told him a rebuild will never work in New York. So happy that in 04 he was given complete control.
ShelbyZ
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2015
- 3,800
- 2,789
IMO, what's funny about this is that Gretzky's opportunities to play with Bure were squashed by Canucks ownership/management.
-First, the whole blow up in summer 1996 where Gretzky verbally agrees to go to Vancouver as a UFA, but Canucks ownership ruins it by demanding they get everything set in stone late that night.
-Then, two years later when Bure is trying to get out of Vancouver, Brian Burke purposely asks for a kings ransom from the Rangers (including the overvalued Malhotra, who the Rangers refused to trade for Palffy as well), just to spite Bure so he couldn't go to his preferred destination.
Best thing about the 98-2004 Rangers is that they are a solid rebuttal to the tired narrative that the Red Wings of the same era simply "bought" Stanley Cups...
The biggest difference between the 2 was the Red Wings had a core of Yzerman,Fedorov, and Lidstrom in place. They then brought in guys to supplement them. The Rangers would always try to trade for or bring guys in to carry the team. The Red Wings already had that
ShelbyZ
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2015
- 3,800
- 2,789
And I think that's where the argument goes to next. The Red Wings not only had the key players as part of that core, but a bunch of solid home grown or cheaply added/scouted depth to go along with it. The guys like Draper, Maltby, McCarty, Holmstrom, LaPointe, Ward, Brown, etc.
The Rangers also seemed to mortgage a whole lot of future that would've been effective for that period (98-2004), to win a Cup and then keep trying to win them with an aging core of former Oilers and a couple of Keenan's guys from the Hawks in the 4 seasons prior. For those last 6 seasons of the no-cap era, Amonte, Zubov, Weight and Norstrom were top line/pairing guys for other teams, and guys like Marchant and Laperriere were solid middle 6 depth guys.
You are right about your last point but I think Neil Smith was desperate at that point. I think evreyone thought they would win in 92 and they didnt. With Kovalev and Zubov coming in 93 evreyone thought that would be the year and they crashed and burned, I think by 94 Smith was at the point where he knew he needed to get it done or else his job might be at risk. Had they won in 92 im not sure these moves ever get made and because they got made and worked they kept trying to bring in former Edmonton guys instead of getting prime players like Selanne and Shanahan both of whom they could have had.
Last edited:
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Their start to 2000-01 was just... insane.
Over the first 35 games of .500 hockey, Fleury scored 50 points with Leetch and Messier chipping in 44 and 40 points respectively (and this was Dead Puck hockey!), but the team was leaking goals at a rate of 3.69 GAA. I don’t know that they tried to repair what was broken until it was too late, so when Fleury started having issues that eventually ended his season, their offense stopped being able to masquerade the atrocious defense in the league standings.
290 GA would have been bad in 1991, so to allow that much in 2001 was absurd. They wasted what could have been a good season by not making the corrections when they had plenty of notice.
Over the first 35 games of .500 hockey, Fleury scored 50 points with Leetch and Messier chipping in 44 and 40 points respectively (and this was Dead Puck hockey!), but the team was leaking goals at a rate of 3.69 GAA. I don’t know that they tried to repair what was broken until it was too late, so when Fleury started having issues that eventually ended his season, their offense stopped being able to masquerade the atrocious defense in the league standings.
290 GA would have been bad in 1991, so to allow that much in 2001 was absurd. They wasted what could have been a good season by not making the corrections when they had plenty of notice.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,444
- 2,796
I wonder if Sather might just be the most overrated GM in NHL history? All that money and no way to fix Rags problems.
