"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[Kel Varnsen]

Want to know why the 11-12 team didn't have an easier go of it in the playoffs? Gabby was playing with one arm.

You've debunked squat.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You can line up numbers regarding the Nash trade all you want, but the problem wasn't a numbers one. I've said it a million times, the trade was a failure on Sathers part to recognize what made the team successful the year before, namely that it was a team playing as greater than the sum of its parts. When you have a team that did that, not just that season, but the season before, and it doesn't happen the next year, you have to wonder why. What changed? The answer is that the roster structure changed and the root of the change was the Nash deal. If the Rangers wanted to continue that type of success, they needed to augment the roster, not overhaul it.

But maybe they didn't want to continue having that type of success, but wanted a different type. Either way, that Rangers team was great. You really can't spin it any other way objectively.

Looking at things too generally. You once again are completely ignoring Gaborik and Richards being ****. They wouldn't have been nearly as good in 11-12 if those 2 guys played like they did it 12-13.

 

[Tawnos]

Looking at things too generally. You once again are completely ignoring Gaborik and Richards being ****. They wouldn't have been nearly as good in 11-12 if those 2 guys played like they did it 12-13.

I didn't ignore it at all, much less "completely." The team ethos was totally different between the two years. For me, that was a major, major contributing factor to the difference between those players individual seasons. It's not too general. It's taking the context of the team and seeing how it affects the individuals.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Want to know why the 11-12 team didn't have an easier go of it in the playoffs? Gabby was playing with one arm.

You've debunked squat.

a) Gabby hasn't been a playoff performer since his first playoff year.

b) Gabby has been injury riddled his entire career. Including sucking in 10-11, the 11-12 playoffs (for the most part), and last season. That's what you get with Gabby. Do you seriously not see this?

That team was just not that talented. They relied on a past his prime Richards and an injury prone non-playoff performer Gaborik for offense. Everyone else was a mediocre offensive player or worse.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I didn't ignore it at all, much less "completely." The team ethos was totally different between the two years. For me, that was a major, major contributing factor to the difference between those players individual seasons. It's not too general. It's taking the context of the team and seeing how it affects the individuals.

Do you really think that our 3rd and 4th line grinders not being there had some sort of effect on Gabby on Richards? "Team ethos". Sometimes you have to look at things practically and not at BS like "team ethos". Gaborik was injured and Richards was past his prime and apparently didn't work out hard enough during the lockout.

 

[profchaos2001]

Let's not forget that acquiring Nash gave us even the remote possibility to make the Gaborik trade. The thought of losing Gab before that would've been crazy, with the lack of offense and a slumping Richards.

And so now we have Nash, Brassgod, J.Moore, and Dorsett for Gab, Dubi and Arty. The trade in this perspective seems even more 1-sided in our favor.

 

[Synergy27]

Want to know why the 11-12 team didn't have an easier go of it in the playoffs? Gabby was playing with one arm.

You've debunked squat.

Or were they exhausted both mentally and physically from the shot-blocking and one goal games?

The bottom line to me was that, regardless of how good you think that '12-13 team was, they absolutely topped out in that season. Topping out in the ECF is nothing to be ashamed of, hell that's a major success for this franchise, but given the toll that that playing style took on the players and the sheer amount of luck they needed to get there, I don't see how you could realistically expect that they would have done better last year if nothing changed.

It's about continuous improvement. The management team made some moves to try to make the team better. They made some moves that might (key word: might) allow the team to play a style that had a better chance of winning it all. You don't win the Stanley Cup by blocking shots, clinging to leads and praying that Lundqvist is nearly perfect. They're trying to change the approach, hopefully it works out. If it doesn't, I'm on record as saying I support the attempt.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Or were they exhausted both mentally and physically from the shot-blocking and one goal games?

The bottom line to me was that, regardless of how good you think that '12-13 team was, they absolutely topped out in that season. Topping out in the ECF is nothing to be ashamed of, hell that's a major success for this franchise, but given the toll that that playing style took on the players and the sheer amount of luck they needed to get there, I don't see how you could realistically expect that they would have done better last year if nothing changed.

It's about continuous improvement. The management team made some moves to try to make the team better. They made some moves that might (key word: might) allow the team to play a style that had a better chance of winning it all. You don't win the Stanley Cup by blocking shots, clinging to leads and praying that Lundqvist is nearly perfect. They're trying to change the approach, hopefully it works out. If it doesn't, I'm on record as saying I support the attempt.

This is on the money. Great post.

 

[aufheben]

Sorry, but that was a great team. Dismantling it was unwise.

I'm still on the fence about the Nash trade, but Fedotenko, Prust, and Mitchell weren't part of that trade.

*Also, why does it matter how they won in the playoffs? That's like discrediting the '94 team because the Devils took them to OT in Game 7. Complete nonsense.

**Also also, I don't see a single fact in your "debunking" thesis. Maybe I missed some, but it appears to be 100% subjective.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Ok, I'm really sick and tired of Rangers fans spewing nonsense about these 2 things and I think it deserves its own thread because it's been popping up in multiple threads across multiple forums. First let me start off by saying that the team had a GREAT regular season. I was very proud of them. That team and the 08 Giants gave me EASILY the best 2 regular seasons my teams have ever given me (wasn't a fan in 94). Now here's the problem that regular season and their climb to the ECF has made that team into something it wasn't in the eyes of many on this board.

1) Apparently that team was a "winning team". First of all what did they win? They made the ECF in the easiest draw I can remember a team having in a while and then got curb stomped by the worst SC finalist since the 06 Oilers. No offense to the very solid Kings, but if the team couldn't win the cup THAT year they can't win any other year. Look at the caliber of teams in SC Finals usually. Look at last year. The elite of the elite.

2) That team made the ECF but they probably do so 1 time out 10. They played 2 relatively mediocre teams. Let me remind you what needed to go right to make the ECF. Hagelin a player that doesn't know the meaning of the word "dirty" elbows the Sens captain and one of their best players in the head putting him out for most of the series. Granted Gaborik was injured also, but that's not a surprise by any means and I hilariously see people use that as an excuse. Second, Kreider had what now looks like a possible fluke postseason (at least for that point in his career). Third, we caught a HUGE break on a 5 on 3 in game 6, it was a flat out bad call and we completely changed the momentum of a game we were down 1-0 in (I think that was the only game we came back from a deficit). We scored at least once, maybe even twice on the ensuing powerplay(s). Then we lucked out that we played one of the worst Caps teams in recent memory and even then we needed a fluke goal by Richards to save our *****. Then we got killed by the mediocre Devils that had no business being in the ECF. Just got destroyed in most games. It was like watching puppies get tortured it was so bad. The 8, 7, 6 seeds and we still couldn't make the finals to beat the 8th seed.

Now on to the trade:

1) People are blaming our poor year on guys like Dubinsky, Anisimov, and Prust leaving. Now, first of all, all 3 were good gritty defensive players. They were however depth players. Between the 3 of them they had 1 50 point season. The guy that had that 50 point season and was the most productive player had 12 goals in his last 107 games.

2) Meanwhile Richards is one of the worst players on the team until March when he scores a bunch of fluke goals in blowouts to pad his stats in a few games. Gaborik shows up for 1 or 2 games. These were our two BEST forwards in 11-12. Yet people are saying we shouldn't have traded for Nash? It was the lack of 3rd line grinders that was the reason that we sucked and not our two best forwards from the year before being MIA? Nash was our most productive forward at almost a PPG. Do you really think that if we had dead weight Richard and Gaborik and 3 3rd liners in Dubi, Ani, and Prust we'd have been good last year? You think we couldn't score last year? Imagine not having a point per game guy in Nash. Our other top forward, Stepan was good but not great the year before, so he didn't have that much to do with 11-12 team. So our 2 best forwards were either not on the best and winningest team ever or not major contributors.

3) People want to compare that "winning team" to last year's team. First of all the Caps were better last year. We beat them more convincingly than we did the year before. Including an actual blowout game, something we didn't have all of the playoffs the year before. The Bruins were infinitely better than anything we played the year before. If we played them the year before the result would have been the same, so it doesn't matter that we won one round less.

What did they win? Ummm more games than most almost any Ranger team in the existence of the rangers, a division title, a conference title, home ice throughout the PO's and two PO rounds...Right there I had to stop reading that half of your arguement. I get if you want to make us realize this wasn't a dominating team because it wasn't. They did win the games that they won though. I can't imagine why any fan would get annoyed and want to dismiss all of that other than self hatred.

People complaining about missing no goal dubs are simply grasping at straws imo. Gabs and richards became ghosts. That explains last season. Period

 

[Tawnos]

Do you really think that our 3rd and 4th line grinders not being there had some sort of effect on Gabby on Richards? "Team ethos". Sometimes you have to look at things practically and not at BS like "team ethos". Gaborik was injured and Richards was past his prime and apparently didn't work out hard enough during the lockout.

So according to you there is no such thing as group dynamics?

 

[Doctyl]

isnt nash the only nhler with an active streak of 9 consecutive 20 goal seasons?

 

[Florida Ranger]

The 2012-13 Rangers were to me a clearly superior hockey team over the 2011-12 Rangers. But 11-12 Rangers had a bunch of things going their way while the 12-13 Rangers had a bunch of things going against them.

Though they were equally awful in the playoffs.

The 13-14 Rangers should be even better than both of them when:

1) They get healthy.

and

2) AV figures out how to pair up the defencemen properly. Right now he uses the pairings that Torts figured out didn't actually work.

What???

So you're saying we're going to make the Cup Final with this team? I hope you're right, but if you want to talk about what the team looks like on paper, give me the 11-12 Rangers. That team had a 109 points in the regular season and made the conference finals. That's a GOOD team.

If the team doesn't win the way fans want the team to win, then it's pointless and it's not good enough. The 11-12 team was better than the 12-13 Rangers. Performance on ice is better than what the paper says. ECF appearance > EC semi finals.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Sorry, but that was a great team. Dismantling it was unwise.

I'm still on the fence about the Nash trade, but Fedotenko, Prust, and Mitchell weren't part of that trade.

*Also, why does it matter how they won in the playoffs? That's like discrediting the '94 team because the Devils took them to OT in Game 7. Complete nonsense.

**Also also, I don't see a single fact in your "debunking" thesis. Maybe I missed some, but it appears to be 100% subjective.

In what world was that a GREAT team? That team somehow managed to scratch and claw their way to a great record in the regular season and then found a lot of dumb luck and barely beat mediocre teams. The Devils in 94 were a lot better than either team the Rangers played and that's only 1 round out of 4.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

So according to you there is no such thing as group dynamics?

So according to you Richards and Gaborik looked at the 3rd and 4th lines not playing as hard and decided to mail it in? That had more to do with it than Gaborik's injury and Richards being out of shape to start the season? Group dynamics only goes so far, actual TANGIBLE factors are way more important.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What???

So you're saying we're going to make the Cup Final with this team? I hope you're right, but if you want to talk about what the team looks like on paper, give me the 11-12 Rangers. That team had a 109 points in the regular season and made the conference finals. That's a GOOD team.

If the team doesn't win the way fans want the team to win, then it's pointless and it's not good enough. The 11-12 team was better than the 12-13 Rangers. Performance on ice is better than what the paper says. ECF appearance > EC semi finals.

What do you think would happen if the 11-12 Rangers played last year's Bruins? They'd get killed. It's about the matchups not what team went farther.

 

[alkurtz]

Let's not forget that acquiring Nash gave us even the remote possibility to make the Gaborik trade. The thought of losing Gab before that would've been crazy, with the lack of offense and a slumping Richards.

And so now we have Nash, Brassgod, J.Moore, and Dorsett for Gab, Dubi and Arty. The trade in this perspective seems even more 1-sided in our favor.

Wrong way of looking at it. The Gaborik trade was a way for us to correct some of the problems resulting from the Nash trade: essentially our lack of roster depth, particularly at center.

I do think that it is fascinating to look at the 2 trades as one: Gabby, Arty, Dubi, and Erixon for Nash, Brassard, Moore and Dorsett. Seems like pretty much of a wash to me. Not nearly one-sided in our favor.

I love Nash, but boy to we miss Arty and Duby.

What those guys gave us was tremendous roster flexibility. Either could play on the first line or the third line, could play center or on the wing, depending on our needs.

And as for the in-your-face mentality that Duby brought....well we have not been able to replace that, not even close. His intangibles were something we miss every day and game.

Not that I won't have made the Nash trade at that time, though I think that Sather overpaid. Not to say that the team would not have disappointed even with Duby and Arty last year, because it might have. The downwards spiral of Richards has killed this team.

But the law of unintended consequences has resulted in the Rangers being a continually disappointing team since the trade. Yes there are other loses of importance (Prust, Mitchell).

But as much as I love Nash, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't.

 

[eco's bones]

In what world was that a GREAT team? That team somehow managed to scratch and claw their way to a great record in the regular season and then found a lot of dumb luck and barely beat mediocre teams. The Devils in 94 were a lot better than either team the Rangers played and that's only 1 round out of 4.

The 12-13 team scratched and clawed their way to a lot less.

What do you think would happen if the 11-12 Rangers played last year's Bruins? They'd get killed. It's about the matchups not what team went farther.

1) Since an 11-12 team can't play a 12-13 team how would you know?--anyway we beat the Bruins in the 11-12 regular season every time and 2) the 12-13 Rangers team didn't get killed by last year's Bruins team?--you can argue the 12-13 Rangers team was better than the 11-12 team but what evidence there is is against you--Rangers 11-12 team--first in the east--missed the Presidents trophy for best regular season by one point. Played 20 playoff games--winning two rounds. Last year's team--6th in the east--didn't lock up a playoff spot until the last week of the season--won one playoff round and were bounced out of the 2nd round rather easily--more easily by the Bruins in 12-13 than by the Devils in 11-12.

To go on to Gaborik not being a proven playoff performer. Rick Nash is not a proven playoff performer either. He wasn't as bad as Richards in last years playoffs but pretty much his production went missing. Richards at least had been a good playoff performer. Gaborik contributed more in the 11-12 playoffs with his broken wing than a healthy Nash did in the 12-13 playoffs. Of the players we gave up for Nash--Dubinsky usually played very well in the playoffs.

 

[Tawnos]

So according to you Richards and Gaborik looked at the 3rd and 4th lines not playing as hard and decided to mail it in? That had more to do with it than Gaborik's injury and Richards being out of shape to start the season? Group dynamics only goes so far, actual TANGIBLE factors are way more important.

Obviously that's not what I'm saying. However, the kind of attitude the 11-12 team had is self-reinforcing. All players get swept up in it from top to bottom, and when they don't it looks awkward. Think Christensen and Wolski. Both Gaborik and Richards got swept up in it. But the reality also is that a team playing as more than the sum of its parts can also persevere through top players struggles, or even absence, more easily. The Rangers group was largely incapable of overcoming adversity last year. In 11-12, they were phenomenal about it. It's all about the group mentality and it all starts with players like Dubinsky and Prust.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I think trading Anisimov was also a massive error. I am more and more starting to think we should have been more than happy to give them Kreider instead

 

[alkurtz]

To deny that there is such a thing as group dynamics in team sports is to deny reality

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

In what world was that a GREAT team? That team somehow managed to scratch and claw their way to a great record in the regular season and then found a lot of dumb luck and barely beat mediocre teams. The Devils in 94 were a lot better than either team the Rangers played and that's only 1 round out of 4.

Great is a matter of individual perspective. To him getting that far and actually winning games was a great experience. Good for him being able to look at a game with a glass half full perspective

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

What do you think would happen if the 11-12 Rangers played last year's Bruins? They'd get killed. It's about the matchups not what team went farther.

We barely lost two of those games last year It's not unreasonable at all to think the other team would have taken them to 7 games or beaten them

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Wrong way of looking at it. The Gaborik trade was a way for us to correct some of the problems resulting from the Nash trade: essentially our lack of roster depth, particularly at center.

I do think that it is fascinating to look at the 2 trades as one: Gabby, Arty, Dubi, and Erixon for Nash, Brassard, Moore and Dorsett. Seems like pretty much of a wash to me. Not nearly one-sided in our favor.

I love Nash, but boy to we miss Arty and Duby.

What those guys gave us was tremendous roster flexibility. Either could play on the first line or the third line, could play center or on the wing, depending on our needs.

And as for the in-your-face mentality that Duby brought....well we have not been able to replace that, not even close. His intangibles were something we miss every day and game.

Not that I won't have made the Nash trade at that time, though I think that Sather overpaid. Not to say that the team would not have disappointed even with Duby and Arty last year, because it might have. The downwards spiral of Richards has killed this team.

But the law of unintended consequences has resulted in the Rangers being a continually disappointing team since the trade. Yes there are other loses of importance (Prust, Mitchell).

But as much as I love Nash, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't.

Thatw asn't the result of the Nash trade it was the result of poor FA signings. Dubs is a shell of what he was and Erixon was never on the team. Any good GM should have been able to replace Dubs. So it comes down to this. Rick Nash or Anisimov? We let Prust walk that had nothing to do with the Nash trade he wanted a lot of money and good for him it looks like hes earning it to the shock of most people. We let Feds walk. We did not replace Feds, Dubs or Prust. These were all players who should have been easily replaced by a good GM

 

[aufheben]

In what world was that a GREAT team? That team somehow managed to scratch and claw their way to a great record in the regular season and then found a lot of dumb luck and barely beat mediocre teams. The Devils in 94 were a lot better than either team the Rangers played and that's only 1 round out of 4.

The world where they were 2 points shy of a Presidents trophy.

Our struggles against WSH, OTT, and NJ had a lot to do with Tort's reluctance to adjust. The roster itself was very good. I expected that team to win every night, and I was usually not disappointed.