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

[eco's bones]

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

Dubinsky is not a shell of what he was. His goal scoring has gone south.

Even so in last year's shortened season he played 29 games and had 2g-18a-20pts-76pm. That pro rates to about a 55pt season. What's more he was +2 50 shots on goal-64 hits and 17 blocked shots. The hits are good--the other numbers okay but nothing extraordinary. Saving the last stat because it is extraordinary. He won 256 face-offs and lost 183. That's a .583 face-off %. That's quite a bit better than what I would expect from any Rangers center on our current roster.

His cap hit might be a bit high but he's still a pretty good player. In preseason he was getting lots of time with Gaborik. Dubinsky could put up nice stats this year.

 

[Doctyl]

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

jesus christ talk about not giving a kid a chance.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

The only way this will ever be "debunked" is if a team around/with Nash performs as good as/if not better than that team.

Although I'm with the others, you get a chance at rick nash or other elite players, for players who are role guys, you do it 100 out of 100.

Dubinsky regressed and was overpaid. Erixon is unproven and still hasn't really shown he's a capable, even second pairing guy, a 1st, which is TBD and the worst part of the trade, Anisimov.

The major problem last year, was not replacing the depth guys we lost, which was Dubi, Anisimov but also Feds and Prust. We lost a bunch of bottom six depth, thought we could fill it with youth (Kreider, Miller, etc) and it didn't pan out, so we were stuck rolling guys like Bickel and Newbury.

With the Gaborik trade and the additions of Pouliot, Moore, etc, that depth is back. They just need to find their footing.

I know people whine about the toughness/grittiness and how it doesn't match the 11-12 team, but Dorsett is as big a pain as Prust and Moore is actually a really gritty player as well.

Once the team gets healthy and meshing into this new season, I think people will be singing a different tune.

Although, results are the only way people will ever stop saying "what if."

 

[SnowblindNYR]

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



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.

1) Yes but that wasn't because of the Nash trade or because the 11-12 team was so special but because 2 of our 3 big guns were MIA.

2) See question 1 for the answer to this. And you can't compare a sick Bruins team to a mediocre (relatively) Devils team can you?

3) Nash is definitely not a proven playoff performer, just my point is that Gaborik sucking wasn't that big of a deal since he's not a playoff performer, it was par for the course.

 

[smoneil]

Funny the people longing for that team are probably the same people that said that team had no offense and wasn't skilled enough. People just need new reasons to complain.

While I agree that people on here seem to just need new reasons to complain, the first part of your post is just revisionist history. There WERE a group of people who kept going on about how that team needed more offense and skill. From what I've seen, however, the people who were on about that back then are the same ones trying to minimize how good that team was. In other words, they wanted less grit and tenacity. They wanted more skill. They disregarded things like compete level and heart. They got it, it didn't quite work out the way they wanted, and they are now trying to justify their error by trying to make it seem like the 11/12 team wasn't any good to begin with.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

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

Not to shock you, but Kreider is one of the major reasons this team sniffed the second round, let alone the conference finals.

 

[OverTheCap]

The 2011-12 Rangers weren't dominant, nor were they all that talented, and I don't think there are many Rangers fans that think they were. What was impressive about the 2011-12 team was how they found a way to win despite their lack of talent. They were still able to finish 1st in the conference and overcome the adversity of losing Staal and Sauer for long stretches of the season. Their resiliency and ability to unite as a team was admirable and some of those qualities were not present in last year's team.

The team of two seasons ago had the necessary mindset and drive to be a cup contender but were lacking in talent and ran out of steam in the end. Conversely, while last year's team may have had more top end talent, they didn't have that same mentality and team unity as the year before.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

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.

I'll give you "the whole was better than the sum of its parts". But in what world was the roster very good? D and goaltending (which is better this year anyway).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The 2011-12 Rangers weren't dominant, nor were they all that talented, and I don't think there are many Rangers fans that think they were. What was impressive about the 2011-12 team was how they found a way to win despite their lack of talent. They were still able to finish 1st in the conference and overcome the adversity of losing Staal and Sauer for long stretches of the season. Their resiliency and ability to unite as a team was admirable and some of those qualities were not present in last year's team.

The team of two seasons ago had the necessary mindset and drive to be a cup contender but were lacking in talent and ran out of steam in the end. Conversely, while last year's team may have had more top end talent, they didn't have that same mentality and team unity as the year before.

Best post of the thread. I'm just tired of reading "got rid of a winner for a loser in Nash".

 

[Fitzy]

As I recall, Columbus wanted one of Hagelin, Kreider, Miller, Del Zotto ect for the third piece. That we were able to talk them down to Tim Erixon was huge.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

jesus christ talk about not giving a kid a chance.

Nothing in my comment indicated I had already given up completely on the kid. Do you really not understand the comment to this degree? I believe Anisimov will be a better player and is a better player than Kreider is or will be. It's really not that far fetched to think this. I could be wrong but Anisimov was a damn good player, super cheap, and is also young just like Kreider. Seriously "Talk about not giving a kid a chance" I'm talking about keeping a guy who was 24 years old and is 25 now. The difference of course is he was already a big contributor on this team for YEARS. Also I said "starting to think" yet your comment implies I am giving up altogether and looking to dump him for a pick when I was talking about trading him while keeping a 24 year old top 6 forward. Come on you have to think a little before flipping out. Did I say i was starting to think Kreider is a bust? No! Ugh sometimes the things you people infer are just crazy

Not to shock you, but Kreider is one of the major reasons this team sniffed the second round, let alone the conference finals.

Wow...just wow...It's stunning what you people say in responses. I don't know how to make it any clearer in the post you quoted that I am not simply saying he sucks or anything. If I WAS saying that then these responses would make all the sense in the world. How are you people not grasping that what I'm saying is we would have kept Artie instead. Do you have to agree that keeping Artie would have been better? Of course you don't. But you people seem utterly unaware that I was even referring to this as a possibility. Lastly his performance in that PO came BEFORE the Nash trade so wtf does his performance in the PO's have to do with anything? We still would have gotten his performance and then traded him afterwards.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

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

A massive error? Talk about hyperbole. It wasn't even an error. He's a mediocre player who is streaky as all get-out.

 

[eco's bones]

1) Yes but that wasn't because of the Nash trade or because the 11-12 team was so special but because 2 of our 3 big guns were MIA.

2) See question 1 for the answer to this. And you can't compare a sick Bruins team to a mediocre (relatively) Devils team can you?

3) Nash is definitely not a proven playoff performer, just my point is that Gaborik sucking wasn't that big of a deal since he's not a playoff performer, it was par for the course.

I think you've been retreating all along here. The Rangers replaced the a lot of depth but it took some time and the 12-13 team didn't start to begin to get it together until the second trade with Columbus was made. The problem with losing Anisimov and Dubinsky is they could be spotted up and down the lineup. Fedetenko and Prust were just good 3rd line types. They were all defensively responsible--they all pk'ed well. The Rangers continued to add depth in the off season. Moore and Pouliot are good players but they're still not the quality of Dubinsky or Anisimov--they do however give the team more flexibility.

In any case I don't play the game of one year's team against another team in a different year. It does not make sense. But the Bruins in 11-12 were the team to beat. They were the Cup champs. Rangers beat them every time in the regular season. The 11-12 Rangers team was going places. The 12-13 not so much. A bunch of games at the end against the division's bottom feeders pushed us over the finish line and that wasn't by much. Last year was a step back--another proof of which is the coach got fired. Coaches don't usually get fired when their teams meet expectations.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

A massive error? Talk about hyperbole. It wasn't even an error. He's a mediocre player who is streaky as all get-out.

Hyperbole? How is it hyperbole? I notice you neglected to provide any sort of comparison between him and CK which was the point of the post. And if you do feel it was hyperbole than this is how you would have proven it. If you feel CK will be great going forward that's fine. I have severe doubts starting to form although I could be wrong and if he isn't great, above mediocre or better than streaky as all get out then my point stands.

Because again Anisimov IS better than kreider by a LOT and if you disagree how about providing some actual reasons? Although at this pointI think it'd be beyond ridiculous to assert anything other than AA is much better than CK. Now if you feel in the future Ck will be overwhelmingly better than AA I wouldn't argue although I disagree. He might be better but I just don't see anything that makjes me think it'll be by much. So I think we traded away a real solid player to keep a player who might be as good one day.

If CK doesn't at least play as well as AA did than it was a massive error imo.

 

[Fitzy]

I thought it was pretty clear in the playoffs vs Boston last year that the Tortorella style had been figured out.

So regardless of what roster we fielded, teams were going to know how to play the NY Rangers. Dump the puck, take shots from the blue line and deflect pucks.

Where we are now roster-wise is irrelevant, or at least not a big enough change from the 11-12 squad to make an enormous difference. What is different is that we need to swallow the bitter pill of a change-on-the-fly coaching regime, where it will likely get worse before it gets better. I wasn't sure firing Tortorella was the answer, but if he is implementing the same system in Vancouver it shows he isn't going to change.

We needed to change the style of play this team played. That is going to facilitate change. Certain players like Girardi who were perfectly fit might see a dropoff in play, and other players like Zuccarello or Staal who might have been reigned in by Torts might see an improvement. And there will be mistakes. But living in the past is kind of useless, because we could have played five straight seasons with the 11-12 roster and coach, and as long as teams knew how to play us, we weren't going to win a cup.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Hyperbole? How is it hyperbole? I notice you neglected to provide any sort of comparison between him and CK which was the point of the post. And if you do feel it was hyperbole than this is how you would have proven it. If you feel CK will be great going forward that's fine. I have severe doubts starting to form although I could be wrong and if he isn't great, above mediocre or better than streaky as all get out then my point stands

It's not a massive error to move a mediocre, streaky player for a superstar.

CK is going to be a similarly streaky, similarly mediocre player but faster. I have no problem with them wanting to hold onto potential and trade something they already fully know.

 

[eco's bones]

Dubinsky is hard nosed and has spirit. Anisimov IMO lacks these qualities. Artie has more skill--again IMO--but I don't think he'll ever be the better player of the two. Both of them were productive players but inconsistent. Most NHL players are inconsistent to some degree. Losing all of Dubinsky, Anisimov, Fedotenko and Prust and replacing them with the likes of Asham, Powe, Pyatt and Halpern was horrible work by Sather. We lost grit, flexibility, defensive commitment, any kind of scoring production from the bottom 6.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's not a massive error to move a mediocre, streaky player for a superstar.

CK is going to be a similarly streaky, similarly mediocre player but faster. I have no problem with them wanting to hold onto potential and trade something they already fully know.

Again than it's not hyperbole it's just you think CK will become a superstar. If he becomes a superstar I'll be the first to say I am glad we traded AA instead and the team was right. You're entitled to your opinion. You aren't capable of just saying that for some reason though and had to attack as well as disagree. Waitaminute I just realized you screwed up in your response and for some reason incorrectly asserted that I said "Trading AA for Nash was a massive error" I do not want to assume this but did you make this mistake because your comment seems to imply that you did

I do not think the trade was a mistake. I do however think we may have been better off trading CK instead of AA. I was clear about this. So I do think that this was the massive error.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Dubinsky is not a shell of what he was. His goal scoring has gone south.

Even so in last year's shortened season he played 29 games and had 2g-18a-20pts-76pm. That pro rates to about a 55pt season. What's more he was +2 50 shots on goal-64 hits and 17 blocked shots. The hits are good--the other numbers okay but nothing extraordinary. Saving the last stat because it is extraordinary. He won 256 face-offs and lost 183. That's a .583 face-off %. That's quite a bit better than what I would expect from any Rangers center on our current roster.

His cap hit might be a bit high but he's still a pretty good player. In preseason he was getting lots of time with Gaborik. Dubinsky could put up nice stats this year.

Good points but the role he had in Cb was one that he would not have had here last year nor would he have had that role going forward. I think that what Dub provides now pales in comparison to what he WAS providing us. I think what he gave CB last year also pales in comparison to what he was giving us. He's a capable player in the league and all but I just don't think he's nearly what he used to be. He could very well shake off this two year slump hes had though you are right although I do not think he will. I think what he provides now and what he will continue to provide are replaceable

Dubinsky is hard nosed and has spirit. Anisimov IMO lacks these qualities. Artie has more skill--again IMO--but I don't think he'll ever be the better player of the two. Both of them were productive players but inconsistent. Most NHL players are inconsistent to some degree. Losing all of Dubinsky, Anisimov, Fedotenko and Prust and replacing them with the likes of Asham, Powe, Pyatt and Halpern was horrible work by Sather. We lost grit, flexibility, defensive commitment, any kind of scoring production from the bottom 6.

Agree with almost all of this I think AA was/is/will be better than Dubs though

 

[Tawnos]

I thought it was pretty clear in the playoffs vs Boston last year that the Tortorella style had been figured out.

So regardless of what roster we fielded, teams were going to know how to play the NY Rangers. Dump the puck, take shots from the blue line and deflect pucks.

Where we are now roster-wise is irrelevant, or at least not a big enough change from the 11-12 squad to make an enormous difference. What is different is that we need to swallow the bitter pill of a change-on-the-fly coaching regime, where it will likely get worse before it gets better. I wasn't sure firing Tortorella was the answer, but if he is implementing the same system in Vancouver it shows he isn't going to change.

We needed to change the style of play this team played. That is going to facilitate change. Certain players like Girardi who were perfectly fit might see a dropoff in play, and other players like Zuccarello or Staal who might have been reigned in by Torts might see an improvement. And there will be mistakes. But living in the past is kind of useless, because we could have played five straight seasons with the 11-12 roster and coach, and as long as teams knew how to play us, we weren't going to win a cup.

I agree with this whole post except for the bolded. 23 players on the NHL roster today. 11 of them weren't on the roster for the Rangers in the playoffs that year. That's HUGE turnover in 16 months.

 

[Fitzy]

I agree with this whole post except for the bolded. 23 players on the NHL roster today. 11 of them weren't on the roster for the Rangers in the playoffs that year. That's HUGE turnover in 16 months.

A lot of those guys are 3rd and 4th liners.

You look at the core of the defense, it is the same. 5 of the top 6 scorers are the same. With the exception of the guys in the big trades, the difference is people like Johnny Mitchell, Erik Christensen, Ruslan Fedotenko, and Brandon Prust.

I don't think it's a huge change. I see the Nash and Gaborik trades as essentially a wash in turns of overall movement of ability. So we're pretty much in the same spot except Richards play has declined, and McDonagh/Stepans play have greatly improved.

 

[Kovalev27]

That team was good not great but what they did was outwork everyone and played in your face hockey behind a great season from Richards Gaborik Girardi mcd and MDZ (first half)

Those 3 dmen played all star hockey for the most part

Last year Girardi and MDZ were awful Richards awful Gaborik awful and we lost our teeth.

This years team should be better then both talent wise but still very concerned about our grit. Dorsett does nothing for me and Asham is sitting?

I'd let Girardi go this summer honestly. He was awful last year and looks just as bad to start this year. I like Connor Allen I like Mcilrath I like Stralman to get more ice time in this system. Spend the money on offense or an offensive dman

 

[JoeGarelli]

that 2011 rangers team was one for the ages... throughout the whole regular season, and then the playoffs.. yeah they wore down, but what a ****ing team.. they willed themselves to victory.. they would have beat the bruins last season.. bruins were down and hurt, rangers should have pounced.. things went from bad to worse last year as that series went on.. remember before moving gabby, he owned the bruins..

the nhl isnt 1994 anymore.. the difference in the best and worst is a few percentage points.. there are no gimmie playoffs rounds or games. honestly id say the devils had an easier path to the ECF in 2011.. barely squeek past the lowly panthers.. then a rivalry series against the flyers who were hurting bad..

honestly the senators are a good team, great coach... i would argue the rangers lost just as much in hagelin as the sens lost in alfie.. hagelin was a huge catalyst for the richie/gaborik duo.. to say 1 bad called that created the 5-3 changed the whole series is ridiculous.. lets go back throughout the whole series and really dissect all calls made, hell lets check the non calls.. thats such a silly argument.. rangers were down 3-2 came back and won the series..

The rangers managed to keep karlson scoreless, save for a weird shot off of DZs foot.

The Capitals knocked off the bruins the previous round.. the capitals up and down their lineup are a solid team.. they had a coach in hunter really had them playing good d.. i mean if we are going to dissect penalties, without ward's highstick the caps probably win the series..

to say those teams are mediocre is kinda unfair to the rangers..

last season was 48 games, i dont think you can judge nhlers on a 48 game season.. they are 82 game players, there are ups and downs.. thats what separates the nhlers from just pro hockey players.

thats why you saw alot of down years for normally good players.. and alot of no name guys making names for themselves.

 

[Tawnos]

A lot of those guys are 3rd and 4th liners.

You look at the core of the defense, it is the same. 5 of the top 6 scorers are the same. With the exception of the guys in the big trades, the difference is people like Johnny Mitchell, Erik Christensen, Ruslan Fedotenko, and Brandon Prust.

I don't think it's a huge change. I see the Nash and Gaborik trades as essentially a wash in turns of overall movement of ability. So we're pretty much in the same spot except Richards play has declined, and McDonagh/Stepans play have greatly improved.

That the trades essentially wash out is way besides the point. The turnover itself is the problem, both on the ice and in the locker room. We have a group of forwards that's barely played together as a team. Now they're learning a new system. When you have a team that isn't a cohesive group of players, you fail. We haven't had that since this remaking of the team started in the summer of 2012 and it's what makes all of us feel like the team is on shaky ground. Yes, talent-wise we're about the same. The root of this team's problem last year wasn't talent and it isn't talent right now.

 

[nyr__1994]

That team was good not great but what they did was outwork everyone and played in your face hockey behind a great season from Richards Gaborik Girardi mcd and MDZ (first half)

Those 3 dmen played all star hockey for the most part

Last year Girardi and MDZ were awful Richards awful Gaborik awful and we lost our teeth.

This years team should be better then both talent wise but still very concerned about our grit. Dorsett does nothing for me and Asham is sitting?

I'd let Girardi go this summer honestly. He was awful last year and looks just as bad to start this year. I like Connor Allen I like Mcilrath I like Stralman to get more ice time in this system. Spend the money on offense or an offensive dman

The problem with "letting Girardi go" is that he is a top pairing RD of which we have nothing to replace him. I can see the argument in getting Anton some more minutes, but if he was getting the 23-25 that Girardi eats up, he would be more than exposed...In a perfect world, Girardi will cost 5-5.5 to resign, who on the FA market will you find for that salary to play the minutes that he plays? Good Luck!

Also, did you see McIlraith in the preseason. He may be ready for ~15 minutes a game next season. If he was thrust into a 2nd pair role next year, I feel it would either kill his development, or the teams chances...He is a project with tools, but he needs to put the tools together.