You're discrediting the benefits of having a team grow up together/play together for years. Theres something to be said from that - it benefits the team both on and off the ice.
This isn't baseball.
And you're overstating the affect the opposite way.
Of course, there's something to be said for having guys who "grew up together" lead a team and what that means for overall team chemistry.
But if we're going to throw out this "for anyone who followed the team through the dark ages" mantra, then they should also be able to see the significance of identifying the players that lead a room, and their importance (IE 94 cup run).
Just because you have a core of players of essentially the same acquisition era (whether by draft/FA/etc), doesn't mean they all have to stick with the team forever. Intelligent trading and asset management is the key here, as most recently seen in Chicago and now San Jose.
Clearly Sather & co. identified Callahan/Girardi/Staal/Henrik/etc as the room leaders over guys like Dubi/AA/Prust/Mara/Tyutin/Betts/etc over the last decade or so.
Now the missing piece here is using those guys listed as non-essential to build up a stream of incoming players that will just add on to that team mentality, as well as open spots up to guys who have bubbled their way up.
Chicago has done it for years now, San Jose is in the process of doing it. While not necessarily as successful, both Detroit and Boston have done this as well.
Sather has been (and is) unable to identify that next tier of players that should be acquired, and most assets the Rangers have are ridden to the point where they essentially are worth nothing in trades, although they still may provide value to other teams (PA Parenteu, Dupuis, Mitchell, Korp, Valentenko, etc, etc). The lone exception is Gomez, but that was just pure stupidity by MTL.
Now, the question is was the assessment of who ran the room wrong? Was Torts really the room leader? Was it actually Dubi? No one really knows outside of that room, so it's hard to speculate.
Regardless, the biggest issue remains that this team has been unable to have minor turnovers within its team without having extreme major setbacks, a problem that's run now for nearly 20 years.
Just letting Prust go or the Nash trade didn't end what was a good thing - even those teams were brutal to watch, regardless of record (There was just as many people then who were arguing a different style of play even if it meant less wins, as there are others arguing the other side of that no).
The problem begins and ends with Sather's inability to function as a progressive GM in this league. No amount of locker room cohesion or single acquisition will change this.
