Toggle sidebar

Fire AV, Fire Sather. This is a bad hockey team.

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
OverTheCap said:
The Rangers will either stand pat or be buyers at the deadline as usual.

A last ditch effort to make the playoffs is more important to Sather than acquiring assets for expiring contracts. Case in point, 2010 - the Rangers could have traded Prospal at the deadline, he was having a solid season and may have netted a 2nd at the least. The frustrating thing about this season is that there are so many expiring contracts, and you know all of them won't be retained. I have a sinking suspicion we will see a lot of these players walk away for nothing.
Click to expand...

Add to that the fact that signed players bring back better assets! The fact that they are UFA's gives other teams the ammunition they need to chew down the asking price because at that point they can say take what we offer or lose your player for nothing. The only chance you have is to create a bidding war and outside of Hank how many players do we have that can create one?
 
NYR Viper said:
Or he is just trying too hard to do everything himself.
Click to expand...

This is basically it. Can't be that mad at him when no one else gives a ****, and he's got to do everything in his power to rile them up :facepalm: I can't believe the Dorsett hate after one game.
 
Raspewtin said:
This is basically it. Can't be that mad at him when no one else gives a ****, and he's got to do everything in his power to rile them up :facepalm: I can't believe the Dorsett hate after one game.
Click to expand...

Its not really one game. I thought he played like an idiot when he came back for the playoffs too. Whatever, it theoretically should be easy to address, but theres no doubt hes played like an idiot since hes put on a Ranger uniform.
 
I think Dorsett is trying to find his identity here and I can only go on how well regarded he seemed to have been in CBJ.

I'm sure he's heard about how important Prust (even Avery) was to the team and is trying to emulate him. I think he's obviously trying to hard and is especially vulnerable with the team playing so poorly.

We desperately need players with jam to their game and that means, in his case, that if we want to take advantage of the assets he brings to the table, we have to live with the downside of his game.

Not that the coaches shouldn't have had a discussion with him, and I'm sure they did, and that he needs to pick his spots.

Any talk of getting rid of him, unless it is is a trade for a skilled forward, is ridiculous.

As much as the Gaborik trade was, in many ways, a trade to replace some of the depth we lost at center (Arty and Dubi, replaced by Brassard), it was also an attempt to replace Prust.

Let's give this guy a bit longer.
 
HatTrick Swayze said:
Bravo. Especially RE prospect development. There are a lot of posts saying to play the kids because "they can't be any worse." Putting aside that that is not even necessarily true, that is not how a successful franchise should view playing their young players. The focus should be on - what is going to net the best results long term? Hell even mid-term - end of this season / early next season. Getting shuttled back and forth, being told "you're ready...no wait you're not", not getting even enough practice time to establish chemistry with your teammates, etc is just not in the long term interest of these prospects. I don't believe that.

If we had a solid core a la, for example, SJ, that needed an energy/motivation boost - fine. If Miller, Kreider, etc was expected to come up and ride shotgun for a line that could fundamentally play hockey - ya know complete a pass, break out, forecheck - fine. That isn't the case here because the team is lacking 1. talent 2. an identity and 3. any signs of mental strength.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't want the kids to come up here and suck. This team can't handle being bad, so why would I want our future thrust in the middle of the woe-is-me crowd? I want our kids to win in Hartford. I want them to make a playoff push together. That was the success of the 11-12 team. They grew up in the organization. They learned to play hard in the organization. They won in the organization. Then they made the jump together. If you gave them the right amount of time and tutelage, you could potentially have an entire line make the jump to the NHL. Boom. Instant chemistry.

This team is built to win -- at least on paper -- it's not built to nurture the development of youngsters. I like Callahan as much as the next guy, but he's not Chris Drury. Drury was a mentor. Cally is a "follow me or be left behind" kind of leader; and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not right for developing youth. Nash is not a real leader. Richards is too worried about getting his own career back on track to help kids learn the game. It's egos and 'never put it all together' talent. Not a great recipe for youth.
 
Trxjw said:
I don't think he has the stones to do it. He's old and he's on his way out the door whether he wants to admit it or not, but he wants to win a Cup before he retires. Otherwise his tenure with the Rangers is guaranteed to be a giant black mark on his legacy. The irony is that this team is in an extremely advantageous position if they wanted to "retool" and compete sooner rather than later. This team has a group of young players you could easily build around, and coupled with the prospects who should be ready in the next two years, plus whatever you could recoup via trade, you could probably be pretty close to where we are right now, if not better, within the next two seasons.

I'm certainly not championing a rebuild just yet, but if we're in the dumps come trade deadline, I'll probably pick up a 'blow it up' banner. I love Hank, Cally, Danny G, etc, but those three guys alone could get you a king's ransom at the deadline. Regardless, I'm sure the team will believe they're a shakeup away from going 15-4 down the stretch and will deal for a bunch of "character guys" at the deadline.
Click to expand...

Well they need to fill the bottom 6 with character guys that can defend and win draws right now. Let's not embrace losing after game 5.
 
It's obvious Sather picked AV to give the illusion he was passing Messier up so Messier could leave and join the Oilers so that when Yakupov got benched early in the season he could call McTavish and get him for MDZ who isn't practicing due to the flu, but we all know what that means.

I wish.
 
Shark Staal said:
Would anyone be inclined for a Dan Girardi for Thomas Vanek trade?
Click to expand...

In a heartbeat....

We should move him if we can, this year. He's going to want a lot of money, and he isn't worth it. His game is already in decline. It would be a bad signing.
 
KreiMeARiver said:
In a heartbeat....

We should move him if we can, this year. He's going to want a lot of money, and he isn't worth it. His game is already in decline. It would be a bad signing.
Click to expand...

You could apply the exact same logic to acquiring Vanek. If the Rangers move their UFAs they need to get young assets.
 
Shark Staal said:
Would anyone be inclined for a Dan Girardi for Thomas Vanek trade?
Click to expand...

No idea why the Sabres would do that, but I'd pass. Vanek is likely going to go to Minnesota in the summer, and I'd want a return that can stay with the club beyond this season if I was moving Girardi.

Send him to the Leafs for Gardiner and Biggs. A kid that can play now, and who fits the transition game we've been playing, and a kid who can help Hartford and possibly develop into that aggressive 3rd line power-winger we've been lacking for years.
 
Trxjw said:
No idea why the Sabres would do that, but I'd pass. Vanek is likely going to go to Minnesota in the summer, and I'd want a return that can stay with the club beyond this season if I was moving Girardi.

Send him to the Leafs for Gardiner and Biggs. A kid that can play now, and who fits the transition game we've been playing, and a kid who can help Hartford and possibly develop into that aggressive 3rd line power-winger we've been lacking for years.
Click to expand...

I proposed that to some Leaf fans and they seemed okay with it. They wanted a conditional pick with Girardi in case he didn't re-sign but he would.

That is the type of deal I could get behind.
 
Trxjw said:
Send him to the Leafs for Gardiner and Biggs. A kid that can play now, and who fits the transition game we've been playing, and a kid who can help Hartford and possibly develop into that aggressive 3rd line power-winger we've been lacking for years.
Click to expand...

If we can't get him re-signed to a reasonable contract and this team doesn't show that its a contender by the deadline then this is the kind of trade I can get behind. Not necessarily this exact idea but the idea in principle.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
On the flip side, I'm not sure Girardi is what Buffalo would be looking for in return for Vanek.
Click to expand...

Oh they wouldn't...at all. It would never happen. But, I'd still do it. haha

I wonder what kind of return we could get for Girardi...young assets wise. He's an UFA, sooo..

Girardi+ for Yakupov?? ;)

hell give them Girardi and Del Sucko...

I'm actually gonna start a thread for this topic....so as to not thread-jack this one.
 
NYR Viper said:
Dorsett has no future in NY but Haley does? Huh?

Dorsett is an extremely useful player most teams would love to add and we all want to get rid of him?
Click to expand...

don't get me wrong. I like Dorsett. I like players that like to be aggressive. In my perfect world I would have both him and Haley playing on the same line.

I probably should have excluded him from the get rid of group, but he is still a talentless hack.

for his role, he's posted solid numbers while in Columbus.

so yeah, including Dorsett in the group of guys I would prefer to part with was an error on my part.
 
savebyrichter420 said:
If we can't get him re-signed to a reasonable contract and this team doesn't show that its a contender by the deadline then this is the kind of trade I can get behind. Not necessarily this exact idea but the idea in principle.
Click to expand...

if we are not "contenders" by the deadline and our most important player is not locked up, trading Girardi is going to be the least of our worries.

just sayin
 
pld459666 said:
if we are not "contenders" by the deadline and our most important player is not locked up, trading Girardi is going to be the least of our worries.

just sayin
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that he was the A#1 priority, I was just agreeing with the notion. This should apply to any of our upcoming UFA's. If you can't re-sign them and you're not contending you move them all for assets, that's what competent franchises do. My fear is we neither re-sign them nor trade them because the GM is an egomaniac and likes to inject his pride into these situations. If we get left with nothing come July this team will be taking the fast track back to the dark ages.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
How are you defining contender?
Click to expand...

I know that in the truest sense of the word, there's a lot that would have to happen for the Rangers to be considered legit contenders to win it all.

What I mean by contender is a team that has the potential capability to get to the 3rd round and maybe make an appearance in the finals.

(both are long shots I know)

I just feel with the scatter-brained approach to building a team, the Rangers are going to lose their best player for nada.
 
pld459666 said:
I know that in the truest sense of the word, there's a lot that would have to happen for the Rangers to be considered legit contenders to win it all.

What I mean by contender is a team that has the potential capability to get to the 3rd round and maybe make an appearance in the finals.

(both are long shots I know)

I just feel with the scatter-brained approach to building a team, the Rangers are going to lose their best player for nada.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with the fourth paragraph. I'm just tired of the mentality of "Well, if we get in you never know." or "Nobody would want to face us in the first round."
 
pld459666 said:
I know that in the truest sense of the word, there's a lot that would have to happen for the Rangers to be considered legit contenders to win it all.

What I mean by contender is a team that has the potential capability to get to the 3rd round and maybe make an appearance in the finals.

(both are long shots I know)

I just feel with the scatter-brained approach to building a team, the Rangers are going to lose their best player for nada.
Click to expand...

This ideology has been in place for years, and isn't going to change anytime soon. We thought things had changed because we got lucky with a few decent guys (Staal, etc.) but after the Nash trade, and with subsequent moves ( and lack thereof) it became more and more apparent that this is indeed the same 'ol Rangers.

Sather needs to go. We always come back to this. The problem is we will never be bad enough to draft elite talent because Dolan needs butts in seats, and will spend money on overpriced free agent "star-appeal" to keep them there.

A good GM could probably make this work, but we have Sather.

Sather got cocky thinking he could fire Torts and just plug in some other coach with these players, but yeah...no so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom