Nobody needs to be named now. If we lose tonight - or in the next round - and you see people call this a successful season, that's who.
Speculation: Fire Glen Sather
- Thread starter BBKers
- Start date
-
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
Nobody needs to be named now. If we lose tonight - or in the next round - and you see people call this a successful season, that's who.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
gardenparty
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2011
- 209
- 8
On 5/7, I responded to a poster who said we have like a .5% chance of coming back and winning the series (after our dreadful Game 4 performance). All of the boxes are being checked here:
Maybe so, but consider this:
* We finally solved MAF. 2 goals on 15 shots. Plant that seed of doubt in his head and his game can turn south real fast (check)
* Key is to get the first goal in Pitt and gain some confidence (check)
* Rangers seem to play better on the road (check)
* Will likely play better with less pressure as it's win or go home (check - what I meant by "less pressure" was no one expected them to win. The pressure will still be on Pittsburgh to close them out tonight. The Rangers were dead).
* We get another 45 hours or so to rest so fatigue should become less of a factor (check - the rest factor has been the single biggest difference in the comeback IMHO)
* Kreider now has his playoff legs under him and should be better (check - he's been a beast)
Maybe so, but consider this:
* We finally solved MAF. 2 goals on 15 shots. Plant that seed of doubt in his head and his game can turn south real fast (check)
* Key is to get the first goal in Pitt and gain some confidence (check)
* Rangers seem to play better on the road (check)
* Will likely play better with less pressure as it's win or go home (check - what I meant by "less pressure" was no one expected them to win. The pressure will still be on Pittsburgh to close them out tonight. The Rangers were dead).
* We get another 45 hours or so to rest so fatigue should become less of a factor (check - the rest factor has been the single biggest difference in the comeback IMHO)
* Kreider now has his playoff legs under him and should be better (check - he's been a beast)
haveandare
Registered User
People are excited about the positive outcome of a game 7 on the day of that game. A symptom of organizational tolerance for mediocrity if I've ever seen one.
nice, gardenparty. I think the biggest check is Kreider. The added energy, and his ability to take up minutes, could not have been more welcomed at any better time. Feels as though the last game was a while ago. Hopefully everyone is well-rested and ready to go. No predictions from me except a lot of holding my breath.
Joe Thornton??? SMH :FacePalm. Yeah lets go back to the 90s and start singing 35 and older guys who cant really skate anymore. His passing ability is still there. PLUS he HATES the Rangers. Most of our fans do too. Didnt he just sign a 3 year extension with Marleau?
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
This board can be confusing at times.
A while back when comparing AV and Torts, our 2012 ECF loss was "the furthest the team has gotten in decades". It was an accomplishment to be cherished, even more so after Sather swiftly and neatly eviscerated that successful team and did a jig on its memory.
Now, on the verge of another possible ECF appearance, to accept a potential ECF loss is to accept mediocrity. To be one of the last four teams is somehow falling short of a successful season.
The team that we've watched all season, which we have been repeatedly told is not that good and not a contender, that we've been told has been secretly been playing all season like they did in game 4... now needs to reach the SCF to be considered a success?
Perhaps someone can help me reconcile this thinking. I am at a loss.
A while back when comparing AV and Torts, our 2012 ECF loss was "the furthest the team has gotten in decades". It was an accomplishment to be cherished, even more so after Sather swiftly and neatly eviscerated that successful team and did a jig on its memory.
Now, on the verge of another possible ECF appearance, to accept a potential ECF loss is to accept mediocrity. To be one of the last four teams is somehow falling short of a successful season.
The team that we've watched all season, which we have been repeatedly told is not that good and not a contender, that we've been told has been secretly been playing all season like they did in game 4... now needs to reach the SCF to be considered a success?
Perhaps someone can help me reconcile this thinking. I am at a loss.
I actually dont think you can call the Rangers "mediocre" anymore.
3 straight trips to the 2nd round is a feat only matched by Los Angeles over the past 3 years.
That said, I have a bad feeling the 2nd/3rd round exit is the best finish this team will ever accomplish under Glen Sather, and he'll be leaving his successor with a big mess.
3 straight trips to the 2nd round is a feat only matched by Los Angeles over the past 3 years.
That said, I have a bad feeling the 2nd/3rd round exit is the best finish this team will ever accomplish under Glen Sather, and he'll be leaving his successor with a big mess.
I was just pointing out the differences between the mentality of the Penguins and Rangers fan bases regarding this game, and stating the mentality of the organizations themselves could be similar to the fan bases.
If the Rangers lose tonight, we'll move on and many will consider this a good season. If the Penguins lose tonight, this season will be a disaster for them, and heads will most likely roll.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
I agree that winning the cup breeds greed and that desire to get back to the final dance, but the current circumstances are a bit different.
If the Rangers were up 3-1 and ended up losing 3 straight, most people would freak the ****** out and we would hear about how heartless the team was and how trading Callahan killed us, Nash and St. Louis should die, Torts was a god, etc etc.
Actually we might hear that anyway.
Yeah, I mentioned the fact that going from 3-1 to 3-3 brings a level of satisfaction from one team and angst from the other, but I really think it's more organizational than that.
I think overall regardless of how the series would have gone, Ranger fans would be satisfied to some extent with a game seven loss in this round, while in Pittsburgh it would be met with outrage, and probably loss of jobs.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
Neither bolded are stretches.
The first bolded is likely. Making a SCF is extremely difficult, let alone winning a cup, which is a simply a monumental accomplishment. That said, I think the team in the next 2 or 3 years should be in the mix. After that who knows.
The second bolded is harder to determine. If he retires in two years or so, he likely leaves a group of young players entering their prime (McDonagh, Staal, Stepan, Kreider, MZA, Hagelin) and some veterans in/around their prime (Lundqvist, Girardi, Nash, Klein). They should be able to ice a solid team while having ample time to restock the cupboard. Or have the chips to trade if a full rebuild was necessary. If he leaves 5 or 8 years from now? Again, tough to say. Either way it is not a stretch to think Sather will not leave the team in an optimal position.
One thing I can say with almost certainty is that the mess Sather inevitably leaves behind will be better than the mess he inherited.
haveandare
Registered User
I think this difference in mentality is being overblown and misinterpreted a bit. After winning the cup in 09, the Pens lost in the second round in 10, lost in the first round in 11, lost in the first round in 12, then got swept in the ECF last year.
The Pens don't traditionally hold themselves to this incredible standard where losing in the second round means massive disappointment and necessary change. If they did, heads would have been rolling for years now.
This loss would be horrible for the Pens because they were up 3 - 1, because the Rangers looked absolutely horrendous for entire games this series, and most of all, because it is the latest chapter in the book of the Pens failing to reach the finals despite having Crosby and Malkin, who are widely thought to be the two best centers in the game.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,924
- 2,330
It's likely both. Not just losing, but how.
They made the conference finals last year, but Pitt lost in the 1st round the two years before that and the second round the year before that. All under Bylsma, all after winning the cup. So there has been some acceptance that you can't always be one of the last teams standing.
I agree to some extent, and you make fair points.
The other side of the coin, however, is their best player (and the league's best player) has missed anywhere from 50%-75% of seasons 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 because of concussion/injuries, so they really haven't had two of the best players that whole time.
This year they're probably expecting more, because for once Crosby did play the whole season, but it seems to me like he's been playing hurt the entire playoffs.
Oh I understand full well what you guys feel about it. I disagree. I look at the scope of a franchises history (not ours...any franchise ever) and I'd bet not many franchises average more than a cup/championship every 25 years let alone one every 14. So if we get a cup and all it took was 14 years I'd sign up for that and I'd have to retract my opinion that he needs to be fired. Any1 of us making a prediction however would feel very safe in thiking we'll forfeit our 1st, not make the SCF again and we all will retain the opinion that he should be fired.
Very true but hey I didn't start this hypothetical. I just responded to others who were already talking about it
I agree that is what you were saying but I was responding to you and the argument that you were either directly or indirectly defending. All I said was "the idea is he should be fired" I didn't attribute that idea directly to you and you alone but considering the direction of the thread it just seemed natural to address your post that way. Others made the "he should be fired" subjective argument, the other guy made the MSL subjective comment, you pointed out the MSL stuff was subjective so I pointed out that the original "firing" stuff was subjective too.
Both subjective opinions are based on a certain amount of sense and it's perfectly sensible to assume MSL being here has gotten us to round 2, game 7 and that we would have lost earlier without the trade or with a different trade. It's also sensible to believe that without the MSL trade we would have done just as well and may do better in our future so of course it's reasonable to debate whether the MSL trade was worth it. It's also perfectly sensible to be of the opinion that Sather's tenure has fallen short of "good enough" and should be fired. Whether he fell so far short of "good enough" that even a cup win doesn't salvage his reputation is up to each individual.
Last edited:
Mcranger...
I assume the "mediocrity" is meant as a term for Sather's entire tenure and not just this season. Also for me, it's tough to define mediocrity in sports. If your team makes the playoffs 6 seasons in a row, but can't get past the second round and got past the second round only once in that span, will that team retain the same staff and/or GM during that time? And if not, then is it mediocre? I don't know. Where does a GM have to lie within wins and losses for a period to be considered mediocre? Somewhere outside 10th, 11th or 12th best in terms of record, playoff appearances, and playoff wins during that period? I don't know, but it would be interesting to see where Sather stands over his tenure.
Having said all that, I personally would not suggest this season was a mediocre season. If they lose tonight, I have to say they played better than many thought they would, went further than most of the league has done, and I can say that it's past mediocrity. It's at a point that many in RangerLand actually expect a win and the Rangers have injected confidence into the fanbase. Well, at least I can say I wouldn't be surprised if they won tonight, knowing it will be tough played game.
I assume the "mediocrity" is meant as a term for Sather's entire tenure and not just this season. Also for me, it's tough to define mediocrity in sports. If your team makes the playoffs 6 seasons in a row, but can't get past the second round and got past the second round only once in that span, will that team retain the same staff and/or GM during that time? And if not, then is it mediocre? I don't know. Where does a GM have to lie within wins and losses for a period to be considered mediocre? Somewhere outside 10th, 11th or 12th best in terms of record, playoff appearances, and playoff wins during that period? I don't know, but it would be interesting to see where Sather stands over his tenure.
Having said all that, I personally would not suggest this season was a mediocre season. If they lose tonight, I have to say they played better than many thought they would, went further than most of the league has done, and I can say that it's past mediocrity. It's at a point that many in RangerLand actually expect a win and the Rangers have injected confidence into the fanbase. Well, at least I can say I wouldn't be surprised if they won tonight, knowing it will be tough played game.
haveandare
Registered User
True. Without Crosby in the league, they arguably still have the best center though, so the expectations should be high anyway.
I think this loss would be big for them because of the way it happened and because of the cumulative effect it'd have of this core of theirs failing to make the finals yet again.
Yes, the Rangers tend to set the benchmark lower than finals or bust, but they haven't won in semi recent memory with the same core like the Pens have, and they don't have the two best centers in the game like the Pens have.
I don't think it's defeatist or mediocre, I think it's just reality. The Pens won somewhat recently with a team that wasn't so different in terms of key cogs, so they have high expectations.
I definitely feel that this isn't good enough to save Sather but this is worth noting for sure. The team isn't a complete **** show.
Then again I'd understand if someone felt like it's hollow because we gave up too many assets for not enough reward.
aemoreira1981
Registered User
Now that the Rangers are in the ECF for the second time in 3 years...Sather has likely saved his job.
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
I'd just like to say that if the Rangers lost this game there would be a flood of posters riding in here on their high horses whining about draft picks, the team sucks, the team's not built properly like the Blues and the Kings etc, etc.
Some of you guys need to be treated for post-traumatic Rangers dark ages disorder. It's OK to hope sometimes.
Some of you guys need to be treated for post-traumatic Rangers dark ages disorder. It's OK to hope sometimes.
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Game 59: New York Rangers @ New York Islanders, 7:30 ET, MSG- Latest: Machinehead
-
