Speculation: Fire Glen Sather

[DutchShamrock]

When a poster says even if we win the cup I want him fired that is personal. I do not see how that is about winning.

Every team wants to win. Winning takes a lot of factors in this era. Some factors like health/death are not controllable so the most I can ask is to put a entertaining team on the ice that has a chance to win.

Ok, how about this for a metaphor. Can we ask the question if Neil Smith made some significant blunders in '94? I think we win the cup without the amonte and weight trades. I also think we compete for multiple cups without those trades. *On one hand I am eternally grateful for that cup win but I don't think I will forget how he set this organization back on just that spring. Are we in a better spot right now without the Callahan trade? I know we are in the future but this isn't the same msl as even 3 months ago.

All sins aren't forgiven by winning a cup. We seriously mortgaged our future for that trade, much like smith did 20 years ago. And I'm not sure the team is better for it (in the Mel trade now and the amonte and weight trades specifically then).

Other blunders come to mind: the contract situations this year. Did they really have to wait so long. It cost us significant points and possibly home ice if we play Montreal.

The Nash trade. There are others but my time is pressed.

 

[Fletch]

great find, Bluenote. Miss Laches!

 

[NickyFotiu]

Ok, how about this for a metaphor. Can we ask the question if Neil Smith made some significant blunders in '94? I think we win the cup without the amonte and weight trades. I also think we compete for multiple cups without those trades. *On one hand I am eternally grateful for that cup win but I don't think I will forget how he set this organization back on just that spring. Are we in a better spot right now without the Callahan trade? I know we are in the future but this isn't the same msl as even 3 months ago.

All sins aren't forgiven by winning a cup. We seriously mortgaged our future for that trade, much like smith did 20 years ago. And I'm not sure the team is better for it (in the Mel trade now and the amonte and weight trades specifically then).

Other blunders come to mind: the contract situations this year. Did they really have to wait so long. It cost us significant points and possibly home ice if we play Montreal.

The Nash trade. There are others but my time is pressed.

You think we win the cup without those trades but you can not say for sure. I was against those trades. I felt they were about Keenan not the GM but I can not say for sure we would win without them. It is strictly speculation. Was Smith fired in 1994 right after winning the cup?

I hoped Marty would be the Marty of old so I agree that trade may not be great over time but there are plenty of teams that take no chances and have high draft picks year after year. Here we are in the final 4 teams for the 2nd time in 3 years.

I have yet to see a person that has never made a mistake neve rmind a GM except here on HF.

If somebody wants to fire a NHL GM the year they win the cup then obviously the cup was never their goal and their hatred was personal. By the way can you tell me how many GM's in hockey were fired the year they won the cup? I'd like to know how many NHL teams do that.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I hoped Marty would be the Marty of old so I agree that trade may not be great over time but there are plenty of teams that take no chances and have high draft picks year after year. Here we are in the final 4 teams for the 2nd time in 3 years.

If we're talking about the trading of draft picks (my biggest issue with Sather), it should be noted the first ECF came before any of those first rounders were sacrificed for Nash, Clowe and St Louis. So the first rounders have so far brought us ONE appearance in the final four, not two.

 

[Tawnos]

If we're talking about the trading of draft picks (my biggest issue with Sather), it should be noted the first ECF came before any of those first rounders were sacrificed for Nash, Clowe and St Louis. So the first rounders have so far brought us ONE appearance in the final four, not two.

We didn't trade any first rounders for Clowe. We dealt a 2nd and a 3rd for him (with another conditional 2nd whose condition wasn't met). We've dealt 2 first rounders for MSL.

 

[NickyFotiu]

If we're talking about the trading of draft picks (my biggest issue with Sather), it should be noted the first ECF came before any of those first rounders were sacrificed for Nash, Clowe and St Louis. So the first rounders have so far brought us ONE appearance in the final four, not two.

The trading of 1st round picks seems pretty overblown. In 14 years he traded two 1st round picks total (before the Marty trade) and also acquired one 1st round pick in a trade so he had a whopping net of minus one 1st round pick before the Marty trade.

Now even after the Marty trade and the run to the ECF its a minus 3 in 14 years. That is still not anywhere near the huge number that some people make it out to be.

 

[Jersey Girl]

We didn't trade any first rounders for Clowe. We dealt a 2nd and a 3rd for him (with another conditional 2nd whose condition wasn't met). We've dealt 2 first rounders for MSL.

Oops, you're right.

Thanks!

 

[Jersey Girl]

The trading of 1st round picks seems pretty overblown. In 14 years he traded two 1st round picks total (before the Marty trade) and also acquired one 1st round pick in a trade so he had a whopping net of minus one 1st round pick before the Marty trade.

Now even after the Marty trade and the run to the ECF its a minus 3 in 14 years. That is still not anywhere near the huge number that some people make it out to be.

My issue is not the net over 14 years, it's the three consecutive drafts (last year, this year and next year) with a grand total of zero first round and two second round draft picks because of Sather trades.

 

[Tawnos]

Oops, you're right.

Thanks!

No problem. Personally, I was more upset about trading that 2nd rounder for Clowe than I was about 2 1st rounders for MSL. We had already dealt our 1st rounder for that draft. Not picking until the 3rd round really bugged me. At least this year, we will still have our 2nd pick.

We can still hope that Cally resigns in Tampa too.

 

[Raspewtin]

No problem. Personally, I was more upset about trading that 2nd rounder for Clowe than I was about 2 1st rounders for MSL. We had already dealt our 1st rounder for that draft. Not picking until the 3rd round really bugged me. At least this year, we will still have our 2nd pick.

We can still hope that Cally resigns in Tampa too.

That and I can't see Glen and co. being happy with three straight years of no firsts. Could see him pulling off a trade. With what, I have no idea.

 

[NickyFotiu]

My issue is not the net over 14 years, it's the three consecutive drafts (last year, this year and next year) with a grand total of zero first round and two second round draft picks because of Sather trades.

I believe the Slats hate started before the Marty for 1 (now 2) 1st round picks trade.

We will get a 2nd round pick if Cally resigns with Tampa.

We could trade Nash tomorrow for a 1st round pick. How many automatic 30-40 goal a year guys are there in the NHL?

Would you have preferred us to lose game 7 and keep a 2014 1st round pick?

 

[Ian]

I'm not really happy either that Sather has traded away 3 straight years of 1sts, but I still wouldn't even consider that to be in the top 5 bonehead mistakes/issues I have with his term as GM.

 

[RiffyNYR61]

Are you more concerned with being competitive down the road or winning the Stanley Cup? (Not asked in a combative tone**)

Moves should be made to win (unless in a complete rebuild mode), not for the sake of being competitive later. Draft picks don't always pan out. Henrik is in his prime for only so much longer. We're in the final 4. Sather believed this team was close enough to the pinnacle that he pulled the trigger on a couple of "could be's" for a proven winner (who, granted, has underperformed), who still has the ability to be a gamechanger.

You play. To win. The game.

 

[NickyFotiu]

That and I can't see Glen and co. being happy with three straight years of no firsts. Could see him pulling off a trade. With what, I have no idea.

A team doing well in the playoffs has a way of raising guys marketability. Nash could go for a 1st (and more) easy if our goal is more picks and less quality players on the team. We have a bunch of key guys we need to resign. We also have some legit prospects in Miller, Fast, Oscar, Dylan, Nieves, Kristo, Skjei, Pavel Buchnevich, and Duclair. Some of those guys will be NHL players in the future.

 

[RiffyNYR61]

And re: Smith.... sure we were in first place and had a strong roster, but we were also the top seed in '91. That didn't pan out. Would you really take back that Stanley Cup to have the 7 years of no playoffs washed away?? I wouldn't.

And for the record, as per Smith and Keenan in all those documentaries and stories, it was Keenan who forced the Amonte and Gartner trades.

 

[McRanger]

From the GREAT Laches, circa 2003:

And don't forget his first quote before he got here, which seems to me to be about HIM rather than the team:

"If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd never lose a game"
-Glen Sather

Did Sather ever actually say that? I feel like I have been reading variations of that quote for 20 years without it ever once being linked to an interview or an article or anything tangible.

The sad part is he wasn't much exaggerating. Those Edmonton dynasty teams with the Rangers financial backing might have won 10 Stanley Cups.

 

[Fletch]

Keenan may have forced the trades, but Smith made them as he was the GM, and perhaps ultimately it wasn't the those trades that did in the team. Drafting wasn't spectacular going forward and in 1996 he really shaped the team by executing the worst trade ever that saw the team lose a #1 defenseman to be (and I think most of us were on the Norstrom bandwagon) and a good defensive centerman/agitator in Lapperriere (and Ferraro and Lafayette), for garbage. Had Norstrom and Lapperriere not been traded, the team does look different when Messier leaves in 1998. Maybe that doesn't get them over the top, but it's a start and again, Smith had some time to put a few pieces of the puzzle together but he failed at that, from coaching choices to drafting (and bad luck with drafting) to trades. And by drafting that includes 92-94. So yes, the decimation didn't help, but perhaps his overall abilities as a GM weren't all too great and having the money to bring in the Messier early on through a trade with Nichols as a centerpiece greatly enhances Smith's legacy.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I believe the Slats hate started before the Marty for 1 (now 2) 1st round picks trade.

There are many (Redden) reason for Sather hate before the draft picks were traded, but this conversation is specifically about the draft picks, and my feeling about trading them.

We will get a 2nd round pick if Cally resigns with Tampa.

True. And if that happens, I'll amend the amount of first and second round draft picks we'll have over this three year period. But that doesn't happen until Callahan actually resigns with Tampa.

We could trade Nash tomorrow for a 1st round pick. How many automatic 30-40 goal a year guys are there in the NHL?

Tomorrow Nash has a no-trade clause. And are you saying you're in favor of trading our automatic 30-40 goal a year guy for a draft pick while we are in 'win now' mode?

 

[Tawnos]

Keenan may have forced the trades, but Smith made them as he was the GM, and perhaps ultimately it wasn't the those trades that did in the team. Drafting wasn't spectacular going forward and in 1996 he really shaped the team by executing the worst trade ever that saw the team lose a #1 defenseman to be (and I think most of us were on the Norstrom bandwagon) and a good defensive centerman/agitator in Lapperriere (and Ferraro and Lafayette), for garbage. Had Norstrom and Lapperriere not been traded, the team does look different when Messier leaves in 1998. Maybe that doesn't get them over the top, but it's a start and again, Smith had some time to put a few pieces of the puzzle together but he failed at that, from coaching choices to drafting (and bad luck with drafting) to trades. And by drafting that includes 92-94. So yes, the decimation didn't help, but perhaps his overall abilities as a GM weren't all too great and having the money to bring in the Messier early on through a trade with Nichols as a centerpiece greatly enhances Smith's legacy.

As I've said before, Smith inherited a good-very good team and turned it into a team that won the President's Trophy twice in 3 years and a Cup. For all of his blunders trying to replicate 1994's success (and really, when something works, why wouldn't you try it again?), he made some great moves outside of the Messier trade.

He's the one who brought in Gartner and Nicholls in the first place. He acquired Ray Sheppard for nothing. Hurlbut for Karpovtsev. Shaw for Beukeboom. Mallette for Graves. Moller for Wells. Oksiuta for Lowe. His first 4 drafts were simply phenomenal.

 

[RiffyNYR61]

I think the Zubov-Nedved for Robitaille-Samuelsson deal was way worse than the Nordstrom deal. Also, the team's fortunes probably change dramatically if the Aves don't match the offer sheet we gave Sakic (which goes hand in hand with Messier leaving, as we thought we had him replaced).

Smith was not a great GM, but he pulled the right strings in the early 90's to get the core of the cup winning team together. His moves at the '94 deadline and after were, in hindsight, not great.. but he got a Stanley Cup. I'll take that.

 

[Tawnos]

I think the Zubov-Nedved for Robitaille-Samuelsson deal was way worse than the Nordstrom deal.

Which brings up the other Neil Smith problem post-1994. He spent a lot of time reacting to what other teams did to be successful rather than focusing on enhancing his team's strengths.

But I can't agree with you on it being worse than the Kurri deal. A 1st pair D for 10 years, one of the best 4th liners in the league for 10 years and our 2nd best center for a 3rd line center and a 3rd pair D. At least the talent is even in that other trade.

 

[GAGLine]

If making the ECF 2 times in last 3 seasons and 2nd round 3 years in a row and playoffs 8 times in the last 9 seasons is not good than 80% of GMS would be fired. The hatred I read on this board is personal. The posts saying even if we win the cup that they want Slats fired proves it's personal hatred not about being a good team.

The goal is to win the Cup, not make it to the 2nd or 3rd round. Sather said so himself this offseason. In 14 years, we haven't made it to the cup finals. In only 1 year (2011-12) did we finish top 4 in our conference in the regular season (we were 2nd in the Metro this year, but 5th in the conference).

The question you should be asking is not "is what Sather has accomplished so far good or bad", but rather "is it good enough" and "can he take us the rest of the way"?

I contend that it isn't good enough. Being consistently better than half the league isn't enough. Not when the goal is to be the best. There are a lot of GMs who have had much shorter leashes, who have accomplished more and still been fired. Shero may be on his way out the door soon. You may think it unfair, but fair has nothing to do with it. Sports are results-oriented. If the team doesn't get the desired results, changes will be made.

 

[RiffyNYR61]

Norstrom was an above-average shutdown d-man, but Zubov was a perrenial all-star and probably the 2nd or 3rd best puck mover in the league for a decade.

I think you're overrating Laperriere and Ferraro a bit, too. And It sucked that Churla got hurt. I'm not saying it was a good trade (AT ALL), but losing Zubov still burns, especially considering how awful Luc was here.

 

[Bluenote13]

Did Sather ever actually say that? I feel like I have been reading variations of that quote for 20 years without it ever once being linked to an interview or an article or anything tangible.

The sad part is he wasn't much exaggerating. Those Edmonton dynasty teams with the Rangers financial backing might have won 10 Stanley Cups.

He said that in a TV interview I believe, and it was in the late 90's, not when those Oiler teams were good.

As I've said before, Smith inherited a good-very good team and turned it into a team that won the President's Trophy twice in 3 years and a Cup. For all of his blunders trying to replicate 1994's success (and really, when something works, why wouldn't you try it again?), he made some great moves outside of the Messier trade.

He's the one who brought in Gartner and Nicholls in the first place. He acquired Ray Sheppard for nothing. Hurlbut for Karpovtsev. Shaw for Beukeboom. Mallette for Graves. Moller for Wells. Oksiuta for Lowe. His first 4 drafts were simply phenomenal.

Don't forget bringing in Steve Larmer and drafting Nemchinov, two vital pieces to that Cup team.

Which brings up the other Neil Smith problem post-1994. He spent a lot of time reacting to what other teams did to be successful rather than focusing on enhancing his team's strengths.

But I can't agree with you on it being worse than the Kurri deal. A 1st pair D for 10 years, one of the best 4th liners in the league for 10 years and our 2nd best center for a 3rd line center and a 3rd pair D. At least the talent is even in that other trade.

After '94 we wouldve been better off forgetting the Oilers dynasty. The Norstrom/Ferraro/Lappy trade was awful, it was all about matching Philly in the playoffs.

But I still don't fault Smith much since he had to cater to Messier, then Gretz, two of if not the two greatest to ever lace them up. He had no choice but to go into win now mode, even more so when we didn't land Sakic, which I think was a great move, although unsuccessful.

 

[Tawnos]

Don't forget bringing in Steve Larmer and drafting Nemchinov, two vital pieces to that Cup team.

I was talking about moves prior to the 1993-94 season, although Karpovtsev was right before training camp that year.

Nemchinov is part of why I also mentioned his 1st 4 drafts. In them, he picked up Weight, Zubov, Nemchinov, Kovalev, Norstrom, Cairns, Sundstrom, and Marchant. That's a pretty ridiculous set of drafts, considering that 8th was the highest pick they got. 3 first line forwards (I consider Sundstrom in his prime a 1st liner). Two 1st pair D, including one of the best of his generation. Two excellent 3rd liners and an enforcer-type 3rd pair D who played over 450 games. Pretty impressive haul.

In contrast, in the 6 drafts after, he managed to draft just 1 1st liner, 1 2nd liner, 1 2nd pair D, 1 3rd liner, 1 4th liner, 1 3rd pair D, 2 7th D and a mediocre starting goalie.