Speculation: Fire Glen Sather

[Jersey Girl]

It's even easier to justify minimizing the credit for this one particular thing. it was in the 7th round. A guy that deep in the draft isn't predicted to do too much. It's all time luck. For a related example Bill Belichick admitted as much about drafting Tom Brady. There's credit to be had but not too much for sure.

Yeah, even the Patriots passed on Brady six times. Probably because he's from Meechagan.

Signed, a proud Buckeye

Beat Mich-Again

 

[Bluenote13]

Rockstrom typically gets credit. He was likely the one that told Maloney to draft him when they hit the later rounds.

But I doubt he was the first to follow him for the Rangers. Rockstrom reads reports too.

Either way I never bought the "so and so hired the guy who did this so he gets the credit". It's lunacy. Smith hired Maloney. Maloney ran the draft where the Rangers took Lundqvist. Great. Maloney is also the reason we drafted Jessiman. Does Smith get credit for him? How many scouts were left over from Patrick/Esposito years during Smith's first (and only very successful) draft when we took Weight, Zubov and Nemchinov?

There is only one way to do it: if you are sitting in the seat when the player gets taken, you get credit. Smith was fired months before we took Lundqvist. Sather was the GM but due to his involvement in the Oilers draft was not in charge of Rangers draft. So neither of them should get credit.

I think your wrong, Smith knew these scouts and the kind of players they would bring in.

Neil Smith was very hands on with picks and prospects during his first 5 years here. Smith and Rockstrom were tight since their days with the Red Wings where they both attended the WJC's (and all the other tourneys)for years. Gajdosik used to pick them up at the airport, turned that into a job scouting for the Rangers, where he and Rocky picked the best Rangers prospects post '94.

Gaj & Rocky lobbied for Lundqvist, Hagelin and Tyutin. Renney and Gaj fell in love with Prucha. Your right that all GM's have to give the go ahead but in this case I don't see how slats makes this pick himself without his info coming from those two, both hired and trusted by Smith.

 

[BBKers]

I think your wrong, Smith knew these scouts and the kind of players they would bring in.

Neil Smith was very hands on with picks and prospects during his first 5 years here. Smith and Rockstrom were tight since their days with the Red Wings where they both attended the WJC's (and all the other tourneys)for years. Gajdosik used to pick them up at the airport, turned that into a job scouting for the Rangers, where he and Rocky picked the best Rangers prospects post '94.

Gaj & Rocky lobbied for Lundqvist, Hagelin and Tyutin. Renney and Gaj fell in love with Prucha. Your right that all GM's have to give the go ahead but in this case I don't see how slats makes this pick himself without his info coming from those two, both hired and trusted by Smith.

I know so much more Than this on the subject but have vowed not to bring it up publicly... But I can say that Rockström had a very big impact on the Russian and Swedish picks. Czech, not as much...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You greatly underestimate the impact of what Rockstrom had.

How would you know? My post was about not giving Sather too much credit btw. Which would mean giving more credit/impact to Rockstrom. Sooo yea...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

. Smith hired Maloney. Maloney ran the draft where the Rangers took Lundqvist. Great. Maloney is also the reason we drafted Jessiman. Does Smith get credit for him? How many scouts were left over from Patrick/Esposito years during Smith's first (and only very successful) draft when we took Weight, Zubov and Nemchinov?

There is only one way to do it: if you are sitting in the seat when the player gets taken, you get credit. Smith was fired months before we took Lundqvist. Sather was the GM but due to his involvement in the Oilers draft was not in charge of Rangers draft. So neither of them should get credit.

Good first point. It's tough to assign credit. That said it conflicts a little with your 2nd point b/c I just think you are being to general there. When you say "get the credit" I assume you mean all or almost all of it? There are sooo many variables in this business that it's probably inaccurate almost all the time to look at it that way. Some of the credit? Yea I can buy that for sure. But I am not sure any of us can know exactly how much to assign. 5% (for allowing a scout to determine the pick). 1%? 10? Who knows. Maybe you meant only some of the credit I'm not sure

 

[Fletch]

the guy in the GM seat ultimately gets the credit. We can say that Maloney was the biggest proponent, but the GM either has last say or empowered someone to have that last say. If you're the CEO of a company and the net income goes up, you get the credit even if it was the incremental was the result of a superstar salesperson. If the net income goes down, the egg is on your face even though your top salesperson from the prior period to which you're comparing laid a goose egg because he was on drugs the entire period. The CEO can't say to investors we sucked because my top salesperson was on drugs. He's ultimately responsible for the bottom line; at least in most cases and in most eyes.

 

[Jersey Girl]

the guy in the GM seat ultimately gets the credit. We can say that Maloney was the biggest proponent, but the GM either has last say or empowered someone to have that last say. If you're the CEO of a company and the net income goes up, you get the credit even if it was the incremental was the result of a superstar salesperson. If the net income goes down, the egg is on your face even though your top salesperson from the prior period to which you're comparing laid a goose egg because he was on drugs the entire period. The CEO can't say to investors we sucked because my top salesperson was on drugs. He's ultimately responsible for the bottom line; at least in most cases and in most eyes.

Yeah, but in a more appropriate analogy, if you're hired as a CEO and three weeks into your tenure it's announced net income went up - it probably has very little to do with you.

 

[Fletch]

agreed with that, jersey, but if you're hired as a CEO and three weeks later higher a high profile salesperson, it is on you, and I look at the draft more like that. Further, after one year I would not have said Sather sucked, knowing what he had and the work that needed to be done. Perhaps a pass would have been given in year two, albeit depending on the direction he took and the moves he made (i.e., did I think he was building for the future or doing more of the same that didn't work). That's just how I look at it. As a GM in the league, I would have thought he would know a bit about the draft since he was employed and they were looking at players all season long. Just the way I look at it.

 

[McRanger]

Yeah, but in a more appropriate analogy, if you're hired as a CEO and three weeks into your tenure it's announced net income went up - it probably has very little to do with you.

That's not an appropriate analogy. You're assuming the actual "rise" happened before the new CEO arrived.

A better analogy would be a merger/acquisition engineered by a VP in an international office, that was in the works for a year or years, but was completed under a new CEO and went on to be hugely successful a decade later.

And that original CEO, the guy that got fired, he never gets credit for stuff like that.

No one is like "sure so-and-so got fired for incompetence, but did you know he was really tight with that VP that made that great deal that worked out years later? I hear he hired him and they golfed together. He should get credit for the deal!"

 

[Fletch]

not too many people give credit to their predecessor. They typically bad mouth them on their way out and while they're gone (kind of have unfortunate firsthand experience with it). Again, to me, I think a GM should be prepared for a draft and free agency even if he's only on the job for a month, especially if he was active in that capacity prior to joining the new place, and especially if it's what he's done for the past gazillion years. If he needs to put in 80-100 hours a week, including working weekends, to get up to speed, that's what he does. He needs to talk to his staff, ask the right questions, pore through docs, film and reports, and he has to understand the needs and be involved in the process and take ownership. Can't come into a turnaround situation and turn over the first big hires in the building process solely to someone else. If he did, fine; I just would not agree with that tactic. You change the culture on the first day and you work hard the minute you get there. That's just me though. Everyone is different which is why we would have differing opinions on many subjects, which is also why it's interesting "talking'" to people in here since it gives you different perspectives.

 

[Jersey Girl]

That's not an appropriate analogy. You're assuming the actual "rise" happened before the new CEO arrived.

A better analogy would be a merger/acquisition engineered by a VP in an international office, that was in the works for a year or years, but was completed under a new CEO and went on to be hugely successful a decade later.

And that original CEO, the guy that got fired, he never gets credit for stuff like that.

No one is like "sure so-and-so got fired for incompetence, but did you know he was really tight with that VP that made that great deal that worked out years later? I hear he hired him and they golfed together. He should get credit for the deal!"

I do like your analogy, but if the draft had turned out to be a disaster, most would have, appropriately, stated it wasn't Sather's fault because he was only with the Rangers for three weeks. Therefore, he also doesn't deserve credit for a seventh round pick he probably knew very little about.

To extrapolate further, you can make the argument not only should Sather get little to no credit for who was being drafted in the seventh round three weeks into his tenure, four years later Sather still had no knowledge (or no confidence?) in what he drafted four years ago, when he took a goalie Al Montoya, sixth overall in the 2004 entry draft.

 

[McRanger]

I do like your analogy, but if the draft had turned out to be a disaster, most would have, appropriately, stated it wasn't Sather's fault because he was only with the Rangers for three weeks. Therefore, he also doesn't deserve credit for a seventh round pick he probably knew very little about.

To extrapolate further, you can make the argument not only should Sather get little to no credit for who was being drafted in the seventh round three weeks into his tenure, four years later Sather still had no knowledge (or no confidence?) in what he drafted four years ago, when he took a goalie Al Montoya, sixth overall in the 2004 entry draft.

I don't think Sather should get any credit. I apologize if my wording suggested otherwise. Even if Hank was drafted in 2001 it would be unlikely Sather would have anything to do with the pick. He never seems to know anything about players.

I just don't think Smith should get any credit either. He whole "it was his men that made the pick!" idea if just nuts. Maloney ran that draft and ultimately made that pick so Smiths not getting credit for that unless he wants to take the blame for Maloneys blunders as well.

No one credited Smith with 2000 until Lundqvist started dominating and I think most of that was a knee jerk reaction against the possibility of Sather actually getting credit for something. As if someone might get confused and actually Sather was a great GM or something.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I don't think Sather should get any credit. I apologize if my wording suggested otherwise. Even if Hank was drafted in 2001 it would be unlikely Sather would have anything to do with the pick. He never seems to know anything about players.

I just don't think Smith should get any credit either. He whole "it was his men that made the pick!" idea if just nuts. Maloney ran that draft and ultimately made that pick so Smiths not getting credit for that unless he wants to take the blame for Maloneys blunders as well.

No one credited Smith with 2000 until Lundqvist started dominating and I think most of that was a knee jerk reaction against the possibility of Sather actually getting credit for something. As if someone might get confused and actually Sather was a great GM or something.

I dont think anyone should be credited for Lundqvist. A team that was in managerial limbo got extremely lucky with a 7th round pick. Thats it, really.

If Sather knew what he had in Lundqvist, the Montoya pick doesnt happen 4 years later.

 

[McRanger]

I dont think anyone should be credited for Lundqvist. A team that was in managerial limbo got extremely lucky with a 7th round pick. Thats it, really.

Pretty much.

If Sather knew what he had in Lundqvist, the Montoya pick doesnt happen 4 years later.

You are giving Sather a good amount of credit there.

Milbury drafted a goalie in the top of the first round while already having a potential franchise goalie waiting in the wings. And then eventually traded the wrong goalie.

Is Sather as dumb as Milbury? Probably not. A question for the ages.

 

[Cake or Death]

I dont think anyone should be credited for Lundqvist. A team that was in managerial limbo got extremely lucky with a 7th round pick. Thats it, really.

If Sather knew what he had in Lundqvist, the Montoya pick doesnt happen 4 years later.

Have to agree with this. I've heard countless people through the years talk about Detroit being great at drafting because they found guys like Zetterberg in round 7 or Datsyuk in round 6. If these guys were such sure things in the eyes of Detroit, why didn't they select them sooner? Why on earth would they wait that long to draft them and risk losing them to someone else? Sometimes teams just get a lucky bounce.

 

[Fletch]

at what pick is it not considered a lucky bounce? I hear what people are saying regarding late rounds and luck, and there definitely is a bit of luck, but they aren't picking guys they know nothing about nor are they going into it blind. Some work has been done. Sure, getting a superstar late is a rarity, but often they do get the player they want and do say, if this guy is around in the fifth, we will take them, and so and so. Guess then it's bad luck when you pick #1 overall, in any sport, and the player ends up being a dud.

 

[tjs252]

I think, obviously, Lundqvist was a lot of luck. But I think Sather deserves credit for the strategy he's implemented since the lockout. Build blue line out. That wasn't something Sather was doing when he had all the money in the world to spend. Yes, the Bures, Kovalevs and Jagrs are fun (and those were largely effective for us in their own ways) but scoring doesn't mean much if you're putting up no defensive effort.

McIlrath doesn't look great, but Staal does. Moore and Klein are probably the envy of the league when you talk about them being your bottom pairing. I think Sather gets a lot of grief, most of it deserved, but he's been taking a "big picture" approach that I really support. Sometimes, it doesn't work out, sometimes it blows up in our face, but at least he's following a plan that I can support.

I think it's more appropriate to evaluate him on what he's trying to do, not the success/failure of individual players. What he's trying to do is go for it, hard, in the three to four more years we have of Henrik in his prime. I'm fine with that. We've gotten to this point because of (1) Henrik and (2) the depth of our D, which is completely Sather's doing.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think we should fire him right after we win the cup. That will show the hockey world who has the most intelligent hockey fans.

 

[Fletch]

tjs...

I think it's more the defensive/accountable system than just the defense. Before the lockout, forwards were not see too often in the defensive zone. There was little puck support. The breakout passes were lacking. The speed and transition game was almost non-existent. Guys wouldn't get in front of the puck because they were afraid to do so. It did begin with Renney, who to me wasn't a great coach and I don't think he'd ever win it all, but he had a defensive system that worked and that system helped Henrik, who, unlike his predecessors, didn't have to face 30+ shots a night. I believe such a system was implemented also in Hartford too, and Schoenfeld has been a bit instrumental. They play real hockey now, not pond hockey. That's a foundation to build on. Not scoring has been an issue, but at least mostly sound defense has been there to keep them in the games. Sather was seeking guys who can skate. Guys who will fight for the puck.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I think we should fire him right after we win the cup. That will show the hockey world who has the most intelligent hockey fans.

OK, I completely disagree with your line of thinking here because we can't talk about what do to after we win the cup until we ACTUALLY win the cup - we're only halfway there.

But I have to admit, this post did make me laugh. A lot.

 

[NickyFotiu]

OK, I completely disagree with your line of thinking here because we can't talk about what do to after we win the cup until we ACTUALLY win the cup - we're only halfway there.

But I have to admit, this post did make me laugh. A lot.

Aren't we taking a chance waiting? Shouldn't we fire him now before he has a chance to win any more games?

 

[bobbop]

Very quietly, Sather has had a great year. Signing Pouliot and Dom Moore as free agents, trading MDZ for Kevin Klein, picking up Carcillo, signing The King, McDonagh and Girardi to long term extensions, whacking Torts and hiring AV. Not bad.

Only move that makes me uncomfortable was the Callahan trade (ling term considerations) but so far, so good on that one.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Aren't we taking a chance waiting? Shouldn't we fire him now before he has a chance to win any more games?

Aren't we taking a chance not waiting? Shouldn't we give Sather a life-time contract based on his trip to the ECF? Oh wait...we already did.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Aren't we taking a chance not waiting? Shouldn't we give Sather a life-time contract based on his trip to the ECF? Oh wait...we already did.

2nd ECF trip in 3 years. I did not know he had a lifetime contract. Does the lifetime contract mean we can not fire him even if he wins the cup as some posters have expressed a desire to do?

 

[Jersey Girl]

2nd ECF trip in 3 years. I did not know he had a lifetime contract. Does the lifetime contract mean we can not fire him even if he wins the cup as some posters have expressed a desire to do?

A lifetime contract is not that complicated, actually. It means Sather decides when Sather goes - 14 Stanley Cups in 14 years, three ECF appearances in 14 years, and everything in between.