First Impressions of St. Louis

[slipknottin]

So your stance is that these 12 games are more indicative than his previous 400?

They traded for who he is, not who he was.

And right now he's a crappy hockey player. Maybe he gets better, but it's certainly not a guarantee.

We all know at some point players hit a wall with age. Did it happen since he was traded? Maybe maybe not, but it is going to happen soon if it hasent already

 

[McRanger]

As a Ranger, Hank has earned the right to have a bad streak once and awhile. Begin of the season, never when it matters most. The guy saves your arse 9 times out of 10 for years and one bad streak you are comparing him to just another big name not performing a dozen games into his acquisition?

MSL is just another name until he becomes a Ranger, and he'll have to do that by playing up to expectation.

You're looking at this with too much sentimentality.

This has nothing to do with earning "leeway" or whatever.

It has to do determining what kind of value we will get from a player based on a sample size larger than a dozen games.

Whether or not he is going to produce, up to his standards at the level he has produced for years right up to and including this season, has nothing to do with whether he is viewed as a name or a paycheck or a mercenary or whether he is deeply and truly beloved by the garden faithful.

There is absolutely no doubt that he needs to produce. But saying MSL is not an elite player based on a dozen games is psychotic.

 

[Leonardo87]

They traded for who he is, not who he was.

And right now he's a crappy hockey player. Maybe he gets better, but it's certainly not a guarantee.

We all know at some point players hit a wall with age. Did it happen since he was traded? Maybe maybe not, but it is going to happen soon if it hasent already

St Louis might be struggling under AV's system. AV has been rolling 4 lines, and he does not give long shifts to even the top liners.

 

[True Blue]

That's absurd. If he scores 50 goals that trade is a win. You can't judge a trade by what the team does. As long as you get what you paid for from the player the trade is a success.

This trade is a WIN NOW trade. If he scores 50 goals next year and it does not net the Rangers the Cup, then the trade is a failure as they could have not won the Cup without sacrificing draft picks.

In your mind you've set this trade up to be an abysmal failure from day one.

You are right. Short of a Cup, that is exactly what this trade is to me. This is a sentiment that is shared by lots of the "pessimists". The risk of this trade does not outweigh the reward of this trade.

 

[NYR Viper]

I still think he will be fine.

 

[Bluenote13]

I still think he will be fine.

So do I.

But the transition has not been seemless by any means.

When he picks it up the shift goes back onto the rest of the forwards that will revert back to long pointless streaks

 

[Pizza]

Maybe I'm missing something. It certainly would not be the first time.

It seems from what I've heard that the deal actually broke down over a NTC that cally would not back off of. The Rangers were ready to meet him on money....or were pretty close, but the NTC stopped the negotiation.

As against moving him as I was, even I had to admit that $$$ & term were off and an NTC broke the back of the negotiation.

As painful as it might be to come to grips with, I think he wanted out. I think the Rangers no longer fit into his plans for his career and family. I know a lot folks will think I'm crazy but the more you hear the more you wonder.

In that situation, management has to do the best they can even though they are a bit over the barrel. As fans we simply have to move on.

 

[McRanger]

This trade is a WIN NOW trade. If he scores 50 goals next year and it does not net the Rangers the Cup, then the trade is a failure as they could have not won the Cup without sacrificing draft picks.

You are right. Short of a Cup, that is exactly what this trade is to me. This is a sentiment that is shared by lots of the "pessimists". The risk of this trade does not outweigh the reward of this trade.

Even putting nutty Sather aside, I doubt there is a GM in the league that would agree with that assessment. Nor a hockey fan that doesn't post on these boards.

Strong regular seasons and deep playoff runs are still of value, even without a cup win. If St. Louis helps the Rangers to a few years of those, no one outside of this board will view the trade as a failure.

 

[Nickmo82]

completely irrelevant, somewhat pointless, nontheless demonstrative comparison:

Scoring pace for MDZ this season (as a Ranger): GP 42 G 2 A 9 P 11.

MSL (statline X4 for similar games played) on pace for: GP 48, G 0, A 12, P 12.

Obviously that won't happen, but currently he is an absolute bust. Given that the rangers have 8 games left and are by no means a lock for the playoffs, you need your best players scoring. He isn't.

It hasn't helped that he has been playing with Zucc if you ask me. They basically play the same game.

 

[haveandare]

completely irrelevant, somewhat pointless, nontheless demonstrative comparison:

Scoring pace for MDZ this season (as a Ranger): GP 42 G 2 A 9 P 11.

MSL (statline X4 for similar games played) on pace for: GP 48, G 0, A 12, P 12.

Obviously that won't happen, but currently he is an absolute bust. Given that the rangers have 8 games left and are by no means a lock for the playoffs, you need your best players scoring. He isn't.

It hasn't helped that he has been playing with Zucc if you ask me. They basically play the same game.

Huh?

Their chances of making it are well over 90%, no?

Plus, do the same for Hank his first few weak games. Do the same for OV last year in his cold spell, Giroux this year in his cold spell, any star any year in any cold spell. These things happen. Projecting them over X times as many games doesn't work or really mean much.

 

[Jersey Girl]

As painful as it might be to come to grips with, I think he wanted out. I think the Rangers no longer fit into his plans for his career and family. I know a lot folks will think I'm crazy but the more you hear the more you wonder.

In that situation, management has to do the best they can even though they are a bit over the barrel. As fans we simply have to move on.

Actually it was Yzerman and the Lightning, not Sather, who was over a barrel here.

Sather had the option of trading Callahan to any team in the league, or keeping him (and the draft picks!) as a rental. Yzerman had to trade St Louis, and per St Louis it had to be to the Rangers. All Yzerman could do was make his best deal. Sather held all the cards here.

 

[McRanger]

Actually it was Yzerman and the Lightning, not Sather, who was over a barrel here.

Sather had the option of trading Callahan to any team in the league, or keeping him (and the draft picks!) as a rental. Yzerman had to trade St Louis, and per St Louis it had to be to the Rangers. All Yzerman could do was make his best deal. Sather held all the cards here.

Why did Tampa have to trade St. Louis?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

See, you saying that over and over and over and over doesn't make it a fact.

You say if there's no cup, the trade is a failure.

I say, if the assets gained don't do more than the assets lost, the trade is a failure.

Both statements are based in our respective opinions. Why is your opinion being presented as fact while mine is being discarded? They're both of equal merit. They're both based in subjective evaluations.

Very well said. It's not about saying it's a good trade or a bad one it's about determining fair ways to accurately evaluate. I think the need to evaluate Sather poorly leads to the overzealous critiques that pop up. Of course it would be VERY important if MSL completely flames out and does next to nothing as a NYR. But it's baffling to look at how he was playing sans Stamkos all year and then within a week of having what 4 goals in 3 games he comes here and goes on this massive drought where he can't score goals and isn't controlling play or assisting much either.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Why did Tampa have to trade St. Louis?

St Louis demanded a trade to the Rangers.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

This trade is a WIN NOW trade. If he scores 50 goals next year and it does not net the Rangers the Cup, then the trade is a failure as they could have not won the Cup without sacrificing draft picks.

You are right. Short of a Cup, that is exactly what this trade is to me. This is a sentiment that is shared by lots of the "pessimists". The risk of this trade does not outweigh the reward of this trade.

What if the trade pushes us closer to a cup than the picks would have? It's an incorrect way of evaluating. It is a good way to make yourself look right though.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

This trade is a WIN NOW trade. If he scores 50 goals next year and it does not net the Rangers the Cup, then the trade is a failure as they could have not won the Cup without sacrificing draft picks.

You are right. Short of a Cup, that is exactly what this trade is to me. This is a sentiment that is shared by lots of the "pessimists". The risk of this trade does not outweigh the reward of this trade.

If you want to say the Rangers MUST win the cup to make the St. Louis trade worth it, that's fine. I'm curious as to what else can we extend that logic too? Can we extend that logic to Callahan? He was the captain of the team and the Rangers didn't win a Stanley Cup. Does that mean Callahan's Ranger career is failure? If Hank wins 500 games but never wins a Stanley Cup does that mean his career will be looked at as a failure?


The fact that your logic is "shared by pessimists" doesn't mean that logic is fair or rationale.

 

[True Blue]

Strong regular seasons and deep playoff runs are still of value, even without a cup win. If St. Louis helps the Rangers to a few years of those, no one outside of this board will view the trade as a failure.

That is your opinion and is fair. I, however, do not view it that way. When you sacrifice much needed assets and make yourself a win now team, the results are all that matter. St. Louis was brought in there to make those results a reality. If he does not, then the assets have been wasted for nothing.

 

[True Blue]

What if the trade pushes us closer to a cup than the picks would have? It's an incorrect way of evaluating. It is a good way to make yourself look right though.

Making myself right is not what I am interested in. I want the Rangers to win the Cup. I am also interested in a plan that makes for a strong foundation. Pushing us closer to the cup for 1.25 years, does not do it for me. Closer is not IT. Growing players get kudos for pushing us closer and their upside. When assets are established for aged superstars, there can only be one result that counts.

 

[Bluenote13]

If you want to say the Rangers MUST win the cup to make the St. Louis trade worth it, that's fine. I'm curious as to what else can we extend that logic too? Can we extend that logic to Callahan? He was the captain of the team and the Rangers didn't win a Stanley Cup. Does that mean Callahan's Ranger career is failure? If Hank wins 500 games but never wins a Stanley Cup does that mean his career will be looked at as a failure?


The fact that your logic is "shared by pessimists" doesn't mean that logic is fair or rationale.

Speaking of fair and rationale, YOUR logic is comparing Rangers that were brought up through the system and became players here to a 38 yr old All star who if lucky we get two good seasons out of ?

 

[True Blue]

If you want to say the Rangers MUST win the cup to make the St. Louis trade worth it, that's fine. I'm curious as to what else can we extend that logic too? Can we extend that logic to Callahan? He was the captain of the team and the Rangers didn't win a Stanley Cup. Does that mean Callahan's Ranger career is failure? If Hank wins 500 games but never wins a Stanley Cup does that mean his career will be looked at as a failure?

I did not have to give up assets to have Callahan be on the team. So, no. The logic does not extend to him as he did not have to be traded for.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I did not have to give up assets to have Callahan be on the team. So, no. The logic does not extend to him as he did not have to be traded for.

I disagree. IF we are using winning a cup as a barometer of success how could THAT barometer not extend to the former captain? Wouldn't your logic make EVERY draft pick for the last 20 years a failure? If you are upset the Rangers gave up picks (which I agree could come back to haunt them) isn't the counter argument the Rangers aren't doing enough with draft picks to be worried about trading them?

 

[zuckera1]

I think you "pessimists" seem to forget that if St. Louis wants to keep playing after his current contract is up, he'll likely resign here. Why wouldn't he?

I believe he can at least be a 50-60 point player between ages 40-42. Therefore we likely get more value out of the trade than just 1.25 years.

 

[Thirty One]

St Louis demanded a trade to the Rangers.

A quick glance of the CBA reveals that this doesn't require the Lightning to trade him.

 

[aufheben]

I think you "pessimists" seem to forget that if St. Louis wants to keep playing after his current contract is up, he'll likely resign here. Why wouldn't he?

I believe he can at least be a 50-60 point player between ages 40-42. Therefore we likely get more value out of the trade than just 1.25 years.

Then we should waited till he hit free agency. I've kept in mind the entire time how long MSL might be able to play, which is a large part of why I was against the trade.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Speaking of fair and rationale, YOUR logic is comparing Rangers that were brought up through the system and became players here to a 38 yr old All star who if lucky we get two good seasons out of ?

But those two season of success could lead to more seasons of success. If you surround the players on the team with a better player doesn't that mean the team will be better?

TB is harping on the draft pick compensation in the trade and using logic that a Stanley Cup is the only barometer of success.

I brought up some points yesterday that I'm sure TB missed in the flow of the conversation so I'll bring some of them up again, as I think they are still relevant to the current conversation.

St. Louis is signed through next season. This isn't a rental for just THIS season.

The Rangers are 8-3 since the trade. If we are discussing the team being "win now" shouldn't the fact that the team is winning come into the discussion...at some point?

No guaranteed the draft picks will turn into anything. Odds are the draft picks won't turn into anything.

Thomas Vanek (who is better than Callahan) was traded for a marginal prospect and a 2nd round pick. It's not like teams were falling over themselves for Callahan.

Odds are St. Louis will start producing. Do you think he forgot how to score since being traded?

He was brought here for a high price but the price was fair value. He has a year left on his contract.

I've seen you say the Rangers prospect pool is pretty thin (It isn't as some of us have pointed out but whatever) so it stands to reason whoever the Rangers would've picked in the draft would be taken with a grain of salt by you.

Will the experience of playoff games help players like McD, Miller, Stepan, Nash, Zuccerello, Brassard, Kreider, etc and thus help the future of the team? Is there value to the Rangers in that experience?