How did you feel about Glen Sather being hired?

[Blueshirt Special]

I know I'm nit-picking here, but if they had signed Lindros, you could argue it would be a low-risk move. The fact it they gave up assets to get Lindros in a trade.

The Lindros trade was my first (of many) "Wait, what?" moments with Sather.

right. What exactly did we have to give up? I don't remember having much in the way of "assets" at the time.

I was even more puzzled and surprised about Lindros coming back to hockey at all. I couldn't believe he was going to play again.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

right. What exactly did we have to give up? I don't remember having much in the way of "assets" at the time.

I was even more puzzled and surprised about Lindros coming back to hockey at all. I couldn't believe he was going to play again.

The Rangers sent Pavel Brendl, Kim Johnsson, Jan Hlavac and a 3rd round pick to the Flyers for Lindros.

 

[True Blue]

I know I'm nit-picking here, but if they had signed Lindros, you could argue it would be a low-risk move. The fact it they gave up assets to get Lindros in a trade.

That is not nit-picking. That is a classic example of a poor use of assets. If they were to be given away, there was a better place to deposit them than in a broken down, 7 times concussed Lindros.

 

[ArPanet]

That's what pretty much all of us thought.

But my saying is that - yeah, I know most of you aren't old enough for this one either - being Ranger GM is like the Star Trek episode Spock's Brain. No matter who you are you put a helmet on with the Ranger GM brain already in it which forces you to mortgage the future for over the hill veterans and hype your draft choices to astronomic levels until you trade them away for nothing or demote them when it's more than obvious how pitiful they are.

Excellent.

 

[True Blue]

The Rangers sent Pavel Brendl, Kim Johnsson, Jan Hlavac and a 3rd round pick to the Flyers for Lindros.

Brendl, despite how he turned out, had value. As did Hlavac. Johnsson could have easily played on any of the future Rangers defense. And the pick was just another Jackass throwaway. There was NO ONE in the NHL who was giving up that much for Lindros.

 

[Jersey Girl]

That is not nit-picking. That is a classic example of a poor use of assets. If they were to be given away, there was a better place to deposit them than in a broken down, 7 times concussed Lindros.

When we acquired Lindros, Sather actually said Lindros did not have any concussion issues, implying that was something made up by the media or whatever. I'm not kidding.

 

[OverTheCap]

The Rangers already had so many aging vets and it didn't make sense to trade some of our promising young players for a post-concussions Lindros. Hlavac didn't do much after he was traded, but Kim Johnsson had a solid career in Philly and Minny.

It was becoming increasingly evident by 2001-02 that Sather was not going to get rid of the country club culture he inherited, but rather he was acquiring players that would contribute to it. The Rangers could have used some young and hungry players as opposed to broken down damaged goods like Lindros, Berard, Bure, etc.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Brendl, despite how he turned out, had value. As did Hlavac. Johnsson could have easily played on any of the future Rangers defense. And the pick was just another Jackass throwaway. There was NO ONE in the NHL who was giving up that much for Lindros.

The ironic thing is that Sather was also kicking the tires on Jagr at that time, and the Rangers somehow couldn't match Washington's package, which wound up being a stinking pile of trash.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Brendl, despite how he turned out, had value. As did Hlavac. Johnsson could have easily played on any of the future Rangers defense. And the pick was just another Jackass throwaway. There was NO ONE in the NHL who was giving up that much for Lindros.

I remember wondering who exactly Sather was bidding against. Hlavac was coming off of 60+ point season.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Brendl, despite how he turned out, had value. As did Hlavac. Johnsson could have easily played on any of the future Rangers defense. And the pick was just another Jackass throwaway. There was NO ONE in the NHL who was giving up that much for Lindros.

Yes, I remember Johnsson now. Was the logic that we still had Lundmark in the pipe so we were going to OK as far as players coming up? My memory is fogged, maybe it's defense mechanism? lol

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Yes, I remember Johnsson now. Was the logic that we still had Lundmark in the pipe so we were going to OK as far as players coming up? My memory is fogged, maybe it's defense mechanism? lol

There were concerns about Brendl's skating and conditioning. But like TB said, Brendl still had value when he was traded.

 

[ArPanet]

The important thing is, as long as he prevents the Rangers from winning the Cup he'll always be a legend in Canada.

 

[True Blue]

I remember wondering who exactly Sather was bidding against. Hlavac was coming off of 60+ point season.

That is exactly the point. First of all, there was no need to make that deal. Second of all, if he HAD to use those assets, there were better ways to use them. And that is a hallmark of his tenure here. Pi$$ poor use of assets. Or mismanagement of assets. Always looking for the new toy. Never appreciating what you have. Always greener pastures.

This thread is going to make me depressed. So many years of utter futility.

 

[McRanger]

We never should have traded for Lindros.

You know what would have been even better than not trading Brendl and Hlavac for Lindros?

Not trading Savard, Sundtrom, Cloutier and a 1st rounder to get Brendl and Hlavac.

 

[Jersey Girl]

We never should have traded for Lindros.

You know what would have been even better than not trading Brendl and Hlavac for Lindros?

Not trading Savard, Sundtrom, Cloutier and a 1st rounder to get Brendl and Hlavac.

Funny how people have all the answers in hindsight.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

We never should have traded for Lindros.

You know what would have been even better than not trading Brendl and Hlavac for Lindros?

Not trading Savard, Sundtrom, Cloutier and a 1st rounder to get Brendl and Hlavac.

I don't know. By all accounts, Brendl and Lundmark were top prospects. And at least Smith was attempting to get young talent into the system.

 

[True Blue]

I don't know. By all accounts, Brendl and Lundmark were top prospects. And at least Smith was attempting to get young talent into the system.

Exactly. There is a "it's the thought that counts" aspect here. Smith was attempting to get younger. Jackass was attempting to quickly spend money and assemble an EA Sports All Star team.

Smith managed to assemble some value that Jackass traded away for a lemon.

 

[McRanger]

Funny how people have all the answers in hindsight.

We are talking about moves made over a decade ago. Is there a way to discuss them without hindsight?

Trading Savard was an idiotic move the minute it was made. This wasn't some unknown guy who broke out on another team. He was one of the Rangers only bright spots in '99.

I don't know. By all accounts, Brendl and Lundmark were top prospects. And at least Smith was attempting to get young talent into the system.

He traded 21 and 24 years old forwards, a 23 year old goalie, and a 1st round pick for two 18 year old forwards and a 23 year old forward.

Trading the few successful young players for other unknown but slightly younger players is a pretty lateral, obviously dangerous and ultimately idiotic move.

There were plenty of 30+ year old's on the team that still had value. We should have been adding to the young talent pool, not swapping it around. This "Smith wanted to get younger" thing is nonsense. Brendl and Lundmark were aqcuired using young assets, guys like Kovalev and Karpovtsev were traded for guys slightly older, and there was a barrage of 30+ signings that summer.

And that's ignoring the fact that Brendl and Lundmark busted horribly and Savard turned into an All-Star.

 

[pld459666]

I know I'm nit-picking here, but if they had signed Lindros, you could argue it would be a low-risk move. The fact it they gave up assets to get Lindros in a trade.

The Lindros trade was my first (of many) "Wait, what?" moments with Sather.

Not only was the assets part of the transaction bad, but the contract that Sather signed Lindros to was also ameturish at best.

Here you have a bull of a player that has been tamed by two ferocious concussions signed to a deal that pays based on a games played basis.

If that doesn't make you into the most softest perimeter player I don't know what will.

Assets given up and a contract incenting no physical contact.

Can you say "WINNING"?

 

[McRanger]

Trading for Lindros was nuts. After Sather hard-balled Pitt about Jagr I thought we were in good shape. Then he turns around and trades what Pitt wanted to Philly for Lindros.

Truly and painfully idiotic.

Lindros was damaged goods. Jagr may have been a pain in the ass but he was still Jagr.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Yes, I remember Johnsson now. Was the logic that we still had Lundmark in the pipe so we were going to OK as far as players coming up? My memory is fogged, maybe it's defense mechanism? lol

Logic? I don't think there was any involved. Until recently, Sather has always been dismissive of head injuries--as Jersey Girl said, he disputed that Lindros was in any way damaged when the trade happened.

And ditto with the Bure trade: he had had multiple major surgeries on both knees and Sather somehow thought he was going to hold up. Bure was great fun to watch for the 50 or so games he played here, but it was obvious things were not going to end well. More wasted assets.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

People forget how lazy (and not very well conditioned) Savard was when he was here--and he had problems in Calgary as well. It's really hard to imagine that he would have turned into the player he became, if he had stayed here. Plus, Sather would have dumped him anyway, since he was a Smith player.

As others have said, the trade made sense at the time. No one thought that Brendl and Lundmark were taken too soon in the draft. They didn't work out, but the magic 8 ball is always cloudy when you're drafting prospects.

 

[McRanger]

There were questions about Savards attitude but he definitely worked hard on the ice. He was one of the few who did. He certainly had less work ethic baggage than Petr Nedved who Smith traded for a few months earlier.

I never fully bought into the "Neil Smith player" thing. Most of those players got traded because they were not very good. Nedved was a Neil Smith player twice and we kept him for years.

In the end Smith traded Savard because he didn't realize he what he had. The rest is just excuses.

“Savard’s a nice player, but he doesn’t have a big enough upside,†Smith said. “I think this team needed players with more upside.â€

Good call Neil.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

You never know what would have happened--and at the time, it was considered a good trade and a good draft for the Rangers.

And the past 14 years have just been so great!

 

[frozenrubber]

As others have said, the trade made sense at the time. No one thought that Brendl and Lundmark were taken too soon in the draft. They didn't work out, but the magic 8 ball is always cloudy when you're drafting prospects.

Ultimately, the '99 Draft ended up being a terrible place for Neil Smith to double-down and put all of his eggs in one basket.

If anyone needs a refresher, the draft was essentially hot garbage:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1999e.html

And for those angry that Sather didn't trade for Jagr, that was all Craig Patrick. On all available metrics at the time, the Rangers offer was better than Washington's, but CP, maybe a result of the negiotiations, decided he would NOT send Jagr to the Rangers (didn't help the cause that Jagr wanted to come to the Rangers as well). Sather also thought he was the only one bidding, as Jagr said no to being traded to Dallas and McPhee told Sather he wasn't interested in Jagr.