Honestly between the Rangers mentality of always "going for it" and the kids not bringing any depth this season, it is not shocking they chose the former. I still wish they waited until the draft but it is clear by the reaction from this board that management has their finger on the pulse of the majority of the fanbase. People just want the team to win games and make the playoffs every year, even if it means perpetually lessening the chances of being a real contender. Everything that has made this team successful this year, when it has been "sucessful," has been that which was grown within. Stepan, Lundqvist, Staal, Callahan, and Hags before he went cold. They are all Ranger prospects. Rick Nash aside, why do they think big moves like this are going to make this team successful going forward? If the Rangers win a Cup anytime soon I will bet that it will be Rangers prospects who make the difference and lead this team to the championship. Just like most teams who have won the Cup since the lockout. Of course trades and FAs are necessary, but they are not going to be the heartbeat of your team.
Totally with you that this team needs to do a better job at acquiring and developing talent through the draft (they've done a better job lately) - that is how teams become perennial contenders, rather than having just a few year window. I agree with almost everything in this paragraph... But I don't see how the Gabby trade alone does the bolded. I do not see how this trade can even remotely be considered "win now" mode.
It isn't like this team's future was traded away along with Gabby for those pieces. You gave up a one-dimensional sniper who was on the wrong side of 30 (we'll see if he returns to form - hope he does with CBJ, but we'll see), and who was going to become a UFA next year. I think we all agree that he probably wasn't going to be re-signed, so he was probably going to be moved at some point. In exchange, you free up a significant amount of cap space to re-sign RFAs, you get a 6th d with fairly good upside, 2 solid roster players who fill holes that desperately needed to be filled, and the oldest one of all of these pieces is 26. That would seem like the opposite of short term thinking...
The only thing in my mind that could have gone differently was getting a higher draft pick / 1st round'er. But it seems like Sather probably had that option and opted to go with Moore/Brassard instead (CBJ has been cited several times saying they were open to moving one of their THREE 1sts). And for those that wanted this deal but wanted to add a 1st onto it; I don't see how Sather would possibly get the three players he did AND a first... that is a huge return for a struggling sniper on the wrong side of 30.
The alternatives were waiting til the draft, at which point - you said it yourself: You have to
hope his value doesn't decline further. You have to
hope he can get a return like pick+prospect+ (I'm not convinced that some of the teams rumored to be interested in him ever really were -- i.e. Detroit's management is smarter than to go for a player like Gabby who doesn't fit their team concept at all). And then because roster holes weren't filled you have to
hope the kids develop in time for next season. That is a lot of hoping. Not to mention that at that point in my mind Sather has
less leverage - despite what has been said on here to the contrary - as it becomes one of his last chances to move him before he would be considered a rental and get a weak return. Even if you're able to make that deal, it leaves the team possibly without a top 6 RW, a 3C, a 6d, or a bottom 6 energy/gritty player - those are some big holes.
Other than that, if you keep Gabby for next season, while he could help for that season, it makes it hard to re-sign all of our RFAs, fill roster holes, and we end up losing him for nothing when he becomes a FA. That is the opposite of long-term thinking.
In isolation, I don't think you can really say the Gabby trade was
bad for the team's long term outlook - just that it
could have been better if Sather was able to get a 1st, which seems unrealistic unless you drop/replace one or two of the players we got in the return.
Now, if you include the ramifications the Clowe trade had on this/this has on Clowe's re-signing - because I don't think you can look at the two deals in a vacuum - then yea, I can see how losing the picks in the Clowe deal could be seen as a bad shake for the team's long term outlook. But personally, even though I have the same concerns as others about his age and playing style not being conducive to maintaining his level of play, I still like that deal and would like him to be re-signed (for a reasonable price/term).
You can't always be conserving your draft picks or building a team full of 20 year olds. Now, I get we're talking about the Rangers - and Sather - who have a horrible track record here. But at some point you need to strike a balance between the future of the team and the here and now. I think most would agree this team's core looks pretty good for the foreseeable future. At some point you need to know when you have the core in place, the depth in your prospect pool, or the faith in your mid-late round drafting strategy, to be able to make a run and give up some draft picks to get the complementary/final pieces in place to be a competitor.
Not sure you could've done much better at the draft and it certainly seems to have helped THIS team this year. I feel like folks are criticizing just because it's been a down year and, frankly, they don't like Sather (with good reason in many cases).
