Marty St. Louis

[pld459666]

Rangers won the swap as far as I'm concerned. With Callahan, they probably lose in five games.

Who needs beating a rival team in the playoffs when you can draft more sanguinetttis!

Winning second, draft choices first!

If the Rangers were a Marty St. Louis type player away from truly contending, I agree with you.

If the system wasn't so barren of any top end skill, I agree with you.

However, we are not one player away from being able to beat the top 5-7 teams in the NHL 4 out of 7 and our system is a ****ing waste land. Our best offensive prospect is Duclair and he's dealing with Concussion issues.

Maybe you are OK with a potential trip the ECF. I'm not. I want a trip the SCF with a real shot at winning the cup.

this trade doesn't get us much closer this year and actually helps form future road blocks down the line by not having the good young players to feed the pipeline which means back to the Rangers way of team building (hiring Mercs.)

 

[Cassano]

Why can't the rangers make it to the SCF exactly?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If the Rangers were a Marty St. Louis type player away from truly contending, I agree with you.

If the system wasn't so barren of any top end skill, I agree with you.

However, we are not one player away from being able to beat the top 5-7 teams in the NHL 4 out of 7 and our system is a ****ing waste land. Our best offensive prospect is Duclair and he's dealing with Concussion issues.

Maybe you are OK with a potential trip the ECF. I'm not. I want a trip the SCF with a real shot at winning the cup.

this trade doesn't get us much closer this year and actually helps form future road blocks down the line by not having the good young players to feed the pipeline which means back to the Rangers way of team building (hiring Mercs.)

Id wait until the Rangers got eliminated before I go on a rant like this, but thats just me.

 

[Doctyl]

If the Rangers were a Marty St. Louis type player away from truly contending, I agree with you.

If the system wasn't so barren of any top end skill, I agree with you.

However, we are not one player away from being able to beat the top 5-7 teams in the NHL 4 out of 7 and our system is a ****ing waste land. Our best offensive prospect is Duclair and he's dealing with Concussion issues.

Maybe you are OK with a potential trip the ECF. I'm not. I want a trip the SCF with a real shot at winning the cup.

this trade doesn't get us much closer this year and actually helps form future road blocks down the line by not having the good young players to feed the pipeline which means back to the Rangers way of team building (hiring Mercs.)

So you would rather have the 2 defensive dmen this franchise would likely have drafted with those picks than the guy who is leading the rangers in scoring right now?

 

[pld459666]

Id wait until the Rangers got eliminated before I go on a rant like this, but thats just me.

I wanted to wait...i really did

 

[Trxjw]

So you would rather have the 2 defensive dmen this franchise would likely have drafted with those picks than the guy who is leading the rangers in scoring right now?

Did Chris Kreider convert to D and not let anyone else know?

 

[pld459666]

So you would rather have the 2 defensive dmen this franchise would likely have drafted with those picks than the guy who is leading the rangers in scoring right now?

You have a point here.

Part of the problem with this tranchise is not just Sather. I think the whole front office needs to go.

Not a fan of the draft strategy of this franchise.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

You have a point here.

Part of the problem with this tranchise is not just Sather. I think the whole front office needs to go.

Not a fan of the draft strategy of this franchise.

I think it's hard to have a draft strategy when there's no clear organizational philosophy and direction.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You have a point here.

Part of the problem with this tranchise is not just Sather. I think the whole front office needs to go.

Not a fan of the draft strategy of this franchise.

Their drafting has been tolerable, especially outside of the first round.

Its the roster construction strategy that gets me -- The plan to take care off the offensive burden seems to involve bringing in players that are the easiest to acquire, regardless of position or long-term plan.

 

[Fletch]

Pld...

the front office may not see it that way. Further, it being a business, the objective may be to insure the team gets 2-4 more games at home to generate a desired profit; it's difficult being part of a public entity (it still is, isn't it?). Many in here wanted Sather gone many years ago, thinking his ideas on what constitutes a championship team do not suit today's NHL league. Truth is, it's tough. Some think the team is a few bounces away, a a stellar series or two from Henke and the defense, from legitimately contending for the Stanley Cup. Some people think there are many more holes to fill, although with the cap (something we never thought of many years ago), it makes it difficult to plan for that future. If you think the team is 2-3 players away today, a couple years ago the team may look vastly different, as well as other teams in the league, and it still may be 2-3 players away. Heck, some thought this team was a coach away from contending. Sather looked at St. Louis as a player that could help today, and be cheaper, yet still effective, than Callahan tomorrow as he looks to replace a couple years out. He could be thinking, with Cally this team gets to the playoffs, maybe wins a round, and with St. Louis, maybe they get a couple rounds and then get lucky. I'm sure there's a longer range plan (one which we all would criticize). Maybe someone gets hot. Heck, who thought the Giants would win a Super Bowl a few years ago when they barely get in after beating the Jets? It's easy to sit here and say they don't have the firepower. It's tough to make that leap, and that's understandable, but building a Stanley Cup contending team is difficult with so many moving parts. I don't think the Rangers get past the Pens. I don't watch hockey like I used to but matching the "star power" is difficult. But then again, you can say that Columbus took two games and lost a few close ones, so maybe there are cracks to get to the next round. It'll be fun to watch. Oh, and I totally get what you're saying, and Sather should not have been able to come out of the lockout (what year was that? ugh!). It's just tough.

 

[True Blue]

It's just tough.

WOW!!! I.M. Fletcher, as I live and breathe. I took a prolonged sabbatical from these boards and looks like you outlasted me.

 

[True Blue]

I'm tired of the plan changing as the seasons change.

This franchise has no direction.

As a fan base we see the holes that this team has.

I can't believe that the Front office doesn't also see it. And because I believe that they DO see it, it infuriates me even more because they are doing nothing to address those defeciencies.

Great overall post, pld. Just highlighting some of my utter frustrations in what I am quoting.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

the front office may not see it that way. Further, it being a business, the objective may be to insure the team gets 2-4 more games at home to generate a desired profit; it's difficult being part of a public entity (it still is, isn't it?). Many in here wanted Sather gone many years ago, thinking his ideas on what constitutes a championship team do not suit today's NHL league. Truth is, it's tough. Some think the team is a few bounces away, a a stellar series or two from Henke and the defense, from legitimately contending for the Stanley Cup. Some people think there are many more holes to fill, although with the cap (something we never thought of many years ago), it makes it difficult to plan for that future. If you think the team is 2-3 players away today, a couple years ago the team may look vastly different, as well as other teams in the league, and it still may be 2-3 players away. Heck, some thought this team was a coach away from contending. Sather looked at St. Louis as a player that could help today, and be cheaper, yet still effective, than Callahan tomorrow as he looks to replace a couple years out. He could be thinking, with Cally this team gets to the playoffs, maybe wins a round, and with St. Louis, maybe they get a couple rounds and then get lucky. I'm sure there's a longer range plan (one which we all would criticize). Maybe someone gets hot. Heck, who thought the Giants would win a Super Bowl a few years ago when they barely get in after beating the Jets? It's easy to sit here and say they don't have the firepower. It's tough to make that leap, and that's understandable, but building a Stanley Cup contending team is difficult with so many moving parts. I don't think the Rangers get past the Pens. I don't watch hockey like I used to but matching the "star power" is difficult. But then again, you can say that Columbus took two games and lost a few close ones, so maybe there are cracks to get to the next round. It'll be fun to watch. Oh, and I totally get what you're saying, and Sather should not have been able to come out of the lockout (what year was that? ugh!). It's just tough.

Thats the other side of the equation.

When we talk about Richards being bought out, the first response from some folks is "How do the Rangers replace him?!?!?" Im so scarred from poor knee-jerk moves over the past couple of decades that my gut tells me it'd be best to NOT replace him immediately - wait it out, do the necessary research, target the right players, and strike when the right opportunity comes along -- not just any opportunity. That thinking, unfortunately, only confronts roster construction and building a hockey team.

When you talk about the business side of things, ESPECIALLY when its a simpleton like Dolan calling the shots, playoff revenue is at stake. This is a man who quite clearly would prefer 5 years of 2nd round exits vs. a couple of years of actually building a team and a Stanley Cup down the road.

This type of thinking has always plagued the Rangers, and it likely always will.

 

[True Blue]

Why can't the rangers make it to the SCF exactly?

Yes, anything can happen. Is your contention that as constituted, the Rangers are truly among the elite of the NHL?

 

[pld459666]

Why can't the rangers make it to the SCF exactly?

If you are asking me, I will give oyu my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have defeciencies with three very important areas.

top line LW - Nash has shifted to that spot and he's played OK this post season. Nothing earth moving, but he's not been horrible. Trouble is, he's a natural RW'er and has looked more comfortable playing from that position. Kreider is a decent 2nd line LW but he's not a top line guy just yet.

Puck Moving Defenceman (or PPQB) - McD has added a bit of offence to his game and that is awesome. I would not describe him as an offensive defenceman. We have no one on D that can really play the point on the PP which forces Richards there. A slow skating fading center is playing the point on the PP.

Center. This is an odd one as I like Stepan and Brassard. But I think that because both are average at best on draws, are average skaters at best, lack any real physical edge to their games that they are both easily neturalized. I doubt that either one has the ability to take a game over and make it his own.

Lack of an inner determination (toffnuss for you slow guys ) - I don't feel that the Rangers have enough guys in important positions that share the same mindset as Zuccs and the problem with Zuccs is that while the mind is willing, his smaller stature betrays him. There's not enough guys (again this is my opinion) willing to battle shift after shift and take the hacks and whacks of getting to the dirty areas of the ice to make a difference.

Physical mind-set on the blueline - We have to many guys that are passive in front of Henrik. Simmonds, standing right next to Girardi gets multiple chances to whack at the puck. End up scoring and while there's a very good chance he scores anyway, Girardi should have planted him on his ass in that spot.

Less of an issue, but I am answering your question as best I can.

Lundqvist - I think that he is one of the top 3 goalie in the league. I would say that he is also the best goalie the Rangers have ever had. That said, it's not that he gives up a softee here and there. All goalies do. It just feels like (again, my opinion) he gives up his softies at the worst possible moments. That moment where you need for him to be big, it feels like he relents.

 

[True Blue]

I think it's hard to have a draft strategy when there's no clear organizational philosophy and direction.

Which is the snake and the tail. That is where the problems start and because of that, why they are never solved.

 

[NYR Viper]

the front office may not see it that way. Further, it being a business, the objective may be to insure the team gets 2-4 more games at home to generate a desired profit; it's difficult being part of a public entity (it still is, isn't it?). Many in here wanted Sather gone many years ago, thinking his ideas on what constitutes a championship team do not suit today's NHL league. Truth is, it's tough. Some think the team is a few bounces away, a a stellar series or two from Henke and the defense, from legitimately contending for the Stanley Cup. Some people think there are many more holes to fill, although with the cap (something we never thought of many years ago), it makes it difficult to plan for that future. If you think the team is 2-3 players away today, a couple years ago the team may look vastly different, as well as other teams in the league, and it still may be 2-3 players away. Heck, some thought this team was a coach away from contending. Sather looked at St. Louis as a player that could help today, and be cheaper, yet still effective, than Callahan tomorrow as he looks to replace a couple years out. He could be thinking, with Cally this team gets to the playoffs, maybe wins a round, and with St. Louis, maybe they get a couple rounds and then get lucky. I'm sure there's a longer range plan (one which we all would criticize). Maybe someone gets hot. Heck, who thought the Giants would win a Super Bowl a few years ago when they barely get in after beating the Jets? It's easy to sit here and say they don't have the firepower. It's tough to make that leap, and that's understandable, but building a Stanley Cup contending team is difficult with so many moving parts. I don't think the Rangers get past the Pens. I don't watch hockey like I used to but matching the "star power" is difficult. But then again, you can say that Columbus took two games and lost a few close ones, so maybe there are cracks to get to the next round. It'll be fun to watch. Oh, and I totally get what you're saying, and Sather should not have been able to come out of the lockout (what year was that? ugh!). It's just tough.

Say what!?!? Welcome back man!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If you are asking me, I will give oyu my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have defeciencies with three very important areas.

top line LW - Nash has shifted to that spot and he's played OK this post season. Nothing earth moving, but he's not been horrible. Trouble is, he's a natural RW'er and has looked more comfortable playing from that position. Kreider is a decent 2nd line LW but he's not a top line guy just yet.

Puck Moving Defenceman (or PPQB) - McD has added a bit of offence to his game and that is awesome. I would not describe him as an offensive defenceman. We have no one on D that can really play the point on the PP which forces Richards there. A slow skating fading center is playing the point on the PP.

Center. This is an odd one as I like Stepan and Brassard. But I think that because both are average at best on draws, are average skaters at best, lack any real physical edge to their games that they are both easily neturalized. I doubt that either one has the ability to take a game over and make it his own.

Lack of an inner determination (toffnuss for you slow guys ) - I don't feel that the Rangers have enough guys in important positions that share the same mindset as Zuccs and the problem with Zuccs is that while the mind is willing, his smaller stature betrays him. There's not enough guys (again this is my opinion) willing to battle shift after shift and take the hacks and whacks of getting to the dirty areas of the ice to make a difference.

Physical mind-set on the blueline - We have to many guys that are passive in front of Henrik. Simmonds, standing right next to Girardi gets multiple chances to whack at the puck. End up scoring and while there's a very good chance he scores anyway, Girardi should have planted him on his ass in that spot.

Less of an issue, but I am answering your question as best I can.

Lundqvist - I think that he is one of the top 3 goalie in the league. I would say that he is also the best goalie the Rangers have ever had. That said, it's not that he gives up a softee here and there. All goalies do. It just feels like (again, my opinion) he gives up his softies at the worst possible moments. That moment where you need for him to be big, it feels like he relents.

Ill agree with the top 3. I think the bottom 3 are a bit misguided, especially the Lundqvist stuff.

Again, I think people need to reassess their definition of a "softie"

As for the toughness stuff, I think this current team is pretty tough mentally -- just because they're not out there going balls to the wall hitting people doesn't prohibit them from being tough.

 

[McRanger]

No, we don't know his impact in the locker room, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it either. When the team struggles, fans pound the "lack of leadership" drum until their hands bleed, but when it comes to trade value, it's virtually meaningless? Not buying it.

People complained about effort for years while Callahan was the captain. Outside of maybe game 10 to game 60 in the '11-'12 season. And especially this year. Callahan got a free pass because of the heart he showed on the ice.

But I have no idea what effect he had in the locker room. I could care less if Callahan is making them better men off the ice. All that matters is what translated on the ice. And we can see is the results on the ice.

The team also faced a significant number of teams post trade deadline who were well on their way to missing the playoffs. Of the 20 games the Rangers played, the 13 of them were against teams who missed the cut. A few of them finishing the season well below .500. So, once again, "the numbers" -- and "reality" apparently -- can be spun to suit just about whatever argument you want to make.

Its tough looking back on playing "non-playoff teams". When they lost to Philly in the beginning of the year, Philly was the worst team in the league. When they beat Toronto in March, Toronto was 4th in the conference. The Rangers also played 12 of those games on the road.

But it's a fair question, if not off point. The Rangers winning percentage against non-playoff teams was .621 before the deadline. It was .692 after the deadline. So that is an obvious improvement. They also had a better winning percentage against playoff teams (.571 to .515). Or perhaps you would like to compare it to a similar stretch of games? The Rangers played a span of 20 games in mid November to the end of December against the same amount of non-playoff teams and they had an under .500 record (8-10-2). Either way the team improved in the standings.

Not that any of that matters. That's not the point. The point was that Callahan had no effect on the team leaving. At least in the wins and loss columns.

No, Callahan has never been a prolific playoff performer. At least not on the scoresheet. But he was a more potent performer in the 20 regular season games with Tampa than MSL was in his 20 games with New York. So how can one say with any certainty that Callahan would not have had a similar impact on the offensive success of the Rangers during that same span? Again, it's all subjective.

You missed the point about the playoffs, but ok. Callahan had a magical stretch with the Lightning at the end. Magical. I hope they re-sign him. And maybe if he stayed he would have been an effective player for the Rangers. Maybe the Rangers do as well as they did without him. Do you think there is much of a chance they do better? Probably not? They were the top 5 team after the trade deadline.

Again, did we miss him? At all? Do think there is any evidence, as circumstantial as you want it to be, that the Rangers missed his leadership or his ice time? To say so would be a pretty bold statement.

The argument could never, and would never, stay within the context you specified. Trades aren't examined in that sort of vacuum, nor should they be. Whether people want to admit it or not, the success of that trade is going to be determined by the success of the Rangers. The deal was made to increase their odds of winning a cup. So that's the measure for me.

You do realize that while calling for a "no vacuum" assessment you are setting parameters and disconnecting the argument from some of its crucial elements. I find that stance... odd.

Anyway, I wasn't advocating the trade be judged like that universally. I was advocating the people on this board stick to that topic. Because its easier for them to wrap their heads around as I worry about a mass cave in of heads at computer consoles around the tri-state area.

That's my position, but as per usual, I'm certain that will be construed by many as me hoping for the team to fail.

I do not think that about you. I have wondered that about other posters. The world is a strange place full of odd people. The internet is just a microcosm of that global community where the odd people have the loudest voices. To think its unlikely people will define their fan experience by disliking the team they are suppose to root for is pretty naive. It would rank extremely low on the scale of odd human behavior, and not rank at all on the scale of odd human web-based behavior.

Some fans put their love or hate for individuals above the team. Others just want to be right about something. And a third group is both. Sometimes it is hard to tell the legitimately annoyed fans from the nuts. When I see a lunatic ranting and raving in the Stout before the game I usually wonder the same thing. It's usually easier in person.

 

[pld459666]

If you are asking me, I will give oyu my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have defeciencies with three very important areas.

top line LW - Nash has shifted to that spot and he's played OK this post season. Nothing earth moving, but he's not been horrible. Trouble is, he's a natural RW'er and has looked more comfortable playing from that position. Kreider is a decent 2nd line LW but he's not a top line guy just yet.

Puck Moving Defenceman (or PPQB) - McD has added a bit of offence to his game and that is awesome. I would not describe him as an offensive defenceman. We have no one on D that can really play the point on the PP which forces Richards there. A slow skating fading center is playing the point on the PP.

Center. This is an odd one as I like Stepan and Brassard. But I think that because both are average at best on draws, are average skaters at best, lack any real physical edge to their games that they are both easily neturalized. I doubt that either one has the ability to take a game over and make it his own.

Lack of an inner determination (toffnuss for you slow guys ) - I don't feel that the Rangers have enough guys in important positions that share the same mindset as Zuccs and the problem with Zuccs is that while the mind is willing, his smaller stature betrays him. There's not enough guys (again this is my opinion) willing to battle shift after shift and take the hacks and whacks of getting to the dirty areas of the ice to make a difference.

Physical mind-set on the blueline - We have to many guys that are passive in front of Henrik. Simmonds, standing right next to Girardi gets multiple chances to whack at the puck. End up scoring and while there's a very good chance he scores anyway, Girardi should have planted him on his ass in that spot.

Less of an issue, but I am answering your question as best I can.

Lundqvist - I think that he is one of the top 3 goalie in the league. I would say that he is also the best goalie the Rangers have ever had. That said, it's not that he gives up a softee here and there. All goalies do. It just feels like (again, my opinion) he gives up his softies at the worst possible moments. That moment where you need for him to be big, it feels like he relents.

And here's why I believe this team forces me to my therapy sessions.

Even with the bozos running things, even with the piss poor effort we get from these guys at the worst possible moments I still love this team.

I want them to win. I want them to be a team that doesn't go into a game and have them described as needing Lundqvist to steal a series. I want to go into a SCF series against any team in the league and know that if both teams play their very best hockey we have a shot at winning.

Sadly I do not feel that way about this team. The last team I felt that way about was the 93-94 team and I'm sick of hearing about that team.

we are almost 40% of the way back to 54 years. I don't want to wait another 34 years to see another cup.

 

[eBoge88]

If you are asking me, I will give oyu my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have defeciencies with three very important areas.

top line LW - Nash has shifted to that spot and he's played OK this post season. Nothing earth moving, but he's not been horrible. Trouble is, he's a natural RW'er and has looked more comfortable playing from that position. Kreider is a decent 2nd line LW but he's not a top line guy just yet.

Puck Moving Defenceman (or PPQB) - McD has added a bit of offence to his game and that is awesome. I would not describe him as an offensive defenceman. We have no one on D that can really play the point on the PP which forces Richards there. A slow skating fading center is playing the point on the PP.

Center. This is an odd one as I like Stepan and Brassard. But I think that because both are average at best on draws, are average skaters at best, lack any real physical edge to their games that they are both easily neturalized. I doubt that either one has the ability to take a game over and make it his own.

Lack of an inner determination (toffnuss for you slow guys ) - I don't feel that the Rangers have enough guys in important positions that share the same mindset as Zuccs and the problem with Zuccs is that while the mind is willing, his smaller stature betrays him. There's not enough guys (again this is my opinion) willing to battle shift after shift and take the hacks and whacks of getting to the dirty areas of the ice to make a difference.

Physical mind-set on the blueline - We have to many guys that are passive in front of Henrik. Simmonds, standing right next to Girardi gets multiple chances to whack at the puck. End up scoring and while there's a very good chance he scores anyway, Girardi should have planted him on his ass in that spot.

Less of an issue, but I am answering your question as best I can.

Lundqvist - I think that he is one of the top 3 goalie in the league. I would say that he is also the best goalie the Rangers have ever had. That said, it's not that he gives up a softee here and there. All goalies do. It just feels like (again, my opinion) he gives up his softies at the worst possible moments. That moment where you need for him to be big, it feels like he relents.

Lundqvist is the reason we have any shot at the cup. Come on.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Lundqvist is the reason we have any shot at the cup. Come on.

Agreed, or - at least, the major reason why.

Its funny how, as time goes on and the fanbase gains tolerance to how good Lundqvist really is, a "soft goal at a bad time" is actually "any goal at any time"

 

[pld459666]

Lundqvist is the reason we have any shot at the cup. Come on.

do not disagree.

but I feel that in certain spote where opposing goalies make big saves in big moments, Hank can sometimes let you down in similar situations.

That could also very well be a product of me thinking so highly of him that any goal he gives up is magnified.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Agreed, or - at least, the major reason why.

Its funny how, as time goes on and the fanbase gains tolerance to how good Lundqvist really is, a "soft goal at a bad time" is actually "any goal at any time"

It would help if Lundqvist could score a couple of goals.

 

[Hire Sather]

I can understand some of the complaints, but with our situation, the goalie getting older.. its not the time to stockpile draft picks. Thats why I have no problem getting rid of the picks. Callahan is a non factor for me.