Marty St. Louis

[Riverdale]

No.

Staal or Girardi

 

[Raspewtin]

Nope.

Still vote for McDonagh there.

 

[Giacomin]

AV had a goalie as a Captain before so my vote is for Henrik!

 

[Swept In Seven]

Nah the guy's mom died and the team are rallying around him because of it, but he isn't going to get the C over a tenured star with an expectancy to be here for a long time aka McD, Girardi, Staal, Stepan (not likely), Nash . Personally I see it going to a defenseman

 

[RangersFan]

let's retire ray bourque's jersey!

seriously though, glad to see the team rally around the guy and the excitement with his mother's day goal, but let's not go crazy.

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

Guy is invisible for an entire series scores a goal off his shin and now hes the next captain. What universe is this?

Hockey **** aside. You can't hold it against him that he didn't play good enough to everyone's standards when he knew his mother was gravely ill. I don't care if you're Hugh Jessiman or Wayne Greztky. It will stop anyone in their tracks.

That being said, people shouldn't jump the to the captain wagon, either.

 

[wolfgaze]

Nice to see the fan support at the Garden tonight. You can tell the guy really appreciated that....

 

[Siddi]

let's retire ray bourque's jersey!

seriously though, glad to see the team rally around the guy and the excitement with his mother's day goal, but let's not go crazy.

This so much! I feel for his loss and i will always respect him for showing up for game night but naming MSL captain is short minded. Give the "C" to one of our core guys preferably McD.

 

[Fletch]

naming St. Louis captain, or suggesting it, really isn't that crazy at all if one considers his full body of work as the reason for doing so. He's a vet. He's been pretty consistent throughout his career. He's been productive throughout his career. He has won a Stanley Cup. He has played with some pretty decent players throughout the years. I believe he's been considered a leader in the locker room. He's been a captain before. He's participated in international play. He's come to work every day throughout his career, missing few games. He was an NHL MVP. I don't know, that resume doesn't seem all too bad to me. But naming a captain really is tough for us fans to suggest. What goes on in the locker room, behind the bench, at practice and off the ice is where the captains come out, and our knowledge of that is close to zero. We want our favorite player, or the guy who appears to be most vocal or the best player on the ice. We can't tell the impact a player has on other players, and I think that is the deciding factor. Having said that, if one was to include accomplishments throughout a career, St. Louis stands a chance of being captain.

 

[eco's bones]

IMO--not the time to be worrying about who the next captain will be. If St. Louis did get it--I don't think he'd hang on to it for more than 2-3 seasons. I don't think he's going to be playing when he's 45. Personally I don't think he'd be the best choice. I'm pretty much of the school that you give it to a younger player who is already a leader and IMO the best candidate would be McDonagh. Ideally Richards gets bought out and the other A could go to St. Louis or another veteran like Zucc or Stepan. I'm a big fan of Girardi but don't like the idea of two d-men who are almost always paired together both having a letter. Better to spread it out and better if at least one of the guys is a forward.

 

[eco's bones]

naming St. Louis captain, or suggesting it, really isn't that crazy at all if one considers his full body of work as the reason for doing so. He's a vet. He's been pretty consistent throughout his career. He's been productive throughout his career. He has won a Stanley Cup. He has played with some pretty decent players throughout the years. I believe he's been considered a leader in the locker room. He's been a captain before. He's participated in international play. He's come to work every day throughout his career, missing few games. He was an NHL MVP. I don't know, that resume doesn't seem all too bad to me. But naming a captain really is tough for us fans to suggest. What goes on in the locker room, behind the bench, at practice and off the ice is where the captains come out, and our knowledge of that is close to zero. We want our favorite player, or the guy who appears to be most vocal or the best player on the ice. We can't tell the impact a player has on other players, and I think that is the deciding factor. Having said that, if one was to include accomplishments throughout a career, St. Louis stands a chance of being captain.

Been a while--good to see your post.

 

[haveandare]

Anyone see Marty's broadway hat speech last night?

The real highlight: " I couldn't be prouder to be a ****in' New York Ranger than with you guys."

I'm not saying he should be the captain by any means, but that's real good to hear and see. Teams play better when they feel like a team, and every little thing like that builds up that sense of camaraderie.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

He's a real leader. I don't know about captaincy or even alternate captain, the dude will be a leader for this team letter or no.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Anyone see Marty's broadway hat speech last night?

The real highlight: " I couldn't be prouder to be a ****in' New York Ranger than with you guys."

I'm not saying he should be the captain by any means, but that's real good to hear and see. Teams play better when they feel like a team, and every little thing like that builds up that sense of camaraderie.

A real leader and heart of a Champion. I like this guy.

He makes me believe we can WIN NOW.

 

[Matt4776]

There is no way G doesn't keep his letter.

I see 3 defenseman letters.

C- Staal
A- Girardi
A- McDonagh

 

[Dr. Ogrodnick]

There is no way G doesn't keep his letter.

I see 3 defenseman letters.

C- Staal
A- Girardi
A- McDonagh

They'll only give it to Staal if they figure out his contract situation. They aren't going to name him captain only to be in a position to have to trade him in 5 months.

 

[n8]

right now, he is the captain. everyone is playing FOR him.

 

[Clausewitz]

right now, he is the captain. everyone is playing FOR him.

Indeed. You don't need a letter on a piece of clothing in order to be a leader. The players know who their de facto leaders are.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Heart of a Champion.

This guy is special. He has infected our team with the will to win.

Love him. I do that trade every time. Picks be damned.

WIN NOW.

 

[Inferno]

Series clinching primary assist to send the Rangers to the ECF....


but still, a failure of a trade unless we win the cup.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

Series clinching primary assist to send the Rangers to the ECF....


but still, a failure of a trade unless we win the cup.

Has anyone unironically said that us winning was a bad thing, yet?

 

[Fletch]

Inferno...

even if they win the Cup the trade may be considered a failure in some minds because it's not all about this season. It's also about next season. It's about the pick they will not have so it could affect seasons to come. The MSL negativity, I believe, is coming from a short-term thinking that doesn't bode well for the Rangers in 2-4 years. Sure, we will feel great today, like crap tomorrow. Nobody would trade the Cup for anything, and some may suggest that perhaps the team still makes the playoffs, and gets as far, with Cally (heck, they did once make it this far with Cally and have made it to the playoffs; with a hot goalie, a more mature defense than in past seasons (especially with McDonough growing), and some forward help (with Kreider coming back and Stepan), you can definitely make the argument, and honestly, it's not a crazy argument. Getting the assist on the game-winner, which was a feed to a teammate with whom he won a Stanley Cup and likely is a big reason why he came here (to salvage Richards), sways the argument a bit towards a good trade due to feel good value, but still, you can make the counter argument without sounding like an idiot.

 

[haveandare]

even if they win the Cup the trade may be considered a failure in some minds because it's not all about this season. It's also about next season. It's about the pick they will not have so it could affect seasons to come. The MSL negativity, I believe, is coming from a short-term thinking that doesn't bode well for the Rangers in 2-4 years. Sure, we will feel great today, like crap tomorrow. Nobody would trade the Cup for anything, and some may suggest that perhaps the team still makes the playoffs, and gets as far, with Cally (heck, they did once make it this far with Cally and have made it to the playoffs; with a hot goalie, a more mature defense than in past seasons (especially with McDonough growing), and some forward help (with Kreider coming back and Stepan), you can definitely make the argument, and honestly, it's not a crazy argument. Getting the assist on the game-winner, which was a feed to a teammate with whom he won a Stanley Cup and likely is a big reason why he came here (to salvage Richards), sways the argument a bit towards a good trade due to feel good value, but still, you can make the counter argument without sounding like an idiot.

True. But, the entire yearly market for deadline acquisitions shows that salvaging the future for the present to an extent (if you think you can win in the present) is a fairly commonplace and reasonable strategy in today's NHL, even by GMs that many/most of us would agree are among the best.

The goal is to win the cup. More often than not, teams have to make sacrifices down the line to do it. I'm okay with the trade, though I was right from the start. Marty brings that fire that this team was lacking, and still is lacking to an extent, though it's obviously not holding them back much right now. He and Kreider are both running on jet fuel out there.

 

[Fletch]

never suggested that there aren't deadline trades to bolster one's chances of winning a cup. I lived through '94 - that was perhaps the biggest showcase of that. Also, I haven't opined on whether it was a worthwhile trade. Just getting some to see both sides in this so perhaps we can understand each other. I believe some anti-MSL trade people look at the last few chances to get that last piece to the puzzle, be it Nash or Gaborik, and they question Sather's judgment in getting that right person and what is given up for those people ends up being more than what they get. I think some believe that had Callahan stayed the Rangers still had a chance to get to where they are, especially given certain variables, and stated that it wasn't unreasonable to think in such a way.

And I do somewhat agree that the goal is to win a Cup. For us fans it seems that way, but most owners will say the goal is to make money. Heck, Cuban (albeit a NBA owner) came out today saying sports teams are no longer trophy assets and that it's a business whose objective is to make money. Unfortunately, that comes into play. But if you feel there's a reasonable chance, you make that calculated move but still try to deal from a position of strength because it's never a one and done kind of thing. As GM you want a job tomorrow, next year and five years from now. It is a job afterall and winning that Cup gives you only so long of a grace period. It's a balance.

 

[haveandare]

never suggested that there aren't deadline trades to bolster one's chances of winning a cup. I lived through '94 - that was perhaps the biggest showcase of that. Also, I haven't opined on whether it was a worthwhile trade. Just getting some to see both sides in this so perhaps we can understand each other. I believe some anti-MSL trade people look at the last few chances to get that last piece to the puzzle, be it Nash or Gaborik, and they question Sather's judgment in getting that right person and what is given up for those people ends up being more than what they get. I think some believe that had Callahan stayed the Rangers still had a chance to get to where they are, especially given certain variables, and stated that it wasn't unreasonable to think in such a way.

And I do somewhat agree that the goal is to win a Cup. For us fans it seems that way, but most owners will say the goal is to make money. Heck, Cuban (albeit a NBA owner) came out today saying sports teams are no longer trophy assets and that it's a business whose objective is to make money. Unfortunately, that comes into play. But if you feel there's a reasonable chance, you make that calculated move but still try to deal from a position of strength because it's never a one and done kind of thing. As GM you want a job tomorrow, next year and five years from now. It is a job afterall and winning that Cup gives you only so long of a grace period. It's a balance.

I didn't mean to imply that you did suggest that, I was just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I think the fact that such a practice is so commonplace points to the idea that the future/now tradeoff is one that is fairly well regarded in the NHL, assuming that a team can and does actually do some damage in the playoffs.

I agree about it being a business first, but I'd also point out that winning is good for business. Like any other company, sports teams have a brand, and the stock of that brand goes up and down with changes in a few specific factors. For sports teams, success is one of the main factors, if not the main factor. Plus, with hockey, going further means more playoff games, which means more ticket sales, which means more revenue, not even counting the positive future benefits of a very successful season.

Edit: Forgot to add, our GM is a bit of a unique case because he's probably not going to have that job in five years, win or lose.