Marty St. Louis

[Fletch]

posting is tough. Sometimes you post something in general since everyone reads and it feels directed towards yours. I can't argue about the future is now trading at the deadline. I think it was more commonplace many years ago when it seemed less of a business. I do think nowadays some owners, and GMs, would rather know they're going to the second round every year than one Stanley Cup that may hamper their abilities to make it to the second round for a couple seasons (thus less revenue/profit). Definitely a different dynamic than 20 years ago when the Rangers made their deadline move. Still remember the front page of the Post that day. And I wouldn't argue that winning isn't good for business. Win a Cup, sales the next season are up to begin the season. It carries momentum. No doubt. And of course if you win the Cup, played in more games, thus more revenue and since the players don't get paid a meaningful additional amount, it's higher margin revenue. And I don't mean to say that winning isn't the goal (and the business goal), but going for it is a calculated decision and profitability is taken into consideration, among other things. Perhaps this is more relevant when you do make a NYR 1994 move - trading Amonte, Turcotte and Patrick earlier in the year, Marchant, Gartner and Weight the year earlier. Not all 22 year olds, but the older guys, like Gartner, had more left in the tank than their replacements.

I think we are on the same page, perhaps saying things a bit differently and stressing some different points. Would never argue that it's common practice to trade youth for vets at the deadline to make a run. Some people may think this team isn't going to make a run, that it doesn't have the depth from which to deal (possibly because of past tries at getting that one guy), or the guy they're bringing in isn't going to make the difference over the guy leaving, so why do it.

 

[Jersey Girl]

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.

Fair point, but there is a difference between the GM who occasionally sacrifices a first round draft pick to bring in something they feel brings the team over the top, and a GM who has traded away what is now our first round draft pick three years in a row - and a second round draft pick one of those year as well. Three consecutive drafts with a grand total of no first round draft picks and two second rounders.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to think 5-6 years down the road we can easily be looking back at this period as what brought us to a point where our youth has been absolutely decimated. Three years in a row without a first round draft pick can have long-reaching ramifications, which is difficult to quantify because I can't even remember any GM EVER trading away three first round draft picks in a row.

And the assets we brought in with these trades are Nash (self-explanatory), Clowe (already came and went and contributed nothing) and St Louis (38 years old and only signed through next year).

Now, if we're looking back at this in 5-6 years with another Stanley Cup notch on our belt, I think a lot of us will live with it. If we are looking back with one ECF appearance on our belt to show for all the sacrificed first rounders (remember, the ECF appearance two years ago came before ANY first round picks were traded), these trades will not be looked back on so fondly.

 

[haveandare]

posting is tough. Sometimes you post something in general since everyone reads and it feels directed towards yours. I can't argue about the future is now trading at the deadline. I think it was more commonplace many years ago when it seemed less of a business. I do think nowadays some owners, and GMs, would rather know they're going to the second round every year than one Stanley Cup that may hamper their abilities to make it to the second round for a couple seasons (thus less revenue/profit). Definitely a different dynamic than 20 years ago when the Rangers made their deadline move. Still remember the front page of the Post that day. And I wouldn't argue that winning isn't good for business. Win a Cup, sales the next season are up to begin the season. It carries momentum. No doubt. And of course if you win the Cup, played in more games, thus more revenue and since the players don't get paid a meaningful additional amount, it's higher margin revenue. And I don't mean to say that winning isn't the goal (and the business goal), but going for it is a calculated decision and profitability is taken into consideration, among other things. Perhaps this is more relevant when you do make a NYR 1994 move - trading Amonte, Turcotte and Patrick earlier in the year, Marchant, Gartner and Weight the year earlier. Not all 22 year olds, but the older guys, like Gartner, had more left in the tank than their replacements.

I think we are on the same page, perhaps saying things a bit differently and stressing some different points. Would never argue that it's common practice to trade youth for vets at the deadline to make a run. Some people may think this team isn't going to make a run, that it doesn't have the depth from which to deal (possibly because of past tries at getting that one guy), or the guy they're bringing in isn't going to make the difference over the guy leaving, so why do it.

Well put. It's all akin to putting together a puzzle made of living, moving pieces. Factor in teams' split identity as a business and a sports franchise, and it's insanely complicated. I can get why people think all sorts of things about team building. I may not agree with everyone, but the problem is so complicated that I can see how and why major differences in opinion come up.

 

[Fletch]

I think that's the issue. It is complex and there are so many factors that many of us do not take into consideration (because we do not have all the information), and that's why we are all armchair quarterbacks and aren't GMs and coaches! What we can do, and it's fair to do so, is judge them against their peers to form an opinion about how they're doing. Sometimes we do not care that a GM had to do something for a certain reason and that something ends up being to the detriment to the team - the GM put the team there in the first place. The MSL trade looks better (at the time it occurred) if certain other of Sather's similar trades look better and if he setup the system, through good drafts, a bit better. I get that point (and my lack of following thoroughly prohibits me from really opining; can only make suggestions as to why he did it, and why it may not be a good idea). But yea, it's complex these days.

 

[Tawnos]

Three years in a row without a first round draft pick can have long-reaching ramifications, which is difficult to quantify because I can't even remember any GM EVER trading away three first round draft picks in a row.

Detroit Red Wings

1999 pick: Dealt for Chelios
2000 pick: Wings take Kronwall
2001 pick: Dealt for Chelios
2002 pick: Dealt for Hasek
2003 pick: Dealt for Scheider
2004 pick: Dealt for Lang

Which shows that it really can be done, but you have to be successful in later round picks when you do it. During that span, the Red Wings drafted Zetterberg, Kopecky, Hudler, Fleischman, Filpula, Ericsson, Howard, Quincey and Franzen in the 2nd round or later.

 

[haveandare]

Fair point, but there is a difference between the GM who occasionally sacrifices a first round draft pick to bring in something they feel brings the team over the top, and a GM who has traded away what is now our first round draft pick three years in a row - and a second round draft pick one of those year as well. Three consecutive drafts with a grand total of no first round draft picks and two second rounders.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to think 5-6 years down the road we can easily be looking back at this period as what brought us to a point where our youth has been absolutely decimated. Three years in a row without a first round draft pick can have long-reaching ramifications, which is difficult to quantify because I can't even remember any GM EVER trading away three first round draft picks in a row.

And the assets we brought in with these trades are Nash (self-explanatory), Clowe (already came and went and contributed nothing) and St Louis (38 years old and only signed through next year).

Now, if we're looking back at this in 5-6 years with another Stanley Cup notch on our belt, I think a lot of us will live with it. If we are looking back with one ECF appearance on our belt to show for all the sacrificed first rounders (remember, the ECF appearance two years ago came before ANY first round picks were traded), these trades will not be looked back on so fondly.

Can't disagree with any of this really. There's a big difference between say, the Blues getting Miller, and the Rangers getting MSL, in that the Blues are an insanely deep roster of drafted talent, and the Rangers are yet again trading assets for players who, at the very least, are unlikely to earn more than their caphit on the ice.

It's not a stretch to think that, no, but it's also not a given IMO. Three years without a first is bad, no question, but it can be remedied, and/or counteracted to an extent, by recouping picks at future drafts, by trying to get prospects who are valued improperly by their teams in trades down the line, and/or by signing college FAs.

And yeah, a cup makes it all worthwhile, an ECF appearance doesn't. A finals appearance...it's hard to say.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Can't disagree with any of this really. There's a big difference between say, the Blues getting Miller, and the Rangers getting MSL, in that the Blues are an insanely deep roster of drafted talent, and the Rangers are yet again trading assets for players who, at the very least, are unlikely to earn more than their caphit on the ice.

It's not a stretch to think that, no, but it's also not a given IMO. Three years without a first is bad, no question, but it can be remedied, and/or counteracted to an extent, by recouping picks at future drafts, by trying to get prospects who are valued improperly by their teams in trades down the line, and/or by signing college FAs.

And yeah, a cup makes it all worthwhile, an ECF appearance doesn't. A finals appearance...it's hard to say.

Not to mention in all of those trades of first round draft picks for Nash, Clowe and St Louis, we didn't just trade draft picks. In those trades Sather also included Dubinsky, Anisimov and Callahan, so we have to factor in the opportunity cost of what else we could have received for them, and what they could have contributed had we kept them AND the draft picks.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Not to mention in all of those trades of first round draft picks for Nash, Clowe and St Louis, we didn't just trade draft picks. In those trades Sather also included Dubinsky, Anisimov and Callahan, so we have to factor in the opportunity cost of what else we could have received for them, and what they could have contributed had we kept them AND the draft picks.

Two sides to that coin. We'd also be dealing with those contracts and how can we know how that might have changed something else?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Two sides to that coin. We'd also be dealing with those contracts and how can we know how that might have changed something else?

True. I was actually talking about keeping Callahan through the end of his contract this year instead of trading him (and draft picks), not picking up any additional Callahan salary next year.

 

[Baby Punisher]

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


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

When you compare MSL's play to Cally's play in this past round......Oh wait! You can't cause Cally wasn't playing. He was home sitting on his couch watching his former team playing.

Trade is a huge success.

 

[Jersey Girl]

When you compare MSL's play to Cally's play in this past round......Oh wait! You can't cause Cally wasn't playing. He was home sitting on his couch watching his former team playing.

Trade is a huge success.

Yes, because every genius hockey fan knows the Rangers victory was all about St Louis and the Tampa loss was all about Callahan. Had zero to do with any of the other players on the ice.

The fact that Ben Bishop got hurt right before the playoffs and didn't play at all, and Hank is playing some of his best hockey ever are, of course, totally irrelevant.

Can't make us some of the stuff you read here sometimes...

 

[haveandare]

Yes, because every genius hockey fan knows the Rangers victory was all about St Louis and the Tampa loss was all about Callahan. Had zero to do with any of the other players on the ice.

The fact that Ben Bishop got hurt right before the playoffs and didn't play at all, and Hank is playing some of his best hockey ever are, of course, totally irrelevant.

Can't make us some of the stuff you read here sometimes...

Though, let's not pretend that having 0 points as your team gets swept is acceptable play for a top 6 winger.

Nash has 5 points in 15 games as the team makes the ECF again and he's being absolutely crucified. Callahan had 0 points as his team failed as badly as you can in the playoffs.

No, it's not as simple as MSL is great and Callahan is bad or whatever version of that, but MSL is a big reason that NYR are still playing, and Callahan's lack of production is a sizable part of why his team isn't playing.

 

[Dagoon44]

Rangers request to change playoff schedule for St. Louis denied by NHL?

Just received a phone call from a high ranking MSG source concerning the NHL and Rangers in a big time dispute.

Marry St. Louis mom will be laid to rest Saturday afternoon in Quebec the Rangers have formally requested to the NHL to not play on Saturday at all. The NHL offices have currently denied the request and insisting the Rangers play Saturday which would mean the Rangers would be playing without the Star winger..
my sources have stated that Glen Sather has personally called out the NHL with their handling of the St. Louis tragedy and making it a focal point on TV.. and now basically telling the Rangers Tough Luck.. See beating Sid really upset Gary Boy

 

[Jersey Girl]

Though, let's not pretend that having 0 points as your team gets swept is acceptable play for a top 6 winger.

Nash has 5 points in 15 games as the team makes the ECF again and he's being absolutely crucified. Callahan had 0 points as his team failed as badly as you can in the playoffs.

No, it's not as simple as MSL is great and Callahan is bad or whatever version of that, but MSL is a big reason that NYR are still playing, and Callahan's lack of production is a sizable part of why his team isn't playing.

My original point was that one of our options was to keep Callahan, which was actually more about keeping our first round draft picks. Callahan did pick up 6-7 goals, if I remember correctly, in our run to the ECF two years ago, so there is every possibility he could have contributed just as much as St Louis, and we could have kept our draft picks.

I do realize there is the further variable that Callahan is a UFA after this year and St Louis not until after next year, but declaring the trade a success because the Rangers are still playing and Tampa Bay is not is internet argument level ridiculous.

 

[stan the caddy]

I really don't think beating Sid pissed off the NHL. That's a narrative that needs to go away. When the Rangers win it's good for the league.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Normally i'd say the NHL is in the right here. It's not their role to account for things like this. However, it is an interesting point that the hockey media has milked MSL's unfortunate situation for an easy narrative, so maybe they owe him one.

 

[Dagoon44]

I really don't think beating Sid pissed off the NHL. That's a narrative that needs to go away. When the Rangers win it's good for the league.

You know i was being very sarcastic there right Stan?

 

[Callagraves]

I really don't think beating Sid pissed off the NHL. That's a narrative that needs to go away. When the Rangers win it's good for the league.

I echo this.


That said, The league ought to do all it can to work the Rangers schedule around the funeral of one of it's biggest star's mother. It's scheduling for the Rangers thus far as been detrimental, and it's not like there are too many other series to work around. There's no acceptable reason for the league to say "too bad".

 

[Fitzy]

Normally i'd say the NHL is in the right here. It's not their role to account for things like this. However, it is an interesting point that the hockey media has milked MSL's unfortunate situation for an easy narrative, so maybe they owe him one.

The NHL and the NHL media are different entities.

 

[Giglio NYR15]

I thought the funeral was saturday and they came back sunday? Hopefully they will be in MTL anyway.

 

[Callagraves]

The NHL and the NHL media are different entities.

NBC Sports has no dignity, knows no standards. But we all knew this.

 

[stan the caddy]

You know i was being very sarcastic there right Stan?

I didn't.

 

[TeamStewie]

If this is the case I can't wait for the scathing Larry Brooks article. It should be EPIC.

 

[Fugu]

Just received a phone call from a high ranking MSG source concerning the NHL and Rangers in a big time dispute.

Marry St. Louis mom will be laid to rest Saturday afternoon in Quebec the Rangers have formally requested to the NHL to not play on Saturday at all. The NHL offices have currently denied the request and insisting the Rangers play Saturday which would mean the Rangers would be playing without the Star winger..
my sources have stated that Glen Sather has personally called out the NHL with their handling of the St. Louis tragedy and making it a focal point on TV.. and now basically telling the Rangers Tough Luck.. See beating Sid really upset Gary Boy

Players often have issues that come up, deaths, childbirth, illnesses to kids and spouses. The NHL, as far as I know, has never 'accommodated' a personal issue for players, or they'd be doing it ALL THE TIME.

If Sather is making this an issue on TV, there would be evidence of such, no? One wouldn't need sources to tell them that's happening?

 

[Fitzy]

NBC Sports has no dignity, knows no standards. But we all knew this.

Yeah it's starting to get very uncomfortable, I'm sure MSL has to watch the replay of the game with everyone else and just gets reminded 3-4 times a game,