The underlying theme of your post?
Management. Maybe Torts isn't the only problem. Maybe there really needs to be an overhaul not at the team/player level, but up and down the big wigs. There needs to be a new, fresh mentality throughout the entire organization. I'm still a big advocate of getting rid of Sather (and starting to strongly consider adding Torts to this short list) so long as we can hold on to our current scouting staff arrangements. Everyone keeps saying "Oh we need to trade for this, we need to trade for that, we still need a #1C, we still need a #1 whatever"..then complain about team chemistry. This team CAN battle back. This team DOES have fight in them. What they DON'T have is someone that can hold their attention and bring this trait out on a team level. Yes, Torts was able to once upon a time, but please don't try to tell me that no training camp is at fault for the way the team is playing. All I'm going to say about that is this: Ottawa. People have been saying he has lost this team and I think that is starting to really shine through. They don't care because he doesn't care. He'll be the first to throw them under the bus, but won't admit poor coaching. Why would they want to play for someone who won't hold himself accountable for his actions, and in the process pins everything solely on the players?
Thanks for the contribution.
Main underlying theme is to win, we need a minimum of enough talent, and need to keep adding to stay ahead of improving competition.
As to top to down, the issue is not entirely Slats, but who is doing the drafting for us. We are finally catching up with gord clark but we need to be sure that long term that pipeline keeps delivering for us. That would help with total development/acquisition needs.
As to trades, Sather can be shrewd, but key is not to look for unrealistic and rare swindles, but how many profitable trades we can make. Prior to recent history GMs are more isolated. Now better chance for competition of ideas to at least be raised by forum such as HFB, which the press probably reads and uses to some extent. I would expect that a guy like Post's Larry Brooks asks Slats about some of the deals we propose, off the record, and uses that as part of where he makes generalizations about "rangers want to unload ..." or "team is looking to add ...". When more hypotheticals are analyzed, that is better chance for a team to choose the best possible alternative.
For example, Cat Francis made that stupid trade, Ratelle + Park for Espo, Vadnais + Zanussi. If we knew about that before, he never would have been allowed to make THAT deal. A shake up deal, maybe, but not that exercise in stupidity.
Dolan, we could do better, we could do worse.
My beef with him is what he and Time Warner, etc. extort for cable, not the product that is the Rangers.
So there certainly is room for improvement, and we should seek improvement all around, but the one who's gotta go is Torts.
