Larry Brooks: Rangers season at crossroads--already

[Championship*]

Well injuries and deaths have played a role in our draft history. I figured in your tanking plan you must have a way to avoid them for future draft choices.

Do you have a way to avoid injury and deaths in your plans? Those are "unplannable" events.

Keep digging that hole.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I didn't even want to critique that list in this way, but the bottom line to the argument I wanted to make was that there is a crazy amount of luck involved in drafting, let alone winning the Cup. Can't miss prospects like Crosby and Malkin don't come around very often, the Penguins were VERY LUCKY to grab those guys in consecutive drafts, and even so that's landed them 1 Cup in 8 years.

The Rangers have made some mistakes in the draft, and I've been their biggest critic on the clear ones (Jessiman, and yes, McIlrath in my opinion). But, they've also had some pretty ****** luck with some top end guys (Dan Blackburn, Cherepanov). Hell, how about that giant swing and miss on Al Montoya at 6th overall. That was a bad one right? How about looking at the rest of that draft. Bad luck or bad management?

You are being realistic unlike the folks that say we should tank while refusing to say how they would guarantee we lose enough games despite being asked repeatedly.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Correlation does not equal causation. Nice try. That is almost as bad as saying us trading for Nick Kypreos led to us winning the cup. Keep reaching.

Yeah. This doesn't come near addressing what I said.

But you're the guy who looks at Mats Zuccarello's small sample of work and has no problem extrapolating out his numbers over a full season (more games than he's played for any extended period of time) and act like because he's done X in X games he will produce Y over Y games. You know, facts.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Do you have a way to avoid injury and deaths in your plans? Those are "unplannable" events.

Keep digging that hole.

The only hole I see is in all your speculation.

No I do not but my plan is not to just say we will lose a ton of games to get a high draft choice while refusing to say how we will guarantee to lose enough games and for how long despite being asked numerous times.

 

[Championship*]

You are being realistic unlike the folks that say we should tank while refusing to say how they would guarantee we lose enough games despite being asked repeatedly.

If you don't know how a tank works then we can't help you. Go pour through some old Pittsburgh rosters. Nothing is guaranteed. Tank or no tank. Nothing is guaranteed. Luck is necessary with every "plan".

 

[savebyrichter94]

If you don't know how a tank works then we can't help you. Go pour through some old Pittsburgh rosters. Nothing is guaranteed. Tank or no tank. Nothing is guaranteed. Luck is necessary with every "plan".

Exactly, luck is a very big factor but haven't we been hoping to get lucky long enough under this current GM and course of direction? All people like you and I are trying to say is when is it time to try a different strategy? He just keeps misrepresenting his opinion because obviously not every real GM thinks like he does because the Hawks won just last year doing the opposite! If every real GM thought the same there would never be a need to fire them because each one would be identical!

 

[NickyFotiu]

If you don't know how a tank works then we can't help you. Go pour through some old Pittsburgh rosters. Nothing is guaranteed. Tank or no tank. Nothing is guaranteed. Luck is necessary with every "plan".

I'm asking you and you just keep avoiding the question.

To come up with a top 3 pick 3-4 years in a row we will have to around 65 points a year. So how are you going to guarantee that? What are you going to do with all the players we have already groomed (Lundy, Step, Hags, Mcd, Staal, etc) that play for us? Do you trade them? Do you tell them to lose for 3-4 years? You are the expert on tanking so please tell me how you are going to do it. How long will it take to build a winning environment after purposefully losing for years?

 

[Ail]

You are being realistic unlike the folks that say we should tank while refusing to say how they would guarantee we lose enough games despite being asked repeatedly.

The question you are posing is only able to be answered in a vacuum by posters here. Which is unrealistic and a waste of time.

I could sit here all day and tell you what I'd like to do as a GM, but realistically I can never know the following things which would make a HUGE impact on my decisions as a GM:

1. What the actual locker room atmosphere is like. This is critical in determining who stays and who goes. I can't possibly know this from a message board.

2. The real and true market value of their players. We can say, you know what Del Zotto is a potential #1 pairing PMD and teams X Y Z will pay X Y Z for him, but we can't possibly know if that's true or not. If I can't determine what players on my roster are worth to other teams in the league, and figure out what players will return what assets to me, how can I accurately predict or build a plan for success?

3. Likewise of the prospect pool.

4. Most importantly, how much actual say I will have as a GM as to how the Rangers are constructed? I believe Dolan has a very specific set of rules for Sather to follow which all involve earning him as much money as possible. With these kinds of limitations, how could you ever build the team, "the right way?"

You can't just eliminate reality from situation and ask someone to build what basically amounts to a fantasy roster. It will prove absolutely nothing.

 

[Championship*]

I'm asking you and you just keep avoiding the question.

To come up with a top 3 pick 3-4 years in a row we will have to around 65 points a year. So how are you going to guarantee that? What are you going to do with all the players we have already groomed (Lundy, Step, Hags, Mcd, Staal, etc) that play for us? Do you trade them? Do you tell them to lose for 3-4 years? You are the expert on tanking so please tell me how you are going to do it. How long will it take to build a winning environment after purposefully losing for years?

Do the Rangers have a winning environment right now?

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Pointless argument, Rangers will never tank. All Dolan cares about is $$$$$

 

[NickyFotiu]

The question you are posing is only able to be answered in a vacuum by posters here. Which is unrealistic and a waste of time.

I could sit here all day and tell you what I'd like to do as a GM, but realistically I can never know the following things which would make a HUGE impact on my decisions as a GM:

1. What the actual locker room atmosphere is like. This is critical in determining who stays and who goes. I can't possibly know this from a message board.

2. The real and true market value of their players. We can say, you know what Del Zotto is a potential #1 pairing PMD and teams X Y Z will pay X Y Z for him, but we can't possibly know if that's true or not. If I can't determine what players on my roster are worth to other teams in the league, and figure out what players will return what assets to me, how can I accurately predict or build a plan for success?

3. Likewise of the prospect pool.

4. Most importantly, how much actual say I will have as a GM as to how the Rangers are constructed? I believe Dolan has a very specific set of rules for Sather to follow which all involve earning him as much money as possible. With these kinds of limitations, how could you ever build the team, "the right way."

You can't just eliminate reality from situation and ask someone to build what basically amounts to a fantasy roster. It will prove absolutely nothing.

You are being logical and realistic. I like that.

 

[Championship*]

Pointless argument, Rangers will never tank. All Dolan cares about is $$$$$

Rangers could be team 30 out of 30 and the Garden will still be packed.
On top of this, if Sather wanted to Tank, Dolan would support it. He doesn't care about the Rangers.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Do the Rangers have a winning environment right now?

Right this second? I can not say but years of winning and playoffs would not point to a losing environment.

 

[Championship*]

Right this second? I can not say but years of winning and playoffs would not point to a losing environment.

Years of winning? What have they won? I see a lot of low seed playoff spots and 1st/2nd round exits. 1 year making the conference finals which was a grind. 1st trip to the conference finals since 97.

 

[pld459666]

Plenty of teams that stunk and had higher picks than #3 never came close to a championship. We had the #4 pick and chose Brendl.

Lets be fair. Lets stop debating in hindsight. Lets talk about now. You are the new Rangers GM with a 4 year deal. What do you do today that gets us a championship by the time your contract ends. Please be specific.

had a decent write up.

scrapped it after the first 5 minutes of tis game.

This team is pretty bad

 

[NickyFotiu]

had a decent write up.

scrapped it after the first 5 minutes of tis game.

This team is pretty bad

Playing bad for sure. Hopefully we can turn things around. If not we will have a high pick without purposefully tanking.

 

[Championship*]

Playing bad for sure. Hopefully we can turn things around. If not we will have a high pick without purposefully tanking.

Whats the difference? And even if we get that high pick, what if he's Brendl?

 

[NickyFotiu]

Whats the difference? And even if we get that high pick, what if he's Brendl?

You don't know the difference between losing despite trying to win and purposely losing to tank? And you are the teams GM in charge of tanking??? That would be a weird coincidence that you would draft Brendl again. Isn't he a bit old by now?

 

[Championship*]

You don't know the difference between losing despite trying to win and purposely losing to tank? And you are the teams GM in charge of tanking??? That would be a weird coincidence that you would draft Brendl again. Isn't he a bit old by now?

Losing is losing. Brendl is your argument. Why did you just talk about the merits of getting a high pick, since your against that, right?

 

[NickyFotiu]

Losing is losing. Brendl is your argument. Why did you just talk about the merits of getting a high pick, since your against that, right?

I never said we would draft Brendl again? He is too old for the draft. That is just silly.

Who in their right mind is against getting a high pick. Most fans want to win but they are not against getting a high pick. Teams that win still try to trade for high picks in many sports.

Losing while trying to win is not the same as losing on purpose (tanking). Not even close.

I do not like the thought of losing on purpose. I'm a competitor that believes you give your all in sports but all I kept asking is how you planned to lose on purpose (trade best players? Tell players to lose?) and you guys refused to say how you would do it.

 

[savebyrichter94]

I never said we would draft Brendl again? He is too old for the draft. That is just silly.

Who in their right mind is against getting a high pick. Most fans want to win but they are not against getting a high pick. Teams that win still try to trade for high picks in many sports.

Losing while trying to win is not the same as losing on purpose (tanking). Not even close.

I do not like the thought of losing on purpose. I'm a competitor that believes you give your all in sports but all I kept asking is how you planned to lose on purpose (trade best players? Tell players to lose?) and you guys refused to say how you would do it.

Actually I told you several times in great detail how I would you just choose to keep ignoring it or acting as though only you know what real GM's think and would do!

 

[Championship*]

I never said we would draft Brendl again? He is too old for the draft. That is just silly.

Who in their right mind is against getting a high pick. Most fans want to win but they are not against getting a high pick. Teams that win still try to trade for high picks in many sports.

Losing while trying to win is not the same as losing on purpose (tanking). Not even close.

I do not like the thought of losing on purpose. I'm a competitor that believes you give your all in sports but all I kept asking is how you planned to lose on purpose (trade best players? Tell players to lose?) and you guys refused to say how you would do it.

The Brendl comment is, very clearly, over your head, not that I'm surprised. You've been arguing the risk of high picks this whole time.

Losing is losing. There is no different way to do it, there aren't different types of losing. Sorry, not how it works.

Again, if you don't know how a tank works, then we can't help you. This is day 1 stuff.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The Brendl comment is, very clearly, over your head, not that I'm surprised. You've been arguing the risk of high picks this whole time.

Losing is losing. There is no different way to do it, there aren't different types of losing. Sorry, not how it works.

Again, if you don't know how a tank works, then we can't help you. This is day 1 stuff.

Sarcasm is clearly over your head.

Losing on purpose is clearly different than losing while trying to win. If you can not see the difference than I can not help you.

Apparently you do not know how a tank works because I have asked you repeatedly what you would do with all the young talent we already have and you have always avoided the question.

You and your hater friends are a joke. No wonder you are quitters. If you ever played the game you would be losers on the ice as well with your lets lose on purpose mindset.

 

[Crease]

Brooks is licking his chops right now.

 

[Championship*]

Sarcasm is clearly over your head.

Losing on purpose is clearly different than losing while trying to win. If you can not see the difference than I can not help you.

Apparently you do not know how a tank works because I have asked you repeatedly what you would do with all the young talent we already have and you have always avoided the question.

You and your hater friends are a joke. No wonder you are quitters. If you ever played the game you would be losers on the ice as well with your lets lose on purpose mindset.

At the end of the day, is the result the same?