Sam Rosen was right (Historical impact of Rangers' roster moves)
- Thread starter True Blue
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
StepansLabyrinth
Rational Police
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,845
- 1
This St. Louis deal is nothing like Gomez, Redden, Drury, etc. MSL has 2 years on his contract, that doesn't cripple the club long term financially from a cap standpoint. The pick we traded will almost 100% not be a star level player. You're lucky to grab a mid-pairing D-Man or 2nd line forward in the late 1st round. Callahan needed to be moved or we'd get nothing for him and what we got was a significant improvement.
2 years of MSL>.5 years of Callahan and a marginal prospect (which all late firsts start as).
The uproar over this is ridiculous. We just acquired two years of a top 10 forward in the league. Not only that, one that helps solve our biggest need (playmaking). Some of you guys have PTSD from the early 2000s, holy crap.
When you analyze this from a value standpoint, the Rangers won quite easily.
2 years of MSL>.5 years of Callahan and a marginal prospect (which all late firsts start as).
The uproar over this is ridiculous. We just acquired two years of a top 10 forward in the league. Not only that, one that helps solve our biggest need (playmaking). Some of you guys have PTSD from the early 2000s, holy crap.
When you analyze this from a value standpoint, the Rangers won quite easily.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
stan the caddy
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2011
- 2,360
- 281
Whoooaaaa take a pill there. I laughed at the ridiculousness of him saying that because it was so over the top and wrong not because it was the right thing to say. How could you not pick up on this given the context of the rest of what I said? What if I had phrased it like this "I remember how laughably dramatic it was when one announcer or something said that fans of chicago should celebrate Wirtz's death. What an idiot that guy was." Didn't think I'd need to spell it out that literally for you dude. Holy hell. The sentiment that Sather will run the team till death and subsequent morbid musings and allusions to waiting for his death have cropped up repeatedly and when they did it reminded me of when that guy said that about Wirtz.
No one here has gone past saying that we're pretty much stuck waiting for either death or retirement but people have definitely made that point before around here
I remember a chicago team being in the basement bc it was run into the ground by a negligent owner and I remember when he died that someone in the media or in an interview said something really nasty about how it was a good thing he was dead for the sake of the team and its fans. I was going to ask if any1 knew who said it and what they specifically said but I didn't care enough. Feel free to search.
Last edited:
I don't really like giving up the 1st for MSL (I think the one conditional 1st should've been enough), but I can understand the "win now" mentality that has come. Many will disagree, but you can't always do what's best for the roster in about 4-5 years from now, especially when you're only giving up late 1st round picks. Sometimes the next 1-2 years are just more important.
When determing "win now", "rebuild", "retool" or whatever, you have to evaluate the roster and at some time you must decide, that the core is close to its peak. I mean, will our core be significantly better in 4-5 years, or is it near its peak already? I'd argue, that we are pretty close to the peak of our core. Lundqvist, Girardi, Nash - those guys probably won't get any better, Staal is only signed another year, and McDonagh and Stepan are nearing the start of their prime. Who on this roster can get significantly better in the future? Kreider, Miller and that's about it. We have some nice depth in Hartford, but there's no gamebreaker waiting to be ready.
So, with this core, when are the best chances to compete? That's probably now and not in 4-5 years, so yes we are in "win now" mode. Our core isn't as good as the best in the league, no doubt, but you have to try your luck at some point or you are in a perpetual rebuild. MSL gives us better chances to achieve something with this core.
Sather hasn't build a great team, but you can't throw in the towel before even trying. But on these boards of course winning a game in five years is always better than winning a game now, draft picks and prospects are severely overrated in general. But you cannot always rebuild, always waiting for something better "because the team isn't as good as Chicago or Pittsburgh" or you might end up a bit like what has been said about Brazil (jokingly) and what I sometimes think of teams like the Oilers or Panthers: They are the teams of the future - and they always will be.
When determing "win now", "rebuild", "retool" or whatever, you have to evaluate the roster and at some time you must decide, that the core is close to its peak. I mean, will our core be significantly better in 4-5 years, or is it near its peak already? I'd argue, that we are pretty close to the peak of our core. Lundqvist, Girardi, Nash - those guys probably won't get any better, Staal is only signed another year, and McDonagh and Stepan are nearing the start of their prime. Who on this roster can get significantly better in the future? Kreider, Miller and that's about it. We have some nice depth in Hartford, but there's no gamebreaker waiting to be ready.
So, with this core, when are the best chances to compete? That's probably now and not in 4-5 years, so yes we are in "win now" mode. Our core isn't as good as the best in the league, no doubt, but you have to try your luck at some point or you are in a perpetual rebuild. MSL gives us better chances to achieve something with this core.
Sather hasn't build a great team, but you can't throw in the towel before even trying. But on these boards of course winning a game in five years is always better than winning a game now, draft picks and prospects are severely overrated in general. But you cannot always rebuild, always waiting for something better "because the team isn't as good as Chicago or Pittsburgh" or you might end up a bit like what has been said about Brazil (jokingly) and what I sometimes think of teams like the Oilers or Panthers: They are the teams of the future - and they always will be.
I'm sorry but people here said that about every big name we've brought in since I've been on this forum.
Gomez and Drury are nothing like Lindros, Bure and Holik because they're younger and want to be here!
Richards is nothing like Gomez and Drury because he's without a doubt a No. 1 center, and in his prime!
Nash is nothing like Richards because he's a true offensive talent who can create on his own!
And on, and on, and on.
Because your next sentence was
You assume that people who don't like the guy are going to be happy when he's dead. That's wrong. That's taking the argument way too far. I got what you were saying... Nobody is going to be happy when Sather dies, and if that did happen I'm quite sure the mods would ban the poster and you know it. You don't care though, so here I am to correct you, as I would do to anybody that posted the nonsense you did.
I understood what you meant but after over 10 years of posting here I know for a fact that nobody will be celebrating a death of a hockey GM.
Find the imaginary posts that allude to Sather's death. They don't exist as far as I've ever seen, so call those posters out.
Killem Dafoe
Hold my baby, man.
Sather seemed set on snagging St Louis. But all alliteration aside, Sather, IMO, may have said a 1st was off the table, but Yzerman most likely wanted one of Miller/Fast/Kristo/McIlrath and Sather needed to find another way to grab him and just agreed to the picks. That's my guess. I'd rather that then lose one of our young guys.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
That's your opinion.
I'm of the opinion that not using all available data is not only ridiculous but intellectually dishonest.
How would the leafs sweeping us in the first round in 1967 NOT be relevant? Because its a different team? Different players? Because the Beatles were still a band?
I see no logic in your argument.
JimmyG89
Registered User
- May 1, 2010
- 10,136
- 9,012
How does that weighted list add up to top picks? Are we looking top 5? Top 10? Lottery picks (Top 14)? Which should we base success off of? To me there still is no science. Obviously, the teams that have won the most cups recently, have had #1 picks or top 3-5 picks to help build their team with Chicago and Pittsburgh. What about the other finals teams? What about the final 4 teams?
If we are looking this from the point of the St. Louis trade, as this is what has sparked this thread, the picks they would be giving up, with the addition of St. Louis would be falling into the range of either 15-26 in the 2nd round this year or 27-30 in the 1st. We are looking at players who have similar development paths as Kreider, Miller, Skjei, Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Del Zotto. All are a little different. Some debuted at 20, some later. Kreider took to 23 to crack the NHL full time. They are drafted at 18. Most likely will not be big impact (top 6 or top 4) until 21-22 at least. Three to four seasons away.
Our lower picks, 3rd and later & undrafted, around a year or so later after being draft eligible. Look at Callahan, Hagelin, Girardi, and a guy coming like a Fast.
What needs to happen to compensate is to find a guy who is in the draft who is outside the first round, but becomes someone who when it is said and done is a player who is top 30 in his draft class. Obviously finding the best in a draft is great, but getting someone who is a top 30 player in his draft compensates for a first round pick. Trading a 1st and 2nd make it harder, but the scouts are paid for a reason. To find these players.
If we are looking this from the point of the St. Louis trade, as this is what has sparked this thread, the picks they would be giving up, with the addition of St. Louis would be falling into the range of either 15-26 in the 2nd round this year or 27-30 in the 1st. We are looking at players who have similar development paths as Kreider, Miller, Skjei, Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Del Zotto. All are a little different. Some debuted at 20, some later. Kreider took to 23 to crack the NHL full time. They are drafted at 18. Most likely will not be big impact (top 6 or top 4) until 21-22 at least. Three to four seasons away.
Our lower picks, 3rd and later & undrafted, around a year or so later after being draft eligible. Look at Callahan, Hagelin, Girardi, and a guy coming like a Fast.
What needs to happen to compensate is to find a guy who is in the draft who is outside the first round, but becomes someone who when it is said and done is a player who is top 30 in his draft class. Obviously finding the best in a draft is great, but getting someone who is a top 30 player in his draft compensates for a first round pick. Trading a 1st and 2nd make it harder, but the scouts are paid for a reason. To find these players.
Yea I'm sure a few people do feel the same have you not read the rage and vile things said about players and people on this board?But that's besides the point it's people's right to feel however they want to and they can express those gross opinions and you and I can criticize such opinions (which is what I was doing but for some reason you failed to realize this). Anyway what I was referring to on this board isn't nearly as bad as what you think. I was referring to the fact that people have opined quite openly that we would have to wait for retirement OR death before the team can move on. Why would anyone need to be called out for that? It's true he has a lifetime job it's been said by Dolan and people have commented on it without crossing the lines of good taste.
Remember how people looked at Cally's trade and said "Cya!". This is the internet and the posters here have net anonymity which does some really messed up things to the way people express themselves. Some people may be quite flippant about Sather is he died tomorrow. It would not surprise me in the least to see a few jackasses post that way. They might not even really give much of a damn but they'd post that way. Trolling and saying nasty ass stuff is a big part of the net. Hopefully the people on HFNYR would be above it and would never trivialize a persons death under ANY circumstances. But it wouldn't surprise me. Anyway I think part of the problem here is you didn't get my meaning in a couple of ways so hopefully now it's more clear
W ell that was quick FOUND ONE!
Here are some more:
"I have been extremely pessimistic since last year's trade deadline, and with Sather being unwilling to blow it up, combines with his lifetime contract and Dolan's apathy there light at the end of the tunnel is dim at best."
"Yes but I can understand people not accepting the reality that not only is it Sather, but that he has the job for life."
Actually one is pretty morbid but while nothing is celebrating sather dying the references to an authority figure dying before a team can improve reminds me of when I heard that bit about Wirtz.
I demand an apology SIIIRRR! (not really be mad at me if you want to be)
Last edited:
stan the caddy
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2011
- 2,360
- 281
What happened in 1967 has nothing to do with Glen Sather, MSL, and the current season.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
They really aren't relevant at all. In fact anything pre-second lockout is hardly relevant. It's a different league, different rules, different players, different speed, different game altogether and it's not fair at all to compare apples to oranges.
How is anything that happened 10-74 years ago meaningful to what's happening right now? I mean if you want to get philosophical and make an argument about determinism, perhaps in some stretch of the imagination, you might have a point. Realistically though, short of the decisions that current management is making, and has made, the distant past has little to do with now or the future. The game will keep changing and so will the way it is approached both on and off the ice.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Au contraire, how is the Leafs sweeping the Rangers in the first round in 1967 meaningful to now?
Likewise.
StepansLabyrinth
Rational Police
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,845
- 1
I don't really like bringing up pre-cap names because the rules were different then. It's like discussing basketball strategy before the three point line was introduced compared to after. I think everyone agrees that the mid-to-early 2000s strategy of player acquisition was flawed but I don't see how then relates to now when the team strategy is obviously different. A lot of our roster is homegrown and our team is in the bottom third in average team age. We have young, talented players like McDonagh, Stepan, Hagelin, Kreider and true stars like Nash, St. Louis, and Lundqvist (McDonagh is both).
Richards was a bad deal but, honestly, one that didn't hurt us too much if at all if we buy him out. We'll have paid 3 years of a 60 point center at 6.7 per season (cap hit wise). Looking at the other free agents from that year, I don't see too many other options that would have performed better that reached free agency. Richards brought us to an ECF and has always been a top 6 player for the Rangers. 6.7 per for 60 points is an overpayment but there are dozens of worse deals across the league.
Nash has scored close to a 40 goal goal per season pace thus far on a team that relied too heavily on him. With St. Louis on another line keeping teams honest, Nash should have easier minutes against worse defenses. I don't know if that will lead to better production but he's been fine for us.
This team is damn good right now. Our defense is great, our goalie is the best in the world, and our offense has firepower everywhere. Maybe we're a little weak at center but we're absolutely loaded at wing (maybe 2nd best in the league behind Chicago, top 5 at worst). The goal should be fielding a team that can take a shot every season and we've done that this year. In five years, things may be different but I see no reason to make any definitive judgment at this point.
StepansLabyrinth
Rational Police
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,845
- 1
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
BBKers
Registered User
I liked the acquisition of one of the top forwards in the league
I liked that we did not resign Callahan to the insane demands he had
I dislike the overpayment cost of draftpicks used in acquiring St Louis
I dislike that St Louis is 38 years of age
The rest is up to Father Time to tell
If we live - we shall see
I liked that we did not resign Callahan to the insane demands he had
I dislike the overpayment cost of draftpicks used in acquiring St Louis
I dislike that St Louis is 38 years of age
The rest is up to Father Time to tell
If we live - we shall see
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
jerseyjinx94
I jinx players.
- Status
