Sam Rosen was right (Historical impact of Rangers' roster moves)

[McRanger]

Wait, you are joking right?

I don't find stats manipulation or intellectual dishonesty a laughing matter.

I've yet to see ONE reason why the 1967 Rangers failure isn't relevant to today's team. Just because that team is a LITTLE different than the one we have have now? Because SOME of the players might be dead? Because they still wore sansabelt slacks back then?

Well I'm not 100% convinced all those guys are really even dead.

I don't see why someone can't look at the '67 Rangers... and immediately know that we will lose to Detroit tomorrow.

It's all about sample size. The bigger the better. Context be damned.

 

[JerseyRangers*]

And this one will last a lifetime. It sure will. Because it is moves like yesterday's that remind me over and over again about why it is that the Rangers are among the least successful franchises in NHL history. Heck, maybe all of sports.

We are now over a third of the way to another 54 years without a Cup. We have had what, one Cup victory, several Cup finals appearances and a handful of conference finals in effectively 75 years? Since '94, who is worse than the Rangers? The Oilers? Islanders? Panthers? What sterling, pristine company that is.

Wow, you're certainly not one for hyperbole, TB. Personally any team that hasn't won the cup since 1994 is run just as bad or worse then the Rangers. Look at the Capitals they've been blessed with one of the best forwards in the NHL and still can't win. How about the Blues? How many years of ineptitude have they had in the last 20. Finally getting decent and still haven't won a cup and you want to tell me they are a model franchise? Everyone on these boards was kissing JD's arse. After 10 years he left winning how many cups? That's right, zero. BIG FAT NOTHING. I'm impressed - NOT!

To me its about one thing. Winning the cup. Any team that hasn't won the cup in the last 20 ranks right up there with the Rangers.

As to this trade. I'm so so with it. Certain logic to it if you accept that Henrik has another 3 or 4 years left in him. Almost nobody you will draft in the 2nd half of this years draft is going to make a huge impact for 3 or 4 years. Why not take a shot this year and next and see what happens. If not then Sather turns over the keys to someone else and they start all over. Just my 2 cents.

 

[McRanger]

LOL. Why are you bothering?

We are 30-19-4 in our last 53 games.

But we are only 578-519-67-96 in our last 1260 games. That's a big difference in winning percentage.

You what that amounts to? .500 hockey. Mediocrity.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

But we are only 578-519-67-96 in our last 1260 games. That's a big difference in winning percentage.

You what that amounts to? .500 hockey. Mediocrity.

Not a stats guy, but is it not reasonable to assume that all teams' records will approach .500 the longer they play?

 

[bmw2004]

New York is a very commercial franchise. It is much harder for most players to play and produce here because of the distractions that Big Apple can offer.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

But we are only 578-519-67-96 in our last 1260 games. That's a big difference in winning percentage.

You what that amounts to? .500 hockey. Mediocrity.

It's very difficult to determine whether or not you are serious.

And that's not .500 - it's .545, out of the wins and losses. That's MUCH better than "mediocrity."

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

79 years of history has no relevance to this hockey team, but the last 8 or so do?

"1967 is irroneous, because it doesn't suit my agenda, but 2005 does" How?

The only players still on this club from 2008-09 are Girardi, Staal, and Lundqvist. If the players in 1967 have nothing to do with this team's ability to win in 2014, then neither do the players from 2008-09. Move up a year to 2009-10 and the only other guy is Boyle. In the last 4 years the roster went through a complete overhaul.

This management group, for the most part, is the same one that brought in Gomez, Drury, Redden. The same one that brought in Lindros, Holik, and Bure before that. And soon enough, Nash, Richards, and St. louis will be lumped in with them. Its the same nonsense.

"Forget our flaws and glaring holes and weaknesses, we are contenders!" And I've got a bride to sell you.

You think you are schooling people by trying to convince others that this is some model franchise of success, but you aren't. Hockey isn't played on your calculator. 1998 through 2004 was a myth to you, we know, because you were too young to know.

Meanwhile, the people who have been through this song and dance for decades can teach you about the reality of this situation.

Reality: They have no real #1 center. No real offensive defenseman. No size.No grit. Poor board play. Not a strong enough forecheck. They get pushed around by heavier teams. They don't have the same accountability under Vigneault. There is little urgency and intensity. A few guys won't cut it. The entire team needs to pull its weight. Thats the reality.

 

[Bluenote13]

Others, meaning of course our more intelligent and reasonable posters, would have been ok with trading Gartner for Anderson and Amonte for Matteau and Noonan?

Considering the Rangers history of failure, you don't think posters would have taken issue with moving young talent like Amonte for depth or grit? Potentially lessening the teams future success for a short term boost?

I'm not sure I agree. I'm pretty sure the board would go bananas.

I was all on board with those deals, & I was all of 20 years old. Stung like a bee that Amonte and Gartner were traded but I felt like we got the RIGHT players for a playoff push. Also thought a very young Kovalev, Graves, Noonan and Matteau would make up for the loss of goals now and in the future.

Say what you will about Smith, I always saw some vision on his part to help the club on more than one level.

79 years of history has no relevance to this hockey team, but the last 8 or so do?

"1967 is irroneous, because it doesn't suit my agenda, but 2005 does" How?

The only players still on this club from 2008-09 are Girardi, Staal, and Lundqvist. If the players in 1967 have nothing to do with this team's ability to win in 2014, then neither do the players from 2008-09. Move up a year to 2009-10 and the only other guy is Boyle. In the last 4 years the roster went through a complete overhaul.

This management group, for the most part, is the same one that brought in Gomez, Drury, Redden. The same one that brought in Lindros, Holik, and Bure before that. And soon enough, Nash, Richards, and St. louis will be lumped in with them. Its the same nonsense.

"Forget our flaws and glaring holes and weaknesses, we are contenders!" And I've got a bride to sell you.

You think you are schooling people by trying to convince others that this is some model franchise of success, but you aren't. Hockey isn't played on your calculator. 1998 through 2004 was a myth to you, we know, because you were too young to know.

Meanwhile, the people who have been through this song and dance for decades can teach you about the reality of this situation.

Reality: They have no real #1 center. No real offensive defenseman. No size.No grit. Poor board play. Not a strong enough forecheck. They get pushed around by heavier teams. They don't have the same accountability under Vigneault. There is little urgency and intensity. A few guys won't cut it. The entire team needs to pull its weight. Thats the reality.

Here here !

I'll add this too - Vigneault will exodus more players in the offseason, just like Renney and Torts did after their first seasons. After all, they need 'their' players, right ?

 

[haohmaru]

We need a little perspective here. It's a 30 team league now.

The storied Oilers haven't won a cup since the 80's
The Islanders haven't won a playoff series since before we won a cup
The Flyers haven't won a cup since the 70's.
Calgary? 80's
St. Louis? Never
Phoenix? Winnipeg? Buffalo? Minnesota? San Jose? Florida? Columbus? Vancouver? Nashville? Capitals?

Some of these teams haven't even smelled a conference finals. 3.33% success rate among all NHL franchises if a cup is your measure of success. Highly unlikely to be successful.

 

[LittleKev6D9]

I don't find stats manipulation or intellectual dishonesty a laughing matter.

I've yet to see ONE reason why the 1967 Rangers failure isn't relevant to today's team. Just because that team is a LITTLE different than the one we have have now? Because SOME of the players might be dead? Because they still wore sansabelt slacks back then?

Well I'm not 100% convinced all those guys are really even dead.

I don't see why someone can't look at the '67 Rangers... and immediately know that we will lose to Detroit tomorrow.

It's all about sample size. The bigger the better. Context be damned.

This was easily my favorite post I've ever read on this site.

 

[Captain Monglobster]

I know one thing - I'm tired of having a different team every 3 seasons. Tired of it.

The Rangers had an identity for the first time SINCE the mid-90's, were legitimately a few pieces away from being a contender, and..........now the team is going in a completely different direction.

I just want to see a team built coherently with a philosophy that reflects the game on the ice and not the bottom line in the Gardens coffers.

 

[Bluenote13]

We need a little perspective here. It's a 30 team league now.

The storied Oilers haven't won a cup since the 80's
The Islanders haven't won a playoff series since before we won a cup
The Flyers haven't won a cup since the 70's.
Calgary? 80's
St. Louis? Never
Phoenix? Winnipeg? Buffalo? Minnesota? San Jose? Florida? Columbus? Vancouver? Nashville? Capitals?

Some of these teams haven't even smelled a conference finals. 3.33% success rate among all NHL franchises if a cup is your measure of success. Highly unlikely to be successful.

"If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd never lose a game" - Glen Sather

Hey, he said it not me, I hold'em to it

Cups? I still want answers as to why so many key pieces are missing after 14 years on the job. In modern era hockey how many organizations have gone 14 years w/o developing a first line Center, top line puckmover on D, or a legitimate enforcer ?

 

[McRanger]

79 years of history has no relevance to this hockey team, but the last 8 or so do?

"1967 is irroneous, because it doesn't suit my agenda, but 2005 does" How?

The only players still on this club from 2008-09 are Girardi, Staal, and Lundqvist. If the players in 1967 have nothing to do with this team's ability to win in 2014, then neither do the players from 2008-09. Move up a year to 2009-10 and the only other guy is Boyle. In the last 4 years the roster went through a complete overhaul.

This management group, for the most part, is the same one that brought in Gomez, Drury, Redden. The same one that brought in Lindros, Holik, and Bure before that. And soon enough, Nash, Richards, and St. louis will be lumped in with them. Its the same nonsense.

"Forget our flaws and glaring holes and weaknesses, we are contenders!" And I've got a bride to sell you.

You think you are schooling people by trying to convince others that this is some model franchise of success, but you aren't. Hockey isn't played on your calculator. 1998 through 2004 was a myth to you, we know, because you were too young to know.

Meanwhile, the people who have been through this song and dance for decades can teach you about the reality of this situation.

Reality: They have no real #1 center. No real offensive defenseman. No size.No grit. Poor board play. Not a strong enough forecheck. They get pushed around by heavier teams. They don't have the same accountability under Vigneault. There is little urgency and intensity. A few guys won't cut it. The entire team needs to pull its weight. Thats the reality.

This post could have been cut and pasted from an October 2011 thread with "size" and "grit" replacing "skill" and "talent".

Anyway, are you saying we should only rely on recent performance to judge the team? Like the last two seasons? That would make us one of the more successful teams...

I reject your obvious pro-Sather agenda.

 

[McRanger]

I was all on board with those deals, & I was all of 20 years old. Stung like a bee that Amonte and Gartner were traded but I felt like we got the RIGHT players for a playoff push. Also thought a very young Kovalev, Graves, Noonan and Matteau would make up for the loss of goals now and in the future.

Say what you will about Smith, I always saw some vision on his part to help the club on more than one level.

I doubt Smith had any part of the Amonte deal. That was Keenan collecting his Blackhawks buddies.

There were a lot of people I knew who loved the deals. Most of them were 1970s TUFFNESS! guys, though they also didn't care much for Leetch and despised Zubov.

I thought both deals were idiotic. Especially the Gartner one. He was outstanding in '92. And I loved Amonte.

I was glad to be wrong.

 

[Bluenote13]

I doubt Smith had any part of the Amonte deal. That was Keenan collecting his Blackhawks buddies.

There were a lot of people I knew who loved the deals. Most of them were 1970s TUFFNESS! guys, though they also didn't care much for Leetch and despised Zubov.

I thought both deals were idiotic. Especially the Gartner one. He was outstanding in '92. And I loved Amonte.

I was glad to be wrong.

You doubt Smith had ANY part of that deal ? Of course he knew those players before Keenan, he saw them playing while he was a scout. He knew exactly the return he was getting. He just had to be pushed into doing it.

And I could see how some meat heads could hate on Leetch and Zubie, oozing skill and confidence, horrible characteristics

Everyone loved Amonte, guy was money. I would have loved to have kept Weight too, always felt like Smith could have gotten away with trading a first round pick instead of Weight, those were the days to do it.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

In modern era hockey how many organizations have gone 14 years w/o developing a first line Center, top line puckmover on D, or a legitimate enforcer ?

One of those things is not like another. "Legitimate enforcer" does not matter for winning cups.

It's also silly to just point out this team's weaknesses because it sort of insinuates that the team has no strengths. McDonagh is a top 10 D-Man in the League, Lundqvist is the best goalie, and Nash/St. Louis are top 15 wingers. Then we have a supporting cast of great but not elite players like Girardi, Staal, Stepan, Richards, MZA, Hagelin, Klein, etc. To me, that's better than the team we should have made the cup with back in 2012. We have a chance this year and it's better than most teams.

I don't even really consider Stepan-Richards-Brassard up the middle that poor. That's good for, what, 150 points? Definitely not great but average at worst. Would a superstar center make our team that much better? Yes. But the discussion should always be how we can turn what we have into a cup winning team. Crying about spilled milk and decisions made 15 years ago helps nothing. What can we do to help the team today and in the future. I think the MSL deal helped us way more in the present then it will hurt us in the future.

 

[Zamboner]

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.

Personally, if it came down to McIlrath or our pick, I'd send McIlrath packing without hesitation. But otherwise, I agree with you, and Sather's decision, if that was the case.

 

[McRanger]

You doubt Smith had ANY part of that deal ? Of course he knew those players before Keenan, he saw them playing while he was a scout. He knew exactly the return he was getting. He just had to be pushed into doing it.

And I could see how some meat heads could hate on Leetch and Zubie, oozing skill and confidence, horrible characteristics

Everyone loved Amonte, guy was money. I would have loved to have kept Weight too, always felt like Smith could have gotten away with trading a first round pick instead of Weight, those were the days to do it.

Well I think Keenan said "get me Matteau and Noonan" and I think he said "get rid of Amonte". Whether he said those two sentences together will forever be a mystery. Keenan pushed for all kinds of crazy stuff. Remember the Leetch and Richter for Chelios and Belfour trade? What a nutter.

Speaking of meatheads, I was having a drink with an older cousin before a game recently (he grew up on 70s hockey) and he says to me "I saw a guy at work the other day wearing #21 on his Rangers jersey and I go up to thinking its Stepan and you'll never guess who it is! <pause for effect> Zubov! Can you believe that crap!? Zubov!"

Yeah the guy who led the team in points the year they won the cup is crap.

Some people BN. Some people.

 

[Bluenote13]

One of those things is not like another. "Legitimate enforcer" does not matter for winning cups.

It's also silly to just point out this team's weaknesses because it sort of insinuates that the team has no strengths. McDonagh is a top 10 D-Man in the League, Lundqvist is the best goalie, and Nash/St. Louis are top 15 wingers. Then we have a supporting cast of great but not elite players like Girardi, Staal, Stepan, Richards, MZA, Hagelin, Klein, etc. To me, that's better than the team we should have made the cup with back in 2012. We have a chance this year and it's better than most teams.

I don't even really consider Stepan-Richards-Brassard up the middle that poor. That's good for, what, 150 points? Definitely not great but average at worst. Would a superstar center make our team that much better? Yes. But the discussion should always be how we can turn what we have into a cup winning team. Crying about spilled milk and decisions made 15 years ago helps nothing. What can we do to help the team today and in the future. I think the MSL deal helped us way more in the present then it will hurt us in the future.

I hear ya, I just believe in building a traditional skill and size up the middle and defenders who can do damage at both ends of the rink. And maybe my wording should be adjusted, cause I feel a legit enforcer is a player who adds above average muscle and who can play more than a handful of shifts. Someone who opens up ice for the fast and flashy, or keeps the crease clean.

Well I think Keenan said "get me Matteau and Noonan" and I think he said "get rid of Amonte". Whether he said those two sentences together will forever be a mystery. Keenan pushed for all kinds of crazy stuff. Remember the Leetch and Richter for Chelios and Belfour trade? What a nutter.

Speaking of meatheads, I was having a drink with an older cousin before a game recently (he grew up on 70s hockey) and he says to me "I saw a guy at work the other day wearing #21 on his Rangers jersey and I go up to thinking its Stepan and you'll never guess who it is! <pause for effect> Zubov! Can you believe that crap!? Zubov!"

Yeah the guy who led the team in points the year they won the cup is crap.

Some people BN. Some people.

I was lucky enough to watch Zubov in the AHL a dozen times in '93, just a few rows from glass most nights, was amazing watching him not only shoot the puck, but his first pass and overall skill was some of the best I've ever seen at that level. Then in the pros it didn't stop. He had a better slapper from the point than Leetch, hard and accurate. 77 assists in 94 !

Til this day he goes under the radar when people talk about that amazing season. He was 23 years old.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

If the Rangers make the playoffs this season then most of the team comes back. If they don't and AV doesn't integrate some of the guys in Hartford or other young guys, we have a real problem.

Teams like Anaheim and Chicago not only get good players, but they add picks and restock.

If this St. Louis thing doesn't work out and the youngsters in Hartford (Miller, Fast, Lindberg, Allen, and maybe McLIrath) don't get a fair shot with the big club or are traded then this franchise has to completely set the reset button.

What they need to do is be honest with fans. Yes NY fans are tough and impatient, but have a five year plan, have a system and style and stick with it, and communicate to the season ticket holders what is going on. They'll appreciate that honesty.

I'm not sold on AVs system yet. This is the East where it's historically more physical. Also, the Garden ice is awful so you need to have a team that gets down and dirty. That's why the 10-11 and especially the 11-12 teams worked so well. Those were the closest to what the Rangers as a team should be in my opinion albeit with a tad more offense. The 11-12 team wasn't a dynasty though, it was a one hit wonder because look at the forward core. Gaborik, Rupp, Prust, Feds, Mitchell, Richards and you can also argue Cally are all not as productive and more beat up from that year.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

I know one thing - I'm tired of having a different team every 3 seasons. Tired of it.

The Rangers had an identity for the first time SINCE the mid-90's, were legitimately a few pieces away from being a contender, and..........now the team is going in a completely different direction.

I just want to see a team built coherently with a philosophy that reflects the game on the ice and not the bottom line in the Gardens coffers.

Agree 100%.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

If the Rangers make the playoffs this season then most of the team comes back. If they don't and AV doesn't integrate some of the guys in Hartford or other young guys, we have a real problem.

Teams like Anaheim and Chicago not only get good players, but they add picks and restock.

If this St. Louis thing doesn't work out and the youngsters in Hartford (Miller, Fast, Lindberg, Allen, and maybe McLIrath) don't get a fair shot with the big club or are traded then this franchise has to completely set the reset button.

What they need to do is be honest with fans. Yes NY fans are tough and impatient, but have a five year plan, have a system and style and stick with it, and communicate to the season ticket holders what is going on. They'll appreciate that honesty.

I'm not sold on AVs system yet. This is the East where it's historically more physical. Also, the Garden ice is awful so you need to have a team that gets down and dirty. That's why the 10-11 and especially the 11-12 teams worked so well. Those were the closest to what the Rangers as a team should be in my opinion albeit with a tad more offense. The 11-12 team wasn't a dynasty though, it was a one hit wonder because look at the forward core. Gaborik, Rupp, Prust, Feds, Mitchell, Richards and you can also argue Cally are all not as productive and more beat up from that year.

I disagree that NYC sports fans are impatient. I believe if they see their team doing thing right, they will be patient.

Sather needs to go. Dolan is dispicable. We need a fresh, intelligent hockey mind with a clear objective and plan.

No Gretzky. No Messier. No Burke.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

I hear ya, I just believe in building a traditional skill and size up the middle and defenders who can do damage at both ends of the rink. And maybe my wording should be adjusted, cause I feel a legit enforcer is a player who adds above average muscle and who can play more than a handful of shifts. Someone who opens up ice for the fast and flashy, or keeps the crease clean.




I was lucky enough to watch Zubov in the AHL a dozen times in '93, just a few rows from glass most nights, was amazing watching him not only shoot the puck, but his first pass and overall skill was some of the best I've ever seen at that level. Then in the pros it didn't stop. He had a better slapper from the point than Leetch, hard and accurate. 77 assists in 94 !

Til this day he goes under the radar when people talk about that amazing season. He was 23 years old.

Yeah, but Messier didn't like him, so out he went!

Inmates running the facility. Just another knotch in the belt of Rangers ridiculousness through the years.

 

[bathgate]

T.B. Good to see you have not lost your satirical wit.It is tough to root for this franchise given it's mismanagement
Our future does not look very bright. Can of reminds me of the Brooklyn Dodgers, wait till next year.Oops, no 1st round choice again

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

79 years of history has no relevance to this hockey team, but the last 8 or so do?

"1967 is irroneous, because it doesn't suit my agenda, but 2005 does" How?

The only players still on this club from 2008-09 are Girardi, Staal, and Lundqvist. If the players in 1967 have nothing to do with this team's ability to win in 2014, then neither do the players from 2008-09. Move up a year to 2009-10 and the only other guy is Boyle. In the last 4 years the roster went through a complete overhaul.

This management group, for the most part, is the same one that brought in Gomez, Drury, Redden. The same one that brought in Lindros, Holik, and Bure before that. And soon enough, Nash, Richards, and St. louis will be lumped in with them. Its the same nonsense.

"Forget our flaws and glaring holes and weaknesses, we are contenders!" And I've got a bride to sell you.

You think you are schooling people by trying to convince others that this is some model franchise of success, but you aren't. Hockey isn't played on your calculator. 1998 through 2004 was a myth to you, we know, because you were too young to know.

Meanwhile, the people who have been through this song and dance for decades can teach you about the reality of this situation.

Reality: They have no real #1 center. No real offensive defenseman. No size.No grit. Poor board play. Not a strong enough forecheck. They get pushed around by heavier teams. They don't have the same accountability under Vigneault. There is little urgency and intensity. A few guys won't cut it. The entire team needs to pull its weight. Thats the reality.

The 2008 draft at the very least and certain veterans had/have a tangible impact on this team. So there is that but I get what you're saying I'm just being literal

Actally on second though that was our sangs/ sauer draft wasn't it? That might have been a real bad draft for this current team lol

(Edit wrooooong 8 was del zotto lol oops. And when the hell did we take D men in round 1 and 2 in the same draft wow i was full (Mod Edit) mode there)