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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think the plan is to acquire elite offensive talent, no matter how it becomes available.

Yea, probably.

Regardless of position and age, apparently.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

To me it's not even about some hypothetical "future".

It is about a "right now" that has some coherent vision. Instead of what feels like a serious of panic moves and wild swinging of the pendulum.

From roughly 2004 to 2012 the entire organization inched towards the ideal of building a homegrown, hardworking, gritty team. Obviously that did not show through at the NHL level until 2008ish. But it made sense. Not EVERY move went that way obviously. And you can argue that it 1. was not the best blueprint for a team or 2. the Rangers should have identified and sold assets soon to deviate from it. But it was the closet thing to logical building I have seen as a 26 year old fan.

Tough ECF exit. Nash trade. Disaster lockout season. Tweaks had to be made, sure. But they literally have 100% dismantled everything they were "so sure about" in less than two years. They swung the pendulum in the COMPLETE opposite direction. Torts to AV could not be a starker contrast. It's not the change I have a problem with per se...it is the idea that the best course of action is to try to turn over an entire system of play + coaching style + 23 man roster + AHL team + prospect pool. How the **** is that efficient? How the **** can you be "so sure" that now THIS is the path?

Again, why always deal in extremes? Glen's post trade press conference hammered this home. Just completed a HUGE trade of the team's Captain. And he admits that he was either going to acquire a 39 y/o RW or futures from SJ. Excuse me? Sounds like there is a real road map in place. If there is, it's "I'm looking for the best players not the right ones." It's the same script on loop.

 

[OverTheCap]

We don't know Sather said he had another deal instead of MSL.

And why Nash, they already had Gaborik on the RW scoring 40 a season? Why MSL when they already have Nash and Zucc on the RW?

The only plan looks like it was they wanted to come here so let's just get them.

Which is sort of like Sather saying he did not expect to sign both Drury and Gomez back when that happened, it was not a plan, it was just something that was possible so it was done.

I just do not see any creativity in these moves, just them making a choice based on what comes up. Not even following a loose outline of taking a team roster from point A to B.

Yup, I mentioned earlier in the thread about how Torts and Messier stated multiple times that the main priority in the 2012 offseason was to acquire more depth on offense and on the back end. Then Rangers trade for Nash, and we ended up losing even more depth in that trade, which in turn led to trading Gaborik for more depth in 2013. There's not much long-term thinking, nor is there much concern for the consequences that these trades may have.

And, as you pointed out above, when Slats makes these trades, he fails to account for positional weaknesses. RW is our strongest forward position, and while a player like MSL or Nash may improve our scoring to some extent, the positional deficiencies at center and left wing remain.

 

[haveandare]

This is the question I keep asking myself. There were 7 assets in those trades. 7.

I dont mind shelling out assets for upgrades, but why were both upgrades for guys that wanted out and demanded NY as their destination. Theres other fish in the sea. It reeks of laziness.

Because players can be had for less than their "true" price when they are demanding trades, have NTCs, and want to come to your team. MSL, who is currently one of the most productive players in the NHL despite his age, got traded for a rental and two good picks. Not a steal by any means, but not a lot to ask fro a guy of his caliber. Nash got a king's ransom, which I can't help but wonder if it was all necessary now in hindsight. Sure, he had a ton of time left on the contract, but the guy didn't want to be in CBJ at all and it was clear as day. Gotta wonder if that price wouldn't have fallen with some time.

I don't think either move was bad really. In hindsight, I would have done awful things to keep Dubi from the Nash trade, but I'm not sure that would have ever been possible. If we somehow could have known this MSL thing was going to happen, I probably never would have traded for Nash in the first place, or at least never offered so much. But that's me looking at this with the benefit of the passage of time and the coming of some unforeseen circumstances.

Being in NY gives this franchise some advantages. One, probably the biggest one, is that players want to live in this city and play on this team. I think you need to take advantage of that when everything aligns and you get a shot at a good player that you wouldn't ever have a shot at otherwise. Not every time, and only if you can get a deal, but it's just practical to take advantage of circumstance like that.

 

[True Blue]

They really aren't relevant at all. In fact anything pre-second lockout is hardly relevant.

What are you talking about? How successful a franchise is does not arbitrarily lop of years that actually existed.

There are many reasons why these boards are not what they used to be. I have had my arguments with many a poster in due time, but most of the time they stay on topic. SOS and I used battle about virtually every point, but at least we stayed on topic during the discussion. This thread is NOT about Callahan-St. Louis trade. That trade is endemic of the franchise.

And frankly trying to slice and dice date is ludicrous. To judge the success of a franchise, you look at all data. Can I ask how old you are? Because I can almost guarantee that any of us that have watched this team for a long time, and let's use the 70's as a starting point, CANNOT point to this franchise as anything but an utter failure.

What does it tell you that in 70 years, we have the same amount of Cup appearances as Buffalo? As Carolina? As many Cups as Tampa. And these teams have not been around for as long.

Are you kidding me? How can any of us call this franchise even moderately succesful? And comments that Sather should be praised for bringing us out of the darkness are equally as ludicrous. REALLY? What has his track record been like as the caretaker? And don't friggin' just lop off years that make your argument better? Here's the thing. HE HAS BEEN A DISASTER!!! And under him, there was a brief moment where we were proud of the on ice team. But mostly, he has contributed to the overall malaise that infects this franchise.

 

[McRanger]

And why Nash, they already had Gaborik on the RW scoring 40 a season?

Because they didn't view Gaborik, with his injuries and contract, to be a long term solution? Or they suspected Gaborik might not be a top line winger after his shoulder surgery? With the way he looks now, he will be lucky to score 40 more career goals.

Why MSL when they already have Nash and Zucc on the RW?

Zucc and Hagelin both play either wing. Not that it matters when you are rolling 3 offensive lines.

The only plan looks like it was they wanted to come here so let's just get them.

Not advocating either move, but they also are also pretty talented players.

 

[True Blue]

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

The worst part is that we have already been through this cycle. We know how this plays out.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Because players can be had for less than their "true" price when they are demanding trades, have NTCs, and want to come to your team. MSL, who is currently one of the most productive players in the NHL despite his age, got traded for a rental and two good picks. Not a steal by any means, but not a lot to ask fro a guy of his caliber. Nash got a king's ransom, which I can't help but wonder if it was all necessary now in hindsight. Sure, he had a ton of time left on the contract, but the guy didn't want to be in CBJ at all and it was clear as day. Gotta wonder if that price wouldn't have fallen with some time.

I don't think either move was bad really. In hindsight, I would have done awful things to keep Dubi from the Nash trade, but I'm not sure that would have ever been possible. If we somehow could have known this MSL thing was going to happen, I probably never would have traded for Nash in the first place, or at least never offered so much. But that's me looking at this with the benefit of the passage of time and the coming of some unforeseen circumstances.

Being in NY gives this franchise some advantages. One, probably the biggest one, is that players want to live in this city and play on this team. I think you need to take advantage of that when everything aligns and you get a shot at a good player that you wouldn't ever have a shot at otherwise. Not every time, and only if you can get a deal, but it's just practical to take advantage of circumstance like that.

Agree to disagree. I don't think we received too much of a discount considering the players' demands.

But I appreciate you trying to present it as some sort of keen strategy, instead of having the Nash and St. Louis situations fall into the Rangers' lap. I would've loved to see Sather's plan if these 2 talented players were not disgruntled and did not list NY as their desired destination.

 

[True Blue]

To me it's not even about some hypothetical "future".

It is about a "right now" that has some coherent vision. Instead of what feels like a serious of panic moves and wild swinging of the pendulum.

From roughly 2004 to 2012 the entire organization inched towards the ideal of building a homegrown, hardworking, gritty team. Obviously that did not show through at the NHL level until 2008ish. But it made sense. Not EVERY move went that way obviously. And you can argue that it 1. was not the best blueprint for a team or 2. the Rangers should have identified and sold assets soon to deviate from it. But it was the closet thing to logical building I have seen as a 26 year old fan.

Tough ECF exit. Nash trade. Disaster lockout season. Tweaks had to be made, sure. But they literally have 100% dismantled everything they were "so sure about" in less than two years. They swung the pendulum in the COMPLETE opposite direction. Torts to AV could not be a starker contrast. It's not the change I have a problem with per se...it is the idea that the best course of action is to try to turn over an entire system of play + coaching style + 23 man roster + AHL team + prospect pool. How the **** is that efficient? How the **** can you be "so sure" that now THIS is the path?

Again, why always deal in extremes? Glen's post trade press conference hammered this home. Just completed a HUGE trade of the team's Captain. And he admits that he was either going to acquire a 39 y/o RW or futures from SJ. Excuse me? Sounds like there is a real road map in place. If there is, it's "I'm looking for the best players not the right ones." It's the same script on loop.

Top to bottom, great post. My feelings exactly.

 

[Let Blaine Die]

Why is this surprising? Sather is 70. If he wants to leave a legacy here besides failure and mediocrity, he has to win now. So long as Sather continues to be our GM, we will be looking towards no more than a year from now when making roster decisions.

I'd be interested in learning SJ and the BJs trade offers for Cally.

 

[McRanger]

The worst part is that we have already been through this cycle. We know how this plays out.

How does is play out?

And I am not being facetious, I am genuinely interested in how you think this plays out.

 

[haveandare]

Yup, I mentioned earlier in the thread about how Torts and Messier stated multiple times that the main priority in the 2012 offseason was to acquire more depth on offense and on the back end. Then Rangers trade for Nash, and we ended up losing even more depth in that trade, which in turn led to trading Gaborik for more depth in 2013. There's not much long-term thinking, nor is there much concern for the consequences that these trades may have.

And, as you pointed out above, when Slats makes these trades, he fails to account for positional weaknesses. RW is our strongest forward position, and while a player like MSL or Nash may improve our scoring to some extent, the positional deficiencies at center and left wing remain.

Not that I disagree with all of this, but replacing Gabby with Nash and that depth with other depth certainly was an example of long-term thinking IMO. Gaborik is slowing down hard and he's been hurt a ton recently. Nash is two years younger, with way less injury history and a game that doesn't depend entirely on the first skills that degrade with age. He replaced a star scoring RW with a star scoring RW. Moore is doing what Erixon is doing, and he stepped right into it while Erixon wouldn't here. Brass is certainly not Dubi in terms of physicality, but he's been pushing the PP and the offense from the bottom half of the lineup very well so far this year. Dorsett is turning out to be a dud, no argument there.

With MSL also being an RW, it's last years leading scorer for a rental and a pick. You take him at whatever position he plays and find a way to get the best out of the lineup with him. Callahan and a pick was not going to return a viable center IMO when you look at how the market ended up performing on deadline day.

 

[OverTheCap]

To me it's not even about some hypothetical "future".

It is about a "right now" that has some coherent vision. Instead of what feels like a serious of panic moves and wild swinging of the pendulum.

From roughly 2004 to 2012 the entire organization inched towards the ideal of building a homegrown, hardworking, gritty team. Obviously that did not show through at the NHL level until 2008ish. But it made sense. Not EVERY move went that way obviously. And you can argue that it 1. was not the best blueprint for a team or 2. the Rangers should have identified and sold assets soon to deviate from it. But it was the closet thing to logical building I have seen as a 26 year old fan.

Tough ECF exit. Nash trade. Disaster lockout season. Tweaks had to be made, sure. But they literally have 100% dismantled everything they were "so sure about" in less than two years. They swung the pendulum in the COMPLETE opposite direction. Torts to AV could not be a starker contrast. It's not the change I have a problem with per se...it is the idea that the best course of action is to try to turn over an entire system of play + coaching style + 23 man roster + AHL team + prospect pool. How the **** is that efficient? How the **** can you be "so sure" that now THIS is the path?

Again, why always deal in extremes? Glen's post trade press conference hammered this home. Just completed a HUGE trade of the team's Captain. And he admits that he was either going to acquire a 39 y/o RW or futures from SJ. Excuse me? Sounds like there is a real road map in place. If there is, it's "I'm looking for the best players not the right ones." It's the same script on loop.

Well said. With Sather, it is only black or white, there is no grey area.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Well, we kinda did in 2004. And we definitely should do it again when this core is finished. But right now I think we have to be in "win now". This core as constructed (with whatever flaws and mistakes) has its best years right now and not in five years. Then we should blow it up.

Hard to be in "win now" mode when this team is hardly a lock for the playoffs.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Not that I disagree with all of this, but replacing Gabby with Nash and that depth with other depth certainly was an example of long-term thinking IMO. Gaborik is slowing down hard and he's been hurt a ton recently. Nash is two years younger, with way less injury history and a game that doesn't depend entirely on the first skills that degrade with age. He replaced a star scoring RW with a star scoring RW. Moore is doing what Erixon is doing, and he stepped right into it while Erixon wouldn't here. Brass is certainly not Dubi in terms of physicality, but he's been pushing the PP and the offense from the bottom half of the lineup very well so far this year. Dorsett is turning out to be a dud, no argument there.

With MSL also being an RW, it's last years leading scorer for a rental and a pick. You take him at whatever position he plays and find a way to get the best out of the lineup with him. Callahan and a pick was not going to return a viable center IMO when you look at how the market ended up performing on deadline day.

Anisimov has 18 goals - dont forget about him.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Yea, probably.

Regardless of position and age, apparently.

Seemingly, the biggest requirement is they have to be unhappy in their current situation....

 

[Thirty One]

Seemingly, the biggest requirement is they have to be unhappy in their current situation....

Yes, that's probably it.

They wanted St. Louis and Nash because they were unhappy, not because they're top 15 goalscorers in the league in the past 5 seasons.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Seemingly, the biggest requirement is they have to be unhappy in their current situation....

Yea, they need to come to the Rangers. I think thats part of my gripe.

Obviously Im just assuming here, but I don't get the impression that much proactive engagement to get better is going on. Sather was basically hypnotized by the Nash and St. Louis situations. Maybe Im just demanding too much from a 70 year old.

 

[haveandare]

Agree to disagree. I don't think we received too much of a discount considering the players' demands.

But I appreciate you trying to present it as some sort of keen strategy, instead of having the Nash and St. Louis situations fall into the Rangers' lap. I would've loved to see Sather's plan if these 2 talented players were not disgruntled and did not list NY as their desired destination.

I agree that they didn't receive too much of a discount on Nash. I think they did on MSL, it's just too early to say for sure.

I get that Sather sucks on the whole and has just done terribly when you zoom out and look at all his work here, but I don't think those acquisitions need to be twisted too much to be presented as a keen strategy, even if you want to say they failed. It's the same with UFAs. NY has it's advantages. You need to use them at the right times. You don't, and can't, (as we've seen) use them every single opportunity that comes up, but when your location essentially gifts you the opportunity to get certain players, I think it's wise to take it if that player is what you need. For example, Gaborik. He wanted to come to NY as a UFA - the Rangers saw a guy who filled what they needed at the time and could be had for nothing but money based on NY itself. He had been carrying a mediocre team for a while, he wasn't a product of great teammates or the perfect system. He came here and he worked out great. Of course, guys like Drury and Gomez and Redden didn't, as they didn't deserve UFA contracts like they got, and it was arguably obvious because they played in some very sheltered and deep systems and teams before coming here and being asked to carry the entire load.

I wonder what the team would look like without these happenings as well. Who can say, really? It's interesting to imagine.

 

[RangerBoy]

AV needs to light a fire under Nash's fat ass again. MSL is still a very good player. He is a better player than Nash. Stamkos broke his leg on November 11 and didn't return until last night. Look at that roster. MSL was a big reason why that team was still in a playoff spot and had a better record than the Rangers without Stamkos since 11/11. Bishop is also a big reason for that. He has another year on his contract. The Rangers should look into extending for another 2 years. 3 years all together plus the rest of this season. You know he has something to prove to Yzerman.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Yes, that's probably it.

They wanted St. Louis and Nash because they were unhappy, not because they're top 15 goalscorers in the league in the past 5 seasons.

No, that's the reason they were available.

 

[True Blue]

How does is play out?

And I am not being facetious, I am genuinely interested in how you think this plays out.

Honestly? I echo the feelings of BRF: 1997

 

[Bluenote13]

Anisimov has 18 goals - dont forget about him.

And he was a big body down the middle that could keep up with some good Centers on the defensive side.

 

[OverTheCap]

Not that I disagree with all of this, but replacing Gabby with Nash and that depth with other depth certainly was an example of long-term thinking IMO. Gaborik is slowing down hard and he's been hurt a ton recently. Nash is two years younger, with way less injury history and a game that doesn't depend entirely on the first skills that degrade with age. He replaced a star scoring RW with a star scoring RW. Moore is doing what Erixon is doing, and he stepped right into it while Erixon wouldn't here. Brass is certainly not Dubi in terms of physicality, but he's been pushing the PP and the offense from the bottom half of the lineup very well so far this year. Dorsett is turning out to be a dud, no argument there.

With MSL also being an RW, it's last years leading scorer for a rental and a pick. You take him at whatever position he plays and find a way to get the best out of the lineup with him. Callahan and a pick was not going to return a viable center IMO when you look at how the market ended up performing on deadline day.

But at the time the Nash trade was made, I don't think the intention was to trade Gabby that season. Only once he started to struggle and our lack of depth became exposed did it become an option. Tortorella even said that they were surprised at how hard the lack of depth hurt the team:

Tortorella spoke, as he has done this season, about how the Rangers lost the middle of their lineup with Brandon Dubinsky, Artem Anisimov, Brandon Dubinsky, John Mitchell, Ruslan Fedotenko and Brandon Prust.

Tortorella said that no one in the organization could foresee the Rangers missing those players as much as they do this season and that when they lost those players, they lost the “hardness†that they need to play with.

http://snyrangersblog.com/category/coachesgm/john-tortorella/page/9/

It's astounding that the organization didn't see that coming, when it was obvious to many fans that the loss of depth and character guys could negatively impact the team. Once again, it exemplifies the lack of foresight by Sather and Co.

 

[Ail]

What are you talking about? How successful a franchise is does not arbitrarily lop of years that actually existed.

There are many reasons why these boards are not what they used to be. I have had my arguments with many a poster in due time, but most of the time they stay on topic. SOS and I used battle about virtually every point, but at least we stayed on topic during the discussion. This thread is NOT about Callahan-St. Louis trade. That trade is endemic of the franchise.

And frankly trying to slice and dice date is ludicrous. To judge the success of a franchise, you look at all data. Can I ask how old you are? Because I can almost guarantee that any of us that have watched this team for a long time, and let's use the 70's as a starting point, CANNOT point to this franchise as anything but an utter failure.

What does it tell you that in 70 years, we have the same amount of Cup appearances as Buffalo? As Carolina? As many Cups as Tampa. And these teams have not been around for as long.

Are you kidding me? How can any of us call this franchise even moderately succesful? And comments that Sather should be praised for bringing us out of the darkness are equally as ludicrous. REALLY? What has his track record been like as the caretaker? And don't friggin' just lop off years that make your argument better? Here's the thing. HE HAS BEEN A DISASTER!!! And under him, there was a brief moment where we were proud of the on ice team. But mostly, he has contributed to the overall malaise that infects this franchise.

I'm 30 and not ashamed to admit that I only passively followed the Rangers until my mid-20s. I've lived in PA my entire life and up until recently when technology made it possible to watch 82 games a year without watching a 2" x 2" square with a bunch of colored blurs, I didn't have the option of really following this team and putting them under the microscope. I've lived vicariously through my father regarding anything prior to the early 90s and everything after has been a vague memory due to my age or spotty due to my lack of exposure, until around 2006. Being on here for almost 5 years now regularly I can tell you I've certainly read just about everything there is to about the modern era of Rangers hockey both good and bad.

With all that being said, I prefer to live in the now and work with what we have based on what management has given us this year, for better or worse. Please, tell me what any game, player, or series from even 10 years ago has to do with today outside of illustrating what a poor record of success this team has for being an original 6? If that's your only point with that gigantic rant in the OP then congratulations on saying nothing new or Earth shattering. We all are well aware of the storied history of failure and mistakes surrounding this franchise. Some of which are based solely on downright poor luck. Has management maximized it's chances over the history of this franchise? Probably not but that's highly subjective considering that one person would tell you that finding a way to get in to the playoffs every year is maximizing your chances and others will say that building a perennial contender at the risk of a few bad seasons is maximizing your chances. So which is it? It's clear that current management thinks it is the former and if that is their goal they've done a damn good job of it since the second lockout whether you agree with it or not. I certainly don't but what can I do about it?

Has Sather been good at giving this team a chance to win? Again it's subjective and if your only point is Sather is bad and the Rangers are a failure at winning historically you've added nothing new or compelling to the discussion.