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

[HockeyBasedNYC]

I cant say this is the worst trade in history, because in doing so it could have saved us from signing Callahan to a longterm, crippling deal. So in that regard its good, because MSL comes off the books and opens up room. Short term its a good deal, if youre into that.

But the whole basis of the deal and how Sather reached it is what bother me the most. Think of what this team would be like if they had made some smart trades a few years ago when they had a **** team featuring Olli Jokinen. Im sure a young dynamic player or two would be in the lineup, over some of the more inconsistent players on this team.

Maybe then you take a shot at MSL as the missing piece to put you over the top. Its all hindsight, yes but it may have just taken one season out of the last 8 to take a step back for ONE ****ing SEASON to increase your chances in the future. We all screamed for it, on multiple occasions. Some it was justified, others not as much - but it was right there for the taking with teams who obviously werent going to get out of the first or second round. Or barely make the playoffs in some cases. Lack of foresight. Sacrifice. Playoff gate revenue. Boggles my mind that the fans were willing to do it, on multiple occasions, but not management.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They wanted draft picks coming back instead of going the other way. That's all they ever want. So they can talk about more McIlraths.

And all you ever want is a trade that sends a tingle up your leg for immediate gratification. One that almost always fails in the grand scope.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

And has it worked? Has it?

I know I complain a lot about this team. But its tough love.

Its far from the pathetic garbage involving supporting a team building philosophy that has been an abject failure for decades.

That's not the point.

It's like arguing day in and day out that the sky isn't red. IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE RED.

 

[Nightshift]

And all you ever want is a trade that sends a tingle up your leg for immediate gratification. One that almost always fails in the grand scope.

Yes. So much evidence of that.

 

[slipknottin]

That's not the point.

It's like arguing day in and day out that the sky isn't red. IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE RED.

So unconditional love for everything Sather does then.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

That's not the point.

It's like arguing day in and day out that the sky isn't red. IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE RED.

Sather is 71 years old. It will end at some point and we can have some hope then.

I cant think of anything more pathetic than supporting a failing cause because "thats the way it is"

 

[Ian]

I can't get over this fanbase's obsession with home-grown players and the idea that this team needs some grandiose 10 year strategy built around them.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

Sather is 71 years old. It will end at some point and we can have some hope then.

I cant think of anything more pathetic than supporting a failing cause because "thats the way it is"

The real issue is Dolan, because hes allowed Sather to hold the reins without any accountability for 14 years. After reading that bit about how he traded for the wrong Marchant it really drove home how incompetent this man is. That and oh, like 29 of his other bad decisions.

He was able to run this team without a playoff berth for 10 years. A decade. Think about that for a second.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The real issue is Dolan, because hes allowed Sather to hold the reins without any accountability for 14 years. After reading that bit about how he traded for the wrong Marchant it really drove home how incompetent this man is. That and oh, like 29 of his other bad decisions.

Eh, Dolan COULD be a good owner is we had a competent GM. He supplies endless resources and doesn't really meddle with the hockey team. That, of course, is a big problem when a GM like Sather continues to **** things up.

Ive always thought that the Knicks, who might be the most pathetic franchise in professional sports since 2000, distracts Dolan. A mediocre to good Rangers team looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread in comparison.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I can't get over this fanbase's obsession with home-grown players and the idea that this team needs some grandiose 10 year strategy built around them.

Maybe thats because the two things aren't mutually exclusive and that type of classification is simply untrue.

 

[True Blue]

That's not the point.

Nor is MSL the point of this thread. The trade is endemic of what has been going on.

You want me to get over it? Then tell me what the plan is. Can you do that? My guess is no. And THAT is why this among the worst franchises in the NHL for going on 75 FRIGIGN' YEARS!!!

Tell me what the plan is. Tell me how THIS trade is part of long-term vision.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I can't get over this fanbase's obsession with home-grown players and the idea that this team needs some grandiose 10 year strategy built around them.

A 10-year strategy would be refreshing after 14 years of directionless meandering.

And the obsession over home-grown players is because the homegrown players are the one you should get the most out of. They're controllable and should be with the team through their prime. Not unlike the elite goalie we have.

 

[True Blue]

I can't get over this fanbase's obsession with home-grown players and the idea that this team needs some grandiose 10 year strategy built around them.

How about a strategy that leads to more than one Cup in three quarters of a century?

 

[JaeTM]

I do agree with you to an extent. We have to realize something though. Lundqvist is 32. He has maybe 3-4 more years at this level before he starts to decline. He is an elite goaltender. Nash has 4 more years on his contract. Girardi will be 34 in 4 years. 3 of our core pieces will be at that age of decline or will be up for a new contract.

Im not necessarily saying I agree with Sathers decision to trade two potential 1sts for St. Louis. However, I can't really be mad at him for wanting to go for it within the next 4-5 years. Granted it has been an off year but Lundqvist is the backbone of this team and has been for what 9 seasons? If we have any chance at a cup, we need an elite goaltender. We just aren't built from prototypical lottery mode that Pittsburgh & Chicago have come from.

So again, do I see it going for it right now as the right move? No. Was it the worst move? No. Our window is within the next 4-5 years because after that, Henrik Lundqvist will slowly decline and the greatest goaltender our organization has ever seen will be just a few years short of retirement.

I have seen many posts about how we should have signed Callahan. That he did a lot for this organization and that Sather should have been loyal to his captain who has played so hard for this franchise. Look at the flip side (whether it is stupid or not), this is Sather being loyal to his star goaltender and the man who has been the Rangers for 9 seasons.

We have an elite goaltender, an at worst top 5 defense, a top 10 PP and a top 10 PK. 10 years ago we would have given anything to have 1-2 of those, let alone all. If Rick Nash can pull his head out of his ass in the playoffs we really can compete with anyone. Especially in the east. Boston would be tough but I like our depth this year much better than last year when going up against them in a series. Pittsburgh has a goaltender with the mental stability of a snow pea. A defense that with or without Letang is just worthy. Philly? Mason won't stand on his head every game. That team with or without MacDonald is a joke. Toronto? Last nights game is hardly indicative of anything with 3 of the 4 goals coming from a penalty shot and being short handed. Western Conference? Yeah they are a bit tougher. We beat Chicago TWICE. Once with our back up. The only team that truly worries me out West is St. Louis. St. Louis has a great defense like us, a great goaltender like us and a better offense. They are the only team that I think we would have a slim chance of beating in a 7 game series. All the others? I like our odds.

Maybe I am a wild optimist. Who knows. I guess being a fan of this team has taught me a few things. Never be surprised and always hope for the best (considering I became a fan during the dark years starting around 1998). If you don't make this trade what do you do then? Take the package that would help for the future which would lead to this team continuing to be a borderline good team for another few years and waste Lundqvists final good years while you toil away in mediocrity as you attempt to "re tool" or look at the big picture? The big picture is Henrik Lundqvist folks. Always has been and will be until he retires.

Great post. I agree. This team will be in win now mode for however long Hank stays elite. They're going to do everything possible to win a Cup with him. As we can all see by giving up future assets.

But I agree with the other part of your post as well as that's where I think you really hit the nail on the head. Majority of people here think that we have all these holes in our lineup and can't compete with the top teams. I know it's a big if, but if Stepan and Nash can finally get going consistently I don't see why we can't be contenders. Will we be the favorites? Absolutely not. But can we win? Hell yeah. Every team has holes in it.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Eh, Dolan COULD be a good owner is we had a competent GM. He supplies endless resources and doesn't really meddle with the hockey team. That, of course, is a big problem when a GM like Sather continues to **** things up.

Ive always thought that the Knicks, who might be the most pathetic franchise in professional sports since 2000, distracts Dolan. A mediocre to good Rangers team looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread in comparison.

The only thing I blame Dolan for is keeping Sather for as long as he has.

 

[Off Sides]

The real issue is Dolan, because hes allowed Sather to hold the reins without any accountability for 14 years. After reading that bit about how he traded for the wrong Marchant it really drove home how incompetent this man is. That and oh, like 29 of his other bad decisions.

He was able to run this team without a playoff berth for 10 years. A decade. Think about that for a second.

Ownership is the real issue without a doubt in my mind. Next GM will just do the same thing.

 

[Ian]

How about a strategy that leads to more than one Cup in three quarters of a century?

Sather hasn't always helped himself (or the team) on this, but 2/3's of the teams in professional sports have been looking for an easy strategy like as well.

Just because you don't agree with some moves, the Rangers aren't the Washington Generals.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

A 10-year strategy would be refreshing after 14 years of directionless meandering.

And the obsession over home-grown players is because the homegrown players are the one you should get the most out of. They're controllable and should be with the team through their prime. Not unlike the elite goalie we have.

Agreed. You want the beginnings of a plan? Here.

I'd instruct the scouting team to draft nothing but projected centers and playmaking defensemen in the top rounds of the draft for the foreseeable future. These are the cornerstone pieces in today's NHL. We can't keep loading up on RW's and expect to be successful. What the organization is doing in the 2nd - 6th rounds, keep doing what you're doing. Find me more of those 2nd/3rd line tweener depth guys.

I'd make none of these aforementioned guys untouchable. I would gladly package Stepan and Hagelin, for instance, to get a young NHL center with upside. Offer sheets? Sure, on the table too. Bottom line is I would leave no stone unturned in acquiring that young #1 center. I would not deem it as an impossible endeavor because of where this team drafs. No stone should be unturned when it comes to developing and/or acquiring these cornsterstone pieces.

You'd be surprised how easy it is to build a roster if you start with the hard things first.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

So unconditional love for everything Sather does then.

hey at least you get it. no you don't.

Sather is 71 years old. It will end at some point and we can have some hope then.

I cant think of anything more pathetic than supporting a failing cause because "thats the way it is"

No, it won't end. You don't get it. This is the team you chose to like.

Accept how things work or follow another team.

 

[egelband]

not seeing a reason to panic here. if not great, the team is solid from top to bottom. fun to watch. good depth. a few good prospects coming. some cap flexibility. no high-end stars, really, unfortunately. but it's a good team. much better than what they usually put-out. so i'm not complaining.

 

[Bluenote13]

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.

Haven't we seen the script for this before? We traded for Bure and gave up nothing! What a great trade. We got Anson Carter and gave up nothing! What a great move. Just what the team needs. We traded for Jagr and gave up nothing! What a great trade!! We traded for St. Louis!! WOW, what a great trade.

Except, except, except.....he does not really make this team a contender does he? he does not mask the many flaws that mar the team. Heck, Jackass himself said it yesterday when asked if the Rangers were a Cup contender. He did not say yes. He just said that they are capable now of going further than before. Isn't this the same idiot who said that the goal each year is to win the Cup? That anything but is failure?

We know this path all too well. Once the Rangers exit the playoffs again, knee jerk moves will be made to address perceived flaws. And why? Because Jackass has now made this a WIN NOW team. One that has to win it all either this year or next. That is frightening. That leads to trading of more picks and more prospects in order to WIN NOW. The off season moves will be done to WIN NOW. Who will be the new version of Holik? Kasperitis? Oliwa?

Moves done in a vacuum. Without any thought of the future. Without any thought of a plan. Without any plotting of a course. As of today, we do not have a first round pick in 2 of the next 4 years. There is a possibility that can move to 3 out of 4 years. Is this what the Rangers can afford. Haven't we been there, done that already?

Jackass admitted there were two trades. One that helps the team in the future and one that is made for RIGHT NOW. He, as is his mo, went for the instant gratification, preferring long-term pain. We know how this goes. When the moves done to WIN NOW (this year or next) fail, what will the Rangers be left with?

Jackass will retire. Dolan will bring in Gretzky to GM. Or better yet, Messier to be coach and Gretzky to be GM. And the long, long road to another 54 years will continue.

And this one will last a life time. Indeed.

Perfectly captures how I've felt the last two decades...i mean, days.

No really, this thread is where its at.

It's absurd at this point. Hearing TLB last night made me sick. "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Martin St. Louis?"

• August 20, 2001- "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Eric Lindros?"
  
• March 18, 2002 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Pavel Bure?"
  
• February 10, 2003 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Alex Kovalev?"
  
• January 23, 2004 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Jaromir Jagr?"
  
• July 1, 2007 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Scott Gomz?"
  
• July 1, 2007 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Chris Drury?"
  
• July 1, 2008 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Wade Redden?"
  
• July 3, 2008 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Markus Naslund?"
  
• July 2, 2011 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Brad Richards?"
  
• July 24, 2012 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Rick Nash?"

The better question should be how many times should you be allowed to trade guys like Brian Leetch and Ryan Callahan?

Good stuff SBOB, I've railed against every one of these, sans Drury, good guy for the young ones was the thought.

LIndros, Bure, Jagr, Richards - didn't want any of them. I was pretty much alone in the rival board days on the Bure deal. 'How could we lose'? They told me. 'Its only a draft pick' I was told.

LOL. Great post.

I thought the SAME thing to myself when they flashed MSL's credentials on the screen last night. 6 time all-star. Former Hart Trophy winner, former this, former that.

You know what it means to me? They've usually been in the league too long and had their best days with other teams.

Its simple, best days are gone, don't use assets to acquire them. I think people forget that assets buy you young players too. But if they are busts, what the hell have those 'names' ever been for us but lipstick on a pig like noted earlier in thread.

The fire sale of 2004 was the only time in Sather's tenure that he wasn't in "win now" mode. His inclination is always to "go for it" no matter what state the team is in. The team's window hinges solely on Sather's age - as the years go by and he inches closes to retirement, the desperation only increases.

Sather's philosophy is the exact opposite of Herb Brooks in 1980 - Sather is looking for the best players, not the right ones. The MSL trade is classic Sather. He's a big name, exceptionally skilled, on the older side. Too bad he doesn't fill any of the positions that we actually need. Last night, the defensemen were shooting wide, Hagelin looked like a fool trying to play MSL's game, and Richards and Stepan were playing their usual mediocre game. When the hell are long-term needs at C, LW, and offensive D going to be addressed?

You see the best Centers and puck moving Dmen on the trade block? Rarely if ever and they are found at the draft. Four or five years goes by quick. Its already been 4 years since we drafted Mcilrath.

This team needs to go in another direction. They need to commit themselves to addressing the hard issues first. #1 center and PMD. The other holes becomes MUCH easier to fill when you've addressed this.

Instead, we have been on a track where the other, easier, issues get addressed and field a team with these gaping holes season after season.

You have to have a plan first and foremost. That's why its impossible to think Sather will do anything good for this team until he retires, the best gift of all. And then Messier takes over and does the same though....

Its pretty great how my friends and realists are in this thread, while the dreamers are in the contender thread.

Haha

And maybe they should stop worrying about selling a "product". Build a hockey team that wins and sit back and watch it sell and market itself.

But is that what a Lion would do ??

Sather is 71 years old. It will end at some point and we can have some hope then.

I cant think of anything more pathetic than supporting a failing cause because "thats the way it is"

Oh well, that's the way it is. Why change the world ?

'On the right side of history' is a VERY popular term in our vernacular these days, I see it apply to so much from politics to sports. Times are a changin, too slow in some circles.

 

[Ian]

A 10-year strategy would be refreshing after 14 years of directionless meandering.

And the obsession over home-grown players is because the homegrown players are the one you should get the most out of. They're controllable and should be with the team through their prime. Not unlike the elite goalie we have.

They got the most out of Callahan and now moved him for a better asset.

So why are people still complaining then?

because he's part of the holy CORE, and BLEEDS BLUE?

 

[Thirty One]

It's absurd at this point. Hearing TLB last night made me sick. "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Martin St. Louis?"

• August 20, 2001- "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Eric Lindros?"
  
• March 18, 2002 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Pavel Bure?"
  
• February 10, 2003 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Alex Kovalev?"
  
• January 23, 2004 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Jaromir Jagr?"
  
• July 1, 2007 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Scott Gomz?"
  
• July 1, 2007 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Chris Drury?"
  
• July 1, 2008 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Wade Redden?"
  
• July 3, 2008 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Markus Naslund?"
  
• July 2, 2011 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Brad Richards?"
  
• July 24, 2012 - "How often do you get a chance to acquire a player like Rick Nash?"

The better question should be how many times should you be allowed to trade guys like Brian Leetch and Ryan Callahan?

Who made those quotes? I don't remember anyone saying most of those.

 

[slipknottin]

They got the most out of Callahan and now moved him for a better asset.

So why are people still complaining then?

because he's part of the holy CORE, and BLEEDS BLUE?

No, it was never an issue with moving callahan. I think all of us agreed he should be dealt unless he lowered his price.

The issue is the rangers were selling an asset.

Somehow they managed to turn selling an asset into giving up a first and second round pick.

That's the issue. It's constantly selling off the future for today.

Msl has a couple years left, hopefully he wins some cups, or this team is far more bare going forward than they were yesterday

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

They got the most out of Callahan and now moved him for a better asset.

So why are people still complaining then?

because he's part of the holy CORE, and BLEEDS BLUE?

We're complaining because the "better asset" makes a team—one that is far from being a contender—older, smaller and softer (one that was already soft).