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

[Trxjw]

Again changing the point that was made. There is a difference b/t saying what I am saying and what you are saying. I understand complaining and criticizing the actual results and moves but I see too many complaints that are not based on reality and instead are based seemingly on some kind of fantasy. I don't think a team should be expected to compete for a cup every single year. I don't think "winning the cup/championship" should be the only way to evaluate a professional sports team. Those expectations are wholly unrealistic.

I think a team that built a strong pipeline WHILE playing meaningful hockey every year is a team that is being well assembled. Especially considering that strategy led to 11-12. Clearly it was done right but some folks will insist that it was wrong b/c we didn't win a cup so nothing matters.

See, that's all well and good, but you're choosing to set the bar low. In reality, our expectation on this side of the fence is far more aligned with the reality of how this management group operates. If they're going to be in "win now mode" and send off valuable trade assets such as first round picks, then we expect them to make INFORMED and LOGICAL decisions. While I don't think a team should compete for a cup every year, this management group DOES seem to think that way.

That 'strategy' may have led to a successful season in 11-12, but it only took 30 days to strip that team down and re-shuffle the roster. They set the team back. You can't say, "The strategy worked!" and cite that one particular season, but completely ignore the fact that the team looks NOTHING like that team and that management took what was a successful squad and turned it into a borderline playoff team in a matter of weeks.

 

[True Blue]

That 'strategy' may have led to a successful season in 11-12, but it only took 30 days to strip that team down and re-shuffle the roster. They set the team back. You can't say, "The strategy worked!" and cite that one particular season, but completely ignore the fact that the team looks NOTHING like that team and that management took what was a successful squad and turned it into a borderline playoff team in a matter of weeks.

Not really sure how anyone can point to '11-12 team as a success and then ignore the fact that the same management replaced the core of that team with Columbus Blue Jackets....in an attempt to get better...

 

[Thirty One]

Not really sure how anyone can point to '11-12 team as a success and then ignore the fact that the same management replaced the core of that team with Columbus Blue Jackets....in an attempt to get better...

Because you can only find pieces that contribute to winning on winning teams?

 

[aufheben]

Funny, in my experience, its these types of people that are often the most successful in life.

That's nonsense, why would having high standards make you a more successful person?

 

[haveandare]

MSL not MCD.

It is not a lazy exercise. It is calling a spade a spade. Want to tell me that Sather's tenure has been a success? Then tell what makes it so.

Gutting a team that had more success than any team in roughly 20 years and replacing them with Columbus Blue Jackets is far in the past?

Evaluating trades without looking at the overall organization is in fact looking things in a vacuum. And whether his tenure has been successful is indeed binary.

Nash has done NOTHING to evidence that the trade is a success. Ripping a part a locker room and depleting your depth is hardly evidence of a good trade. And issues with the MSL trade are well documented (for those that have an issue with it). Having an organization with little depth and a bare cupboard does not a good GM make.

There is a very easy solution for what you are sick of. No one is stating that their view is the only view. But having a view that not all sunshine is allowed as well.

Okay. I was talking about McD, which you've skirted twice now. I'll save you the "a broken clock is right twice a day" and we can throw out Sather's greatest success in recent history based on an arbitrary decision that it doesn't matter because...something.

It is absolutely a lazy exercise. It's calling something that was a spade ten years ago a spade today even though it's changed shape, simply because you like it being a spade, and you thinking it being a spade helps explain the crappy farming job that's been done with it.

The Nash trade hyperbole is what it is, hyperbole. Trading teams with CBJ - yeah, all of a top 6 winger, a bottom 6 center, a bottom 6 winger who hasn't played much at all, and a bottom pairing D man. Nash and Brass are the real pieces who are actually getting real minutes and they've both been everything they were in CBJ if not more. "Ripping apart a locker room" is a pretty strong way to word something that you have no firsthand experience with. Who exactly said the locker room was ripped apart? What are you basing that on? I'd say the evidence that the Nash trade was a success is that Gaborik is a shell of his former self while Nash is still the same player he's always been, AA is still the meh center he was and Erixon is still not a noteworthy piece at all either. Those two trades are intertwined forever whether it's "right" or not." NYR got the better player now and going forward. Losing Dubi sucked, aside from that, the pieces sent off didn't add up to much at all, certainly not enough to discount turning Gaborik into Nash.

When did I ever say all was sunshine? I said Sather's work overall has been awful, but in the last years, he's built a good team. You ask me to tell you what makes him a success in response to me saying that calling him a success or a failure is a lazy distinction. He's not a success, but in past years, he's had some success and he's made some smart moves. The exact list I made before - McD for deadweight, Stralman for nothing, Zucc for nothing, Gaborik as a UFA who worked out extremely well... what about those moves? Your assumptions about the outcome of the Nash trade cancel all that out? Cancel out the franchise d-man acquired for nothing? The second pairing d-man for years now who was acquired for nothing? The teams best wing acquired for nothing? The RW who carried the team, and was almost all the offense on the 11-12 team you seem to think so highly of, again, for nothing but money? I disagree. That doesn't even begin to mention the fact that you yourself say the 11-12 team is the best in 20 years and it was built by Sather and almost all the main components were homegrown players drafted by Sather. The way you talk about the Nash trade seems to imply that you thought that team should have been kept together, was solid, could have done real damage etc. Who made it? Who drafted those guys? That complete failure who has never done anything right. Makes sense.

 

[Thesensation19*]

What a thread. And what a bashing of Sather.

In the last 8-9 years we have made the playoffs every year except once. One that we should have been in based on our wins but the point system is all screwed up. Whatever. In those years we made the 2nd round a few times and to the conference finals once.

Not too shabby if you ask me. I think the group you can put us in far better than comparing us to ONLY the Oilers and Panthers and Islanders. Or your missing a dozen teams. Teams that never won the cup or once in the last twenty years. Cmon.

Anyway in terms of where we are now and our future.

Is this all because we got rid of Callahan? I like Cally. Really I do. However look who we got in return. A 90+ point player who is really an A lister. Nash is more of a B+ consistently. Would it really have been smart to give Cally a 6 million dollar contract for 6 years. He wanted 7 at fist. A player who is constantly hurt. And yes I loved his roles. But our PK has been better since he left. lol we scored 3 back to back to back short handers.

Our only problem this year is playing against bigger and badder teams. Something that we did not do well even with Callahan.

In terms of future. We have a young team. Kreider, Stepan, Zuccs, Hags, Moore, McDonagh, Talbot and Miller.

We have some strong prospects in our system. McIlrath, Kristo, Fast, Allen and prob so many others we are missing.

Give it a break. Were in good position. And this is coming from a guy who wishes we never made that Nash trade. But then again, Torts probably had to go and Cally wanted to much

 

[Thesensation19*]

Sather has done more than we give him credit for. He put together the team that made all these playoffs in recent years. Give him a break.

He made some bad signings. He also made some good ones and even better trades.

 

[aufheben]

What a thread. And what a bashing of Sather.

In the last 8-9 years we have made the playoffs every year except once. One that we should have been in based on our wins but the point system is all screwed up. Whatever. In those years we made the 2nd round a few times and to the conference finals once.

Not too shabby if you ask me. I think the group you can put us in far better than comparing us to ONLY the Oilers and Panthers and Islanders. Or your missing a dozen teams. Teams that never won the cup or once in the last twenty years. Cmon.

Anyway in terms of where we are now and our future.

Is this all because we got rid of Callahan? I like Cally. Really I do. However look who we got in return. A 90+ point player who is really an A lister. Nash is more of a B+ consistently. Would it really have been smart to give Cally a 6 million dollar contract for 6 years. He wanted 7 at fist. A player who is constantly hurt. And yes I loved his roles. But our PK has been better since he left. lol we scored 3 back to back to back short handers.

Our only problem this year is playing against bigger and badder teams. Something that we did not do well even with Callahan.

In terms of future. We have a young team. Kreider, Stepan, Zuccs, Hags, Moore, McDonagh, Talbot and Miller.

We have some strong prospects in our system. McIlrath, Kristo, Fast, Allen and prob so many others we are missing.

Give it a break. Were in good position. And this is coming from a guy who wishes we never made that Nash trade. But then again, Torts probably had to go and Cally wanted to much

Oh, wow, McIlrath, Kristo, Fast, Allen...that makes me feel much better about trading away our draft picks.

Sather has done more than we give him credit for. He put together the team that made all these playoffs in recent years. Give him a break.

He made some bad signings. He also made some good ones and even better trades.

The majority of those were simply mediocre teams in front of Henrik Lundqvist.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Sather has done more than we give him credit for. He put together the team that made all these playoffs in recent years. Give him a break.

He made some bad signings. He also made some good ones and even better trades.

More teams make the playoffs than don't.

 

[chosen]

The worst misconception in this thread is that Sather has lost it.

He never was a good GM. Two of the greatest ever were gifted into his lap.

 

[haveandare]

Pretty strange that the "complainers" are the ones preaching a patient, pragmatic approach to team building.

Are they? I don't see most people in here "preaching" anything except Sather being, without any question or argument, an absolute loser who has never done anything right. If you agree with that, you get to make cool snarky responses about how everyone else just doesn't get it. If you disagree with that, even for good reason that you can and have explained in detail, you have piss poor expectations and don't know what you're talking about.

I've certainly been one of the "happy ones" I guess in this thread, but I'm all for a patient, pragmatic approach. I just happen to think that the Nash and MSL deals were good deals, and when I look at the past few years, I don't see a bad team assembled, and I don't see the work of a horrible, horrible GM. That's not to say the same GM hasn't done terrible work that I've witnessed in the past - he has, and I have witnessed it. I just don't see it happening now, and I think saying that he sucks based on the distant past is almost as wacky as saying that he's great based on the recent past. The same guy has been smart and stupid, wise and silly.

I see the temptation to say he sucks no matter what based on how awful the past was, and I get that, I really do, but today is a different day in Ranger land IMO. Not the best day, but a better one for sure.

 

[aufheben]

The worst misconception in this thread is that Sather has lost it.

He never was a good GM. Two of the greatest ever were gifted into his lap.

And with the Rangers, he struck gold with Lundqvist.

 

[Thirty One]

More teams make the playoffs than don't.

Yes, because 16/30 teams make the playoffs, that means making them 7/8 times isn't an accomplishment.

Math.

 

[True Blue]

Okay. I was talking about McD, which you've skirted twice now. I'll save you the "a broken clock is right twice a day" and we can throw out Sather's greatest success in recent history based on an arbitrary decision that it doesn't matter because...something.

It is absolutely a lazy exercise. It's calling something that was a spade ten years ago a spade today even though it's changed shape, simply because you like it being a spade, and you thinking it being a spade helps explain the crappy farming job that's been done with it.

It is a lazy exercise because it makes your points weak. One cannot just arbitrarily lop of data points when evaluating what an organization is like. If you have an investment and it does nothing but loose money for you and then suddenly has a few good years of returns but is still an overall negative...guess what? You still have a loosing trade.

The Nash trade hyperbole is what it is, hyperbole. Trading teams with CBJ - yeah, all of a top 6 winger, a bottom 6 center, a bottom 6 winger who hasn't played much at all, and a bottom pairing D man. Nash and Brass are the real pieces who are actually getting real minutes and they've both been everything they were in CBJ if not more. "Ripping apart a locker room" is a pretty strong way to word something that you have no firsthand experience with. Who exactly said the locker room was ripped apart? What are you basing that on?

You traded the core of a winning close nit team for that of underachievers.

As for what I based it on, that is several things. But let's just go with one. I have said several times that I am fortunate enough to be privy to certain events. One of which was a Rangers luncheon with, among others, Dave Maloney. He likened the trades to that which tore apart the team that went to the finals against Montreal. All in an effort to "get over the top".

When did I ever say all was sunshine? I said Sather's work overall has been awful, but in the last years, he's built a good team.

Great, but overall he has been awful. Which means that the team could not have possibly been very good, from year to year.

The exact list I made before - McD for deadweight, Stralman for nothing, Zucc for nothing, Gaborik as a UFA who worked out extremely well... what about those moves?

Those are fine moves. They however do not make up for other bad ones. Nor do they make up for the fact that the organization has not been an overall success.

Your assumptions about the outcome of the Nash trade cancel all that out? Cancel out the franchise d-man acquired for nothing? The second pairing d-man for years now who was acquired for nothing? The teams best wing acquired for nothing?

No to me, they do not cancel out what his overall record is. In ALL of his tenure, how many top-6 forwards got developed? And I do not view as MSL being acquired for nothing. I view it as Jackass bidding against himself and squandering assets. The MCD trade and picking up Stralman off of the scrapheap by themselves do not qualify as making the organization an overall success.

That doesn't even begin to mention the fact that you yourself say the 11-12 team is the best in 20 years and it was built by Sather and almost all the main components were homegrown players drafted by Sather.

And then what happened? After that team was allowed to grow together? Typical Sather.

Who made it? Who drafted those guys?

Who dismantled it?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

See, that's all well and good, but you're choosing to set the bar low. In reality, our expectation on this side of the fence is far more aligned with the reality of how this management group operates. If they're going to be in "win now mode" and send off valuable trade assets such as first round picks, then we expect them to make INFORMED and LOGICAL decisions. While I don't think a team should compete for a cup every year, this management group DOES seem to think that way.

That 'strategy' may have led to a successful season in 11-12, but it only took 30 days to strip that team down and re-shuffle the roster. They set the team back. You can't say, "The strategy worked!" and cite that one particular season, but completely ignore the fact that the team looks NOTHING like that team and that management took what was a successful squad and turned it into a borderline playoff team in a matter of weeks.

No you're deciding that it is low at all. You're deciding that it is win now mode when it might not be ONLY win now mode. I've seen people posting that we have been in win now mode for years and years while either they or others are simultaneously saying we have been building through the draft those very same years.

I am saying that since we were both building through the draft while simultaneously being in "win now" mode that we were fortunate. Other teams tank or lose badly for a few years in a row, look terrible and never play meaningful hockey while placing all their hopes on building through the draft. Then they sputter out and have NOTHING to enjoy except perhaps for a few hollow division victories here and there.

It seems like we have managed to build through the draft towards contention without having to suffer through horror. At least not since before the first lockout almost a decade ealier. Hell we at least built towards meaningful, exciting hockey for almost a decade now without any sort of major dropoff into the abyss that every other team seemingly gets dragged into save for Detroit and the NJ Devils.

I look at every team since Sather began is tenure and I have to say we've blown most franchises away. Lundqvist has been a big part of that but he didn't draft Dubs, Callahan, Artie, Staal, Hags, MDZ, trade for Jagr, McD, Boyle, Prust, sign Gabs, Straka, Nylander, Girardi, MZA, Stralman.

The negative is there we all know that but it is being overemphasized and the positive is being minimized too much so the opinions formed don't seem to be matching the facts anymore.

 

[Trxjw]

No you're deciding that it is low at all. You're deciding that it is win now mode when it might not be ONLY win now mode. I've seen people posting that we have been in win now mode for years and years while either they or others are simultaneously saying we have been building through the draft those very same years.

To me, being satisfied with the playoffs is setting the bar low. But to each their own.

I'm not deciding anything. I'm going by what this team is doing, and what the management has said. They're the one's with the "win now" expectations, I'm just basing my observations within the context of what they're doing and saying.

I am saying that since we were both building through the draft while simultaneously being in "win now" mode that we were fortunate. Other teams tank or lose badly for a few years in a row, look terrible and never play meaningful hockey while placing all their hopes on building through the draft. Then they sputter out and have NOTHING to enjoy except perhaps for a few hollow division victories here and there.

We're fortunate for what? Again, this all comes back to you being okay with just making the playoffs while the team is run in a bi-polar manner. Some teams lose badly, look terrible, and then win cups. Just because Edmonton and the Islanders are rudderless, it doesn't mean they're the rule.

It seems like we have managed to build through the draft towards contention without having to suffer through horror. At least not since before the first lockout almost a decade ealier. Hell we at least built towards meaningful, exciting hockey for almost a decade now without any sort of major dropoff into the abyss that every other team seemingly gets dragged into save for Detroit and the NJ Devils.

We're not building through the draft. We're supplementing our free agents and big names with draft picks. There's a very clear and distinct difference between the two. Most teams build a core and then acquire players to fit around it. We simply chase whatever is out there, and then try to fit what we have into place.

I look at every team since Sather began is tenure and I have to say we've blown most franchises away. Lundqvist has been a big part of that but he didn't draft Dubs, Callahan, Artie, Staal, Hags, MDZ, trade for Jagr, McD, Boyle, Prust, sign Gabs, Straka, Nylander, Girardi, MZA, Stralman.

The negative is there we all know that but it is being overemphasized and the positive is being minimized too much so the opinions formed don't seem to be matching the facts anymore.

Lundqvist also didn't sign Redden, Drury, Gomez, Rupp, Brashear, Naslund, Richards (hell, he even tried to TRADE for Richards), or Holik, or trade for Bure, Lindros, Lisin, Wolski or Zherdev. He also didn't fail to recognize the significance players like Dubinsky, Purst and Callahan have on the lockerroom. You act as if we should give the guy a pass because he hasn't COMPLETELY ruined the franchise yet. Sather get's a 'C' post-lockout, but he sure as hell gets an 'F' for his tenure with the Rangers.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

To me, being satisfied with the playoffs is setting the bar low. But to each their own.

I'm not deciding anything. I'm going by what this team is doing, and what the management has said. They're the one's with the "win now" expectations, I'm just basing my observations within the context of what they're doing and saying.



We're fortunate for what? Again, this all comes back to you being okay with just making the playoffs while the team is run in a bi-polar manner. Some teams lose badly, look terrible, and then win cups. Just because Edmonton and the Islanders are rudderless, it doesn't mean they're the rule.



We're not building through the draft. We're supplementing our free agents and big names with draft picks. There's a very clear and distinct difference between the two. Most teams build a core and then acquire players to fit around it. We simply chase whatever is out there, and then try to fit what we have into place.



Lundqvist also didn't sign Redden, Drury, Gomez, Rupp, Brashear, Naslund, Richards (hell, he even tried to TRADE for Richards), or Holik, or trade for Bure, Lindros, Lisin, Wolski or Zherdev. He also didn't fail to recognize the significance players like Dubinsky, Purst and Callahan have on the lockerroom. You act as if we should give the guy a pass because he hasn't COMPLETELY ruined the franchise yet. Sather get's a 'C' post-lockout, but he sure as hell gets an 'F' for his tenure with the Rangers.

Being satisfied with the Po's is not what I said. So what's your point except to put words in my mouth again?

You aren't going by what the team is doing. You're going by your interpretation of it. An interpretation which emphasizes the negatives to the point of being unrealistic.

Again not just making the PO's. Bi polar by your perspective but perhaps not by the facts.

Redden was buried and caused no real issues. Gomez ended up being a net positive move. Drury was only a 5 year signing. Net negative move for sure but all it cost was cap space and not for much time. Hated losing Tyutin and thought that was pure suck but Rupp, Brashear? Trades for Wolski, Lisin, had very little negative impact. Many of these things you mentioned were so pitifully small in their negative impact that they are FAR outshone by the positives. Like I said the negatives have most CERTAINLY been ther I'd be blind not to say that or see it. But it's not even close to being as bad as some of you seem to think.

But like I said you need to emphasize the negative to the point of being incorrect.You also twist the oppossing viewpoint so that it sounds like an acceptance of pathetically low standards when that simply is not the case. It makes your argument look better based on either a lie or your own inability to comprehend

 

[aufheben]

Bob Gainey making the worst hockey related decision of his life doesn't change the fact that the Gomez signing was a bad move. Everyone keeps looking at moves in a vacuum, it's the principle/philosophy behind the moves that bothers us. The dude has been at the helm for well over a decade and has nothing to show for it. Henrik Lundqvist backstopping mediocre teams to the 1st/2nd round of the playoffs isn't really impressive. At all. Finally have a team worthy of admiration, and he blows it up after the most successful year in a long time.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't consider making the playoffs to be a successful season, and that bar is set too low, but I do consider winning a round and being in the final 8 to be a successful season and we've only done that 4 times in Sather's tenure. Even pointing to 4 times since the 04 lockout doesn't look all that much better.

He doesn't get credit for Lundqvist either, since he wasn't running that draft. Unless someone was referring to Hank and Gretzky, I don't know who the other player who was "one of the best ever" that was dropped into his lap.

But I digress. This is ALL luck. Nothing more, nothing less. The Rangers are an unlucky organization. Yes, there have been bad decisions and yes, there have been good decisions, but luck is the overriding factor in all of this. The year in the Rangers tenure where they would probably be the worst under Sather was the year that was cancelled and also contained the best player in a generation. That's bad luck. But nobody ever talks about how good the luck is with a team like the Penguins, who happened to be so bad in the year Malkin and Ovechkin were there and not the year that Stefan was the consensus #1. That's simply luck and nothing else. The only thing you can really do is try to identify talent as best as possible (still dictated by luck) and then build an organization and culture that can maximize the players that you get. On the latter, I think the Rangers since 2004 have been pretty good. I don't know how to criticize a GM for not drafting elite offensive talent when luck plays such a large role in any of this. If you aren't drafting early in a year that turns out to be good, then you have to find that talent in the middle part of the 1st round or later... and that is certainly luck too.

 

[Thirty One]

Bob Gainey making the worst hockey related decision of his life doesn't change the fact that the Gomez signing was a bad move. Everyone keeps looking at moves in a vacuum, it's the principle/philosophy behind the moves that bothers us.

Agreed. Sather's gotten lucky with a number of his mistakes, but that only makes me wonder what things would look like if he wasn't lucky.

 

[Trxjw]

Being satisfied with the Po's is not what I said. So what's your point except to put words in my mouth again?

You're satisfied with how the team is being run, and the results from it. Hence you're satisfied with the playoffs. You can't pick and choose when you want to stand by how the team is being run. You're satisfied with the team "building through the draft" -- which we aren't -- while being in "win now" mode, and yet we've won nothing of consequence.

You aren't going by what the team is doing. You're going by your interpretation of it. An interpretation which emphasizes the negatives to the point of being unrealistic.

Yeah. Expecting the team to be in "win now" mode and, you know, win. The goal is to win the cup, not to amass wins throughout the year. Go ask Sharks fans, or Canucks fans how they feel about amassing wins.

Again not just making the PO's. Bi polar by your perspective but perhaps not by the facts.

I think we're at an impasse for what might be considered "facts". Something tells me you're about to bring up the Red Wings as the model franchise..

Redden was buried and caused no real issues. Gomez ended up being a net positive move. Drury was only a 5 year signing. Net negative move for sure but all it cost was cap space and not for much time. Rupp, Brashear? Trades for Wolski, Lisin, had very little negative impact. Many of these things you mentioned were so pitifully small in their negative impact that they are FAR outshone by the positives. Like I said the negatives have most CERTAINLY been ther I'd be blind not to say that or see it. But it's not even close to being as bad as some of you seem to think.

So Gomez was okay because we managed to pawn him off for McDonagh? Handing out tens of millions in failed FA contracts is "pitifully small?" You're out to lunch. Trading a 2nd pairing RHD for Wolski was a small move? I must have dreamt the last couple years of a desperate search for a right-handed 2nd pairing defender.

But like I said you need to emphasize the negative to the point of being incorrect.

As opposed to ignoring the negative for the sake of being hopelessly optimistic? Honestly, can you find me one post where I said "there have been no positives"? Go ahead. Find one. I'll wait.

There's a major difference between being pessimistic about the success of this team and being negative for the sake of being negative. You clearly don't understand the difference.

 

[Tawnos]

Agreed. Sather's gotten lucky with a number of his mistakes, but that only makes me wonder what things would look like if he wasn't lucky.

Luck works both ways. His best offensive draft pick in his tenure with the team died. So does he have good luck or bad? Both.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You're satisfied with how the team is being run, and the results from it. Hence you're satisfied with the playoffs. You can't pick and choose when you want to stand by how the team is being run. You're satisfied with the team "building through the draft" -- which we aren't -- while being in "win now" mode, and yet we've won nothing of consequence.



Yeah. Expecting the team to be in "win now" mode and, you know, win. The goal is to win the cup, not to amass wins throughout the year. Go ask Sharks fans, or Canucks fans how they feel about amassing wins.



I think we're at an impasse for what might be considered "facts". Something tells me you're about to bring up the Red Wings as the model franchise..



1) So Gomez was okay because we managed to pawn him off for McDonagh?

2) Handing out tens of millions in failed FA contracts is "pitifully small?" You're out to lunch.

3)Trading a 2nd pairing RHD for Wolski was a small move? I must have dreamt the last couple years of a desperate search for a right-handed 2nd pairing defender.



As opposed to ignoring the negative for the sake of being hopelessly optimistic? Honestly, can you find me one post where I said "there have been no positives"? Go ahead. Find one. I'll wait.

There's a major difference between being pessimistic about the success of this team and being negative for the sake of being negative. You clearly don't understand the difference.

Incorrect. Making the PO's doesn't take into consideration how the regular season went, is the team an 8 seed that gets swept? How far does it go. You know this but continue to pretend you don't so you can cling to this shallow argument.

You again twisted the point to incorrectness. Somehow my stance of building for YEARS became building NOW through the draft.

Again the goal to win the cup being your only criteria for evaluating success is unrealistic.

Incorrect about your facts comment and the red wings comment. Anymore words you'd like to shovel down my throat?

Again you're twisting the words and point when talking about the tens of millions and trades in order to make it sound like I said things that I did not. Are you that ignorant or that desperate to convince yourself you are right? Read it again. I numbered them and was going to explain how you did not understand what I wrote for each of those but you can do it yourself. Part of your problem seems to be from reading "many" as "all"

Nobody said you specifically said that. Again a false claim to distract from the actual point. Nor do i see me espousing hopeless optimism. I'm simply asking not to invent negatives or emphasize negatives while minimizing positives to the point of being incorrect

You seem to be claiming pessimism. Like I said I understand that there are PLENTY of reasons for pessimism without inventing them. The problem I have is with inventing reasons. You have done nothing but confirm that this is a problem you have at the very least in this convo

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Bob Gainey making the worst hockey related decision of his life doesn't change the fact that the Gomez signing was a bad move. Everyone keeps looking at moves in a vacuum, it's the principle/philosophy behind the moves that bothers us. The dude has been at the helm for well over a decade and has nothing to show for it. Henrik Lundqvist backstopping mediocre teams to the 1st/2nd round of the playoffs isn't really impressive. At all. Finally have a team worthy of admiration, and he blows it up after the most successful year in a long time.

I should rephrase emphasizing the negatives AND minimizing the positives sometimes to the point of being incorrect.

Is there SOME minimizing that can be done for the Gomez move? Absolutely but not to the ABSOLUTE cancelling of its outcome. That's just bending reality to fit an agenda.

You're minimizing every year from 05-10 when they could have spent it in the basement. Instead we got to see meaningful hockey and oftentimes FUN hockey all while simultaneously building through the draft towards 11-12. It didn't result in a cup so it wasn't meaningful? The cup is the only thing that could conceivably bring joy? Seems pretty much like bs

Doesn't seem like too many moves are being viewed through a vacuum in this discussion .

Nothing to show for it based on your criteria. Criteria that might be wholly unrealistic.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Okay. I was talking about McD, which you've skirted twice now. I'll save you the "a broken clock is right twice a day" and we can throw out Sather's greatest success in recent history based on an arbitrary decision that it doesn't matter because...something.

It is a lazy exercise because it makes your points weak. One cannot just arbitrarily lop of data points when evaluating what an organization is like. If you have an investment and it does nothing but loose money for you and then suddenly has a few good years of returns but is still an overall negative...guess what? You still have a loosing trade.

You traded the core of a winning close nit team for that of underachievers.

As for what I based it on, that is several things. But let's just go with one. I have said several times that I am fortunate enough to be privy to certain events. One of which was a Rangers luncheon with, among others, Dave Maloney. He likened the trades to that which tore apart the team that went to the finals against Montreal. All in an effort to "get over the top".

Great, but overall he has been awful. Which means that the team could not have possibly been very good, from year to year.

Those are fine moves. They however do not make up for other bad ones. Nor do they make up for the fact that the organization has not been an overall success.

No to me, they do not cancel out what his overall record is. In ALL of his tenure, how many top-6 forwards got developed? And I do not view as MSL being acquired for nothing. I view it as Jackass bidding against himself and squandering assets. The MCD trade and picking up Stralman off of the scrapheap by themselves do not qualify as making the organization an overall success.

And then what happened? After that team was allowed to grow together? Typical Sather.

Who dismantled it?

This post is loaded with examples of looking at things in a vacuum in order to support the whole pessimism side of things. Rarely have I seen this more than with the Nash trade. Reading many comments over these months you'd think that the Nash trade was the only move that was made so it must have been the only reason for the teams failures last year. What was Prust realistically going to do for the NYR last year and this one?

If we had kept Dubs and Artie what could they have realistically done for us while Richards and Gab spent time on the bench, 3rd and 4th lines at different points due to their consistently bad play? That goes double for Dubs who had his worst season as a pro in 11-12, seemed to be pretty annoyed at Torts and didn't necessarily light the world on fire in Clb on their 1st line either last year.

Could last year have been better with Prust, Dubs and Artie? Yea. It could have been even worse too. I'm not even sitting here saying "It was definitely better without them". I am arguing against saying "It would have been better with them".

Why is Maloney's word gospel? Because it matches your narrative?

Your post also features quite a few examples of minimizing positives and emphasizing negatives to the point where the comments and opinions are no longer based on the realities of what happened.