Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
I'll answer it. I haven't been a to game before the last lockout. I haven't bought merchandise since then either. I have MSG as part of my cable package because it's part of the service my co-op's bulk cable buy. In in the interest of full disclosure, I have Optimum because there is no other option in my building.

So, now I'll ask: Which of those would tell you if I am a fan or not?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about measuring whether you're a fan lol? How often do you watch MSG/contribute ratings? That was also part of it.
 
shinchanyo said:
Based on what standard. Compared to who? Especially since 2005. Read the previous few pages for more. Is it as ugly as some claim? How ugly is it?
Click to expand...

You must have missed this post:

So in your mind five playoff series victories since 2000, and a prospect pool ranked 27 out of 30 teams BEFORE the future effect of trading away so many high draft choices in consecutive years, to solidify our current chance to make the playoffs, blows most franchises away.

Makes sense. In Bizarro World.

That ugly.
 
I too think the point is they should have a contender plus a very strong prospect pool as well as more future draft picks at this point in Sather's tenure. He has had plenty of time, plenty of opportunity and wasted much of it.

However where I differ from most is, I don't think that was the objective throughout his tenure.
 
Jersey Girl said:
You must have missed this post:

So in your mind five playoff series victories since 2000, and a prospect pool ranked 27 out of 30 teams BEFORE the future effect of trading away so many high draft choices in consecutive years, to solidify our current chance to make the playoffs, blows most franchises away.

Makes sense. In Bizarro World.

That ugly.
Click to expand...

How many series victories do other teams have? What about taking into consideration that the first year or maybe even the first few years at least had something to do with Smith? How ugly is it? Again you avoided the bulk of the point to narrow in on whatever supports your very generalized stance.

Who's doing the pool ranking? Why are they considered gospel? When the NYR pool was ranked higher was this used to support Sather? Is there a formula in place to calculate overall pool ranking as a means to argue this points merits?

If he inherited a barren pool does this negate much of the blame at his feet for his early years here?

y'see looking at things with no context and emphasizing negatives doesn't paint an accurate picture. Nor does setting an arbitrary bar for expectation without comparisons to the rest of the league. Nor can variables like injuries and whatnot be ignored.

The point has always been that the negatives are emphasized too much. Nothing you are saying proves otherwise
 
shinchanyo said:
How many series victories do other teams have? What about taking into consideration that the first year or maybe even the first few years at least had something to do with Smith? How ugly is it? Again you avoided the bulk of the point to narrow in on whatever supports your very generalized stance.
Click to expand...

The bulk of your point is that Sather's tenure blows most other franchises away, which I specifically addressed with specifics to prove you wrong. If you want to use something other than Sather's record to prove he's blown most other franchises away, count me out.

Sather is his record, and his record over his tenure does not blow other teams away. It stinks.
 
shinchanyo said:
How many series victories do other teams have? What about taking into consideration that the first year or maybe even the first few years at least had something to do with Smith? How ugly is it? Again you avoided the bulk of the point to narrow in on whatever supports your very generalized stance.

Who's doing the pool ranking? Why are they considered gospel? When the NYR pool was ranked higher was this used to support Sather? Is there a formula in place to calculate overall pool ranking as a means to argue this points merits?

If he inherited a barren pool does this negate much of the blame at his feet for his early years here?

y'see looking at things with no context and emphasizing negatives doesn't paint an accurate picture. Nor does setting an arbitrary bar for expectation without comparisons to the rest of the league. Nor can variables like injuries and whatnot be ignored.

The point has always been that the negatives are emphasized too much. Nothing you are saying proves otherwise
Click to expand...

You are your record. Period. The rest is just spin.
 
Jersey Girl said:
You are your record. Period. The rest is just spin.
Click to expand...

Until someone tries to evaluate that record as we are doing. So you wish to put a negative spin. I'm saying the spin is unrealistically negative. Btw see the bolded? That's the point. Not that we've blown other franchises away. As I already said in a previous post would you prefer if I had said "compares favorably" instead?
 
shinchanyo said:
Until someone tries to evaluate that record as we are doing. So you wish to put a negative spin. I'm saying the spin is unrealistically negative. Btw see the bolded? That's the point. Not that we've blown other franchises away. As I already said in a previous post would you prefer if I had said "compares favorably" instead?
Click to expand...

So you meant to say 'compares favorably' when you said 'blows most other franchises away'?

That's some serious backpedaling right there.
 
Jersey Girl said:
So you meant to say 'compares favorably' when you said 'blows most other franchises away'?

That's some serious backpedaling right there.
Click to expand...

Is it? When I immediately apologized for the hyperbole and clarified? When I had been posting WELLLL before I ever said m"blown away" and had clarified my stance multiple times? No it's just selectively jumping on two words to get away from the actual points. Which ironically was one of the first things I pointed out.

Not to mention they certainly have blown away some franchises without a doubt based on record. So why is that not considered success? Y'see when I make that comment I'm not trying to actually say that if you blow away the Isles you are great. I am merely pointing out that the barometers for success seem to be arbitrary and based on the bias of the person who is evaluating when it should be based on reality. But whenever an individual steps in to interpret reality then their individual bias will automatically shift perception away from the facts and color them. Sometimes facts are then colored so much that they are no longer represented correctly or realistically.

One person may say "We make the PO's every year!" While another says "All we do is just make the PO's." Of course both stances ignore regular season play and actual PO performance completely. Swept 8 seed? 1 round victory followed by a well played 2nd round against the 1 seed? ECF appearance after beating weak opponents? ECF appearance after beating the 1 and 2 seed? It seems like this should be an arbitrary, grey area subject and yet folks treat it black and white.

So 2 words become emphasized to distract from the actual point even when the point is made clear well before and after the 2 words are said. But you've been incorrectly saying what the point is all along b/c you didn't actually read so why am I surprised?
 
shinchanyo said:
Is it? When I immediately apologized for the hyperbole and clarified? When I had been posting WELLLL before I ever said m"blown away" and had clarified my stance multiple times? No it's just selectively jumping on two words to get away from the actual points. Which ironically was one of the first things I pointed out.

Not to mention they certainly have blown away some franchises without a doubt based on record. So why is that not considered success? Y'see when I make that comment I'm not trying to actually say that if you blow away the Isles you are great. I am merely pointing out that the barometers for success seem to be arbitrary and based on the bias of the person who is evaluating when it should be based on reality. But whenever an individual steps in to interpret reality then their individual bias will automatically shift perception away from the facts and color them. Sometimes facts are then colored so much that they are no longer represented correctly or realistically.

One person may say "We make the PO's every year!" While another says "All we do is just make the PO's." Of course both stances ignore regular season play and actual PO performance completely. Swept 8 seed? 1 round victory followed by a well played 2nd round against the 1 seed? ECF appearance after beating weak opponents? ECF appearance after beating the 1 and 2 seed? It seems like this should be an arbitrary, grey area subject and yet folks treat it black and white.

So 2 words become emphasized to distract from the actual point even when the point is made clear well before and after the 2 words are said. But you've been incorrectly saying what the point is all along b/c you didn't actually read so why am I surprised?
Click to expand...

When you say Sather's tenure 'blows away most other franchises' people are going to challenge that statement. You know that and you should not be surprised when that happens. If you had said 'compares favorably' in the first place, the reaction would not have been the same.

That's also debatable, and subject to perception (and spin), but not as ridiculous as your first statement.
 
Last edited:
Jersey Girl said:
When you say Sather's tenure 'blows away most other franchises' people are going to challenge that statement. You know that and you should not be surprised when that happens. If you had said 'compares favorably' in the first place, the reaction would not have been the same.

That's also debatable, and subject to perception (and spin), but not as ridiculous as your first statement.
Click to expand...

That's fine so long as people don't wholly ignore everything else that was said both before and afterwards. Especially if clarification is included.

I definitely wasn't surprised I kind of predicted early on people would try to twist entire points or nitpick little things while ignoring the whole actual point. I think you did so just b/c you've come in late to the party and didn't see everything that came before. It's a lot of text so it could be those two words stuck out amidst all the back and forth while you missed other stuff

I clarified why it wasn't even ridiculous to use the term "blown away" in the first place since it can be argued the NYR under Sather have certainly blown away more than 1 franchise. Using the fact the the NYR have blown away the Isles as the SOLE barometer to measure success would be ridiculous but I'm not doing that.

My biggest point is that inventing negatives and emphasizing negatives beyond their actual impact while simultaneously minimizing positives below their actual impact is ridiculous and biased.
 
Both sides are right. Sather did well by making the Rangers perennial playoff competitors and making us angry at not winning Cups instead of not beating the Devils during 7 playoff-less seasons.

I got it. Hes not the anti-Christ. But hes also stuck in neutral, and has been for a few years.

Who knew Henrik would have his worst season as a pro in 2014? The roster Sather designed isnt too bad. Theres a balance of vets, homegrown typed and role players on the cheap. Its not like the 1997 Rangers.

For arguments sake, lets say Henrik was a wire to wire Vezina goalie in 2014. This team would have 40 wins on pace for 50.

But whats next? Doesnt look good. You can say that Sather wasted the prime of the best goalie of his generation by building around him with overpriced/overaged players.

Would have been nice to see him replenish the stocks by moving all four UFA. We'll never know, but i think losing Girardi, Callahan, Boyle and Stralman wouldnt have crippled the season. Theyve made the playoffs with worse rosters.
 
shinchanyo said:
I clarified why it wasn't even ridiculous to use the term "blown away" in the first place since it can be argued the NYR under Sather have certainly blown away more than 1 franchise. Using the fact the the NYR have blown away the Isles as the SOLE barometer to measure success would be ridiculous but I'm not doing that.
Click to expand...

Your exact statement was:

I look at every team since Sather began his tenure and I have to say we've blown most franchises away.
Click to expand...

If you would have said Sather's tenure blows away one other franchise you would have been correct.
 
Only ONE blueprint has worked to get this Franchise a Stanley Cup in the modern era.

One.

To do that, you start with a dominant No. 1 center. Then you have two puck rushers and four stay-at-home types on defense. Then a Vezina-caliber goalie. Then players with defined roles.

The Rangers have never had a dominant, No. 1 center since Messier. It amazes me how the franchise hasnt learned its lesson.

Id rather spend 12 million on Getzlaf or Crosby or Tavares than 12 million on Nash and MSL.

Hell, if your going to trade 3 first rounders, use them for an offer sheet to Tavares. Or Kopitar. Or Malkin.
 
GWOW said:
Only ONE blueprint has worked to get this Franchise a Stanley Cup in the modern era.

One.

To do that, you start with a dominant No. 1 center. Then you have two puck rushers and four stay-at-home types on defense. Then a Vezina-caliber goalie. Then players with defined roles.

The Rangers have never had a dominant, No. 1 center since Messier. It amazes me how the franchise hasnt learned its lesson.

Id rather spend 12 million on Getzlaf or Crosby or Tavares than 12 million on Nash and MSL.

Hell, if your going to trade 3 first rounders, use them for an offer sheet to Tavares. Or Kopitar. Or Malkin.
Click to expand...
So you want to emulate a team that won the Cup 20 years ago?
 
shinchanyo said:
I clarified why it wasn't even ridiculous to use the term "blown away" in the first place since it can be argued the NYR under Sather have certainly blown away more than 1 franchise. Using the fact the the NYR have blown away the Isles as the SOLE barometer to measure success would be ridiculous but I'm not doing that.
Click to expand...
So saying that Sather's tenure blows away most other franchises is rational, per you. Which means, and tell me if I am wrong, that your view during Sather's time in office is that the Rangers are one of the most successful teams in the league?
My biggest point is that inventing negatives and emphasizing negatives beyond their actual impact while simultaneously minimizing positives below their actual impact is ridiculous and biased.
Click to expand...
What is invented? Even before trading away picks, is the organization ranked among the worst when it comes to prospects? Saying that there is exactly 1 Cup in 70+ years is not invented. True or not true: Under Sather the biggest success was reaching ECF ONCE. What is invented? True or not true, that as of today you can count the amount of top-2 line forwards drafted and developed as less than a handful? What is invented? How many playoff series wins have the Rangers had in 15 years? What invented?

But again, this is not just about one trade or one move or even one year. This is about the failure of an entire organization. The LATEST of which is the tenure of Jackass, which most would describe as disastrous.
 
True Blue said:
So saying that Sather's tenure blows away most other franchises is rational, per you. Which means, and tell me if I am wrong, that your view during Sather's time in office is that the Rangers are one of the most successful teams in the league?

What is invented? Even before trading away picks, is the organization ranked among the worst when it comes to prospects? Saying that there is exactly 1 Cup in 70+ years is not invented. True or not true: Under Sather the biggest success was reaching ECF ONCE. What is invented? True or not true, that as of today you can count the amount of top-2 line forwards drafted and developed as less than a handful? What is invented? How many playoff series wins have the Rangers had in 15 years? What invented?

But again, this is not just about one trade or one move or even one year. This is about the failure of an entire organization. The LATEST of which is the tenure of Jackass, which most would describe as disastrous.
Click to expand...



I think Prucha was the last Ranger draftee to score 30 goals for the Rangers. The one before that was Nemchinov, but he was an established player on the Soviet teams before he got here.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Your exact statement was:



If you would have said Sather's tenure blows away one other franchise you would have been correct.
Click to expand...

I also said several things to clarify that statement. At this point you're willfully ignoring the multiple clarifications. Once again as I predicted focusing on a single statement even AFTER it's clarified rather than sticking to the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom