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

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Welcome to 'How Sports Work 101'. It's not an even playing field in the NHL, NBA or MLB. Never has been, never will be, and everyone knows it.

But how much of an uneven playing field is it? Is it significant enough based solely on FA money to completely overshadow the advantage that comes with HAVING to lose and get high picks? This isn't the NFL where all stars are found routinely all over the draft and first round. In the NHl it's very top heavy by comparison. The first round is littered with bust picks every year and the top guys from each draft are always found at the top with very few exceptions compared to other sports. So given this being the case those smaller market teams have their own huge advantages whicvh we do not.

Here's another example. Boston landed Zdeno Chara. Reports surfaced he didn't want to play here for some arbitrary reason. Does this mean we should eliminate Boston from the comparison because they had an unfair advantage where possibly the best FA signing of the last two decades went to them and refused to come to us? Guys pay way more on tax to play here and we have an intrusive media compared to small markets. This may drive guys to Florida or some other smaller market.

Folks deride the McD trade as nothing but gainey's incompetence. Well maybe Boston only benefitted from Toronto's incompetence. (Rask and the Kessel/Seguin trade)

 

[Jersey Girl]

I never thought it was middle school anything why do you keep bringing it up? Why didn't you just go debate the actual point?

OK I'll try one more time.

Saying Sather's tenure 'Compares Favorably' is debatable, definitely not as ridiculous as saying his tenure 'blows most other franchises away'.

 

[Jersey Girl]

the advantage that comes with HAVING to lose and get high picks?

I don't know what you mean by this

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

OK I'll try one more time.

Saying Sather's tenure 'Compares Favorably' is debatable, definitely not as ridiculous as saying his tenure 'blows most other franchises away'.

You said this already and didn't have to say it again. The piling on with trx and whatnot made it seem like you wanted to push on another topic though. If not then that's ok but that's why I responded the way I did

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I don't know what you mean by this

I was reading about how the small market teams can't compete. They'd have to lose which means they can land the top picks.

 

[Off Sides]

What advantage did Phoenix get from drafting Wheeler?

Does Edmonton drafting so highly really balance out Pronger wanting out?

Even that aside, did the Rangers have the choice to suck it up not sign mediocre free agents and draft in their natural position? Just because some may pass them over does it mean they had to sign the ones they did?

It's just not a level playing field. I mean if one wants to argue Toronto should have been doing much better than they have and the Rangers compare favorably to them, so be it, but to debate whether or not the less fortunate teams should be comparable to the Rangers seems disingenuous to begin with.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I was reading about how the small market teams can't compete. They'd have to lose which means they can land the top picks.

Small town...big town...in-between town...the more you lose the higher the draft pick.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

What advantage did Phoenix get from drafting Wheeler?

Does Edmonton drafting so highly really balance out Pronger wanting out?

Even that aside, did the Rangers have the choice to suck it up not sign mediocre free agents and draft in their natural position? Just because some may pass them over does it mean they had to sign the ones they did?

It's just not a level playing field. I mean if one wants to argue Toronto should have been doing much better than they have and the Rangers compare favorably to them, so be it, but to debate whether or not the less fortunate teams should be comparable to the Rangers seems disingenuous to begin with.

So we're allowed to disqualify them if it doesn't work out but then you can't also say that we have to include them if it does work out (Pitt/Chicago) that's just not the right way to evaluate a thing like this. So who are we leaving on this list and who's off and what's the justification for each individual removal?

Hell if Phoenix wins the Crosby lotto instead of pitt and gets the 3rd overall pick when Toews is available instead of Mueller...

Besides the Rangers were in P[PERFECT position to draft just like Pitt did. The lockout happened at that exact time and the top pick which could have been ours (very realistically) went to Pitt based on nothing more than pure 100% luck. When the team came back in 05Lundqvist happened to come with them. The plan was a malcontent Jagr, Weekes and a horrific roster. Had we sucked that year we could have landed Jordan Staal/Toews/Kessel (then made Bostons trade). All time luck may have led to us being mediocre then and not through any fault of Sather. Or maybe through his fault but not to the degree people claim

 

[McRanger]

Sather's Rangers:

Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 16th in games in playoff games played.*
Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 15th in playoff series wins.*

Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 9th in playoff games played.
Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 11th in playoff series wins.

In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 15 teams to not go to the Stanley Cup Finals.
In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 20 teams to not win the cup.

Mediocrity. Even only looking at the last 8 seasons the Rangers are still, at best, only at the top of the list of also-ran's.



On a lighter note...

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have played in more playoff games than the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have won more playoff series than the Minnesota, Phoenix, the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have played in as many playoff games as St. Louis, Minnesota, the Islanders, Toronto, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have won as many playoff series as Nashville, Phoenix, St. Louis, Toronto, Calgary, Minnesota, Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg, and Columbus combined.

Nothing like being better than expansion teams! Florida, Phoenix and the Islanders have no excuse.




*It should be noted that those pre-lockout early 2000's teams Sather inherited were so bad, I would be surprised Jesus could get them into the playoffs quickly as GM/coach.

 

[Jersey Girl]

What advantage did Phoenix get from drafting Wheeler?

Does Edmonton drafting so highly really balance out Pronger wanting out?

Even that aside, did the Rangers have the choice to suck it up not sign mediocre free agents and draft in their natural position? Just because some may pass them over does it mean they had to sign the ones they did?

It's just not a level playing field. I mean if one wants to argue Toronto should have been doing much better than they have and the Rangers compare favorably to them, so be it, but to debate whether or not the less fortunate teams should be comparable to the Rangers seems disingenuous to begin with.

You know what's really ironic? One of the people who complained long and loud about financial advantages big-town teams had over small town teams was...wait for it...Glen Sather himself!

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Sather's Rangers:

Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 16th in games in playoff games played.* Who is below and who is above them? for all of these?
Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 15th in playoff series wins.*

Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 9th in playoff games played.
Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 11th in playoff series wins.

In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 15 teams to not go to the Stanley Cup Finals. But looking at Reg season play and PO play as well as draft luck is this as much Sather's fault as people say it is or was a lot of it just bad luck? Edm, Carolina, Calgary, Philly, went to the cup finals. Have these all been better teams?
In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 20 teams to not win the cup.Carolina, TB, Ana, LA all spetn time in the absolute basement for multiple years with absolutely nothing to enjoy. Are they better solely b/c of the one cup win? What's the statute of limitations on how long this cup counts for them? 20 years?

Mediocrity. Even only looking at the last 8 seasons the Rangers are still, at best, only at the top of the list of also-ran's. So has Sather's tenure been as bad as some claim? How much of this mediocrity is because he inherited an awful franchise from Smith and then stumbled on an all time great Goalie AND a lockout RIGHT at the exact moment he was in position to tank?



On a lighter note...

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have played in more playoff games than the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have won more playoff series than the Minnesota, Phoenix, the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have played in as many playoff games as St. Louis, Minnesota, the Islanders, Toronto, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have won as many playoff series as Nashville, Phoenix, St. Louis, Toronto, Calgary, Minnesota, Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg, and Columbus combined.

Nothing like being better than expansion teams! Florida, Phoenix and the Islanders have no excuse.




*It should be noted that those pre-lockout early 2000's teams Sather inherited were so bad, I would be surprised Jesus could get them into the playoffs quickly as GM/coach.

That asterisk is important to note as well as negative and positive stuff

 

[n8]

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?

i see three categories, injured stars, UFAs, and stars who demand to be traded to NY so we get a "deal" of sorts in the exchange. None of the UFAs are generational talent so we can get those guys pretty often. Sather's Achilles heel is and remains to be his UFA signing record. drafting is another issue which doesn't make me so sad about losing draft picks. One pick - and forgive me for raising the undead horse of many kicks - one pick in Getzlaf and we have ourselves a legit 1A center for the last decade. That's the big difference over these many years of mediocrity. Gomez, Drury, Richards, all because we didn't have a 1A center. Sather is always spinning his wheels trying to make up for his many shortcomings, all the while squandering resources elsewhere. the net result, not a whole lot of progress. It's sad that I can condone the MSL trade simply because I have no faith in our team's ability to draft. That sad, screw Callahan's agent and MSL is indeed a top 10 player in this league and will continue to be so buuuuut we still don't have a 1A center so what does it matter?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Sather's Rangers:

Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 16th in games in playoff games played.
Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 15th in playoff series wins.

So it must be admitted Sather's record during his tenure does blow away a decent amount of the also-ran franchises.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

So it must be admitted Sather's record during his tenure does blow away a decent amount of the also-ran franchises.

Just also rans? How do you decide they are only also rans? Refer to my bolded points above.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Just also rans? How do you decide they are only also rans? Refer to my bolded points above.

16th in playoff games during his tenure. 15th in playoff series wins during his tenure.

I didn't say they are also-rans, I said they are better than the also-ran franchises. Big difference.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

16th in playoff games during his tenure. 15th in playoff series wins during his tenure.

I didn't say they are also-rans, I said they are better than the also-ran franchises. Big difference.

You used the data point and inferred that it means we are better than the also rans. Are there elites in that data set? Are we better than the elites too then? Who else is in that data set besides just the also rans?

 

[Jersey Girl]

You used the data point and inferred that it means we are better than the also rans. Are there elites in that data set? Are we better than the elites too then? Who else is in that data set besides just the also rans?

Being 15th and 16th is self-explanatory, right in the middle. You are your record, and that is Sather's record.

 

[haohmaru]

Sather's Rangers:

Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 16th in games in playoff games played.*
Since '00-'01 the Rangers are 15th in playoff series wins.*

Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 9th in playoff games played.
Since the cap in '05-'06, the Rangers are 11th in playoff series wins.

In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 15 teams to not go to the Stanley Cup Finals.
In those 12 seasons the Rangers are one of 20 teams to not win the cup.

Mediocrity. Even only looking at the last 8 seasons the Rangers are still, at best, only at the top of the list of also-ran's.



On a lighter note...

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have played in more playoff games than the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since '00-'01 the Rangers have won more playoff series than the Minnesota, Phoenix, the Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have played in as many playoff games as St. Louis, Minnesota, the Islanders, Toronto, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg and Columbus combined.

Since the cap in '05-'06 the Rangers have won as many playoff series as Nashville, Phoenix, St. Louis, Toronto, Calgary, Minnesota, Islanders, Florida, Atlanta/Winnipeg, and Columbus combined.

Nothing like being better than expansion teams! Florida, Phoenix and the Islanders have no excuse.




*It should be noted that those pre-lockout early 2000's teams Sather inherited were so bad, I would be surprised Jesus could get them into the playoffs quickly as GM/coach.

There are 10 teams that have 6+ series wins since 2005-6?

Interesting.

 

[jskramer83]

There are 10 teams that have 6+ series wins since 2005-6?

Interesting.

Even more interesting is the fact that Toronto and Calgary are expansion teams

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Being 15th and 16th is self-explanatory, right in the middle. You are your record, and that is Sather's record.

Doesn't answer the question. Who specifically is in there? How do you know the teams represented by that specific piece of data are just also rans? And if they aren't just also rans then why would you say something that implies otherwise?

The evaluation is useless without context and might be exaggerated as a result to negative or positive effect. Are we just better than the also rans and if so why? Does this make us exceptional in terms of our failure as a franchise or not? Do other factors outside of a GM's or franchises control to blame more so than usual? There's too much to evaluate to keep making generalized statements based on select bits of data.

Like I said refer to the bold I posted above. You are your record is very lazy when it comes to this type of in depth evaluation. It ignores context completely.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Doesn't answer the question. Who specifically is in there? How do you know the teams represented by that specific piece of data are just also rans? And if they aren't just also rans then why would you say something that implies otherwise?

The evaluation is useless without context and might be exaggerated as a result to negative or positive effect. Are we just better than the also rans and if so why? Does this make us exceptional in terms of our failure as a franchise or not? Do other factors outside of a GM's or franchises control to blame more so than usual? There's too much to evaluate to keep making generalized statements based on select bits of data.

Are you old enough to know who Bill Parcells is? In sports your record is what matters. 15th and 16th. That says it all.

If the Rangers somehow miss the playoffs because of their record, you should try e-mailing Gary Bettman and Bill Daley as soon as the season ends. Point out to them that their evaluation is useless without context, and might be exaggerated as to negative and positive effect.

They'll make the same face everyone else is making as we read your semantics.

You are your record. That is Sather's record. Period.

 

[McRanger]

There are 10 teams that have 6+ series wins since 2005-6?

Interesting.

By my count Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, San Jose, Philadelphia, Anaheim, Carolina, Vancouver and Los Angeles all have 6 or more playoff series wins.

Although its possible my math is wrong.

 

[McRanger]

Even more interesting is the fact that Toronto and Calgary are expansion teams

Which I wrote.... where?

Saying the Rangers are better than expansion teams doesn't mean the Rangers are only better than expansion teams. Especially since that was obviously a joke.

I'm not sure if I can explain that any simpler without using crayons.

 

[JohnC]

Speak for yourselves old people. I'm 19 and fully expect at least one cup in my lifetime

 

[aufheben]

Are you old enough to know who Bill Parcells is? In sports your record is what matters. 15th and 16th. That says it all.

If the Rangers somehow miss the playoffs because of their record, you should try e-mailing Gary Bettman and Bill Daley as soon as the season ends. Point out to them that their evaluation is useless without context, and might be exaggerated as to negative and positive effect.

They'll make the same face everyone else is making as we read your semantics.

You are your record. That is Sather's record. Period.

I tend to agree with this.