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

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Some people are emphasizing negatives. So those people are NOT going based on your criteria that your record says what you are because they look with such a negative scope that they are no longer basing their opinions on reality or record. So literally my argument is that the semantics used by everyone to create this unrealistic picture of Sather's tenure is stupid. I've shown how stupid it is by showing how easy it is to counter the negative semantics with positives. You pointing out that it's semantics doesn't do anything but strengthen my point so thanks

I'm challenging folks to justify acting so dramatic about it and I'm getting very insubstantial reasons. If you look back you notice a lot of what I'm doing is simply playing devils advocate and challenging people to justify their stances in the face of positive semantics. People want to defend their position here using negative semantics without giving an inch. I was in the mood to challenge them.

It's important to note that we are talking about building a team for years and years which requires looking at more than simply the record. Way too much luck is involved. Looking at a record without context is lazy. You can get mad and make sarcastic quips about Bettman but it shows your ignorance and nothing more since we aren't talking about an individual season so your analogy doesn't apply much.

A team's best players get hurt and they lose in the first round after dominating the regular season. Hard to lay the blame at the coach or GM's feet when a freak injury or two removes more than one star player. Point is that context is important with so many variables at play whether you are able to admit it or not.

If you want to evaluate each individual team's regular season performance and nothing more than yes the famous parcells quote would make sense and so would your analogy. You keep referencing things involving age and youth in an insulting way btw. You said you wanted to avoid that kind of talk but keep going back to it.

Has he been good enough to keep his job? I don't think so and I've said this before. But this doesn't mean it's been nearly as horrible as some assert. There has been a lot more positive than they admit to as well. Or they minimize the positive so much that they are no longer representing reality.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Say one thing and it gets twisted as much as possible to support the woe is me crowd. Then you have to explain something that should be very easy to get. I think we have a bunch of smarties on the board and I think they get it but they can't admit it. Part of it seems to come from a need for some folks to feel superior. There's a ton of condescension that comes out and usually it isn't warranted. One of the first things I got hit with when I started posting here was that my post count was too low to have an opinion on hockey. That way of thinking permeates this place

 

[Captain Monglobster]

This thread got pretty convoluted. Sather has been here since 2000. We have made the conference finals once, and have not made the finals at all. Talk about drafting, injuries, and luck all you want - if the goal is to win the Cup every year, 0 - 14 with no real shot in sight is a pretty bad body of work to show for yourself after 14 years on the job. That's more than halfway to retirement with nothing to show for his career if he was a city worker.

 

[BBKers]

This thread got pretty convoluted. Sather has been here since 2000. We have made the conference finals once, and have not made the finals at all. Talk about drafting, injuries, and luck all you want - if the goal is to win the Cup every year, 0 - 14 with no real shot in sight is a pretty bad body of work to show for yourself after 14 years on the job. That's more than halfway to retirement with nothing to show for his career if he was a city worker.

Replace "city" with a manure like word that rhymes. There ya got the ole geezer

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

This thread got pretty convoluted. Sather has been here since 2000. We have made the conference finals once, and have not made the finals at all. Talk about drafting, injuries, and luck all you want - if the goal is to win the Cup every year, 0 - 14 with no real shot in sight is a pretty bad body of work to show for yourself after 14 years on the job. That's more than halfway to retirement with nothing to show for his career if he was a city worker.

The reason why I talk about injuries, luck, etc is just to bring up how I don't think it's been as bad as people say. Again should he have kept this job the whole time? No. Too many errors that were big. But the errors weren't AS big as some seem to think. Or hey, I left open the possibility that maybe they were, I just questioned why people might think that they were. All I know is no one was able to show it without relying on semantics and opinion formed through bias. It isn't like it makes you a bad person to form your own opinion based on your individual perspective and observation. But it does leave room for potential inaccuracies in the way you interpret the final results and I just felt like having a bit of fun getting people to explain in some sort of concrete manner why they felt as they do. It's widely accepted that Sather should have been canned already, it's boring to read it over and over. I noticed the exaggeration and inconsistencies in bits of that stance I simply had to stir the sh**. I'm sure I pissed a lot of folks off who think I'm a complete ******* but whatever it's boring seeing everyone pat each other on the back all the time for saying Sather sucks.

I also don't think the goal has to be to win the cup or else it's a complete failure. After a certain number of years without a cup yea then you can say it (it's been long enough for Sather). But there should be other things taken into consideration when evaluating a franchise and the job done by those in charge. You look at the whole sample size and it's not good enough. Look at quite a few select sections and it hasn't been all that bad, in fact it's been good in certain samples.

Let's say we hired a new GM back in 2007 and everything unfolded exactly the same in the seven years since then. How would we feel about that GM? I just have a hard time believing we'd throw rallies to get him canned and whatnot based on 2007-now but some still have that mindset as if the pre lockout stuff is all that there ever was.

Sather's tenure. Not good enough but had its good times

 

[charliemurphy]

Say one thing and it gets twisted as much as possible to support the woe is me crowd. Then you have to explain something that should be very easy to get. I think we have a bunch of smarties on the board and I think they get it but they can't admit it. Part of it seems to come from a need for some folks to feel superior. There's a ton of condescension that comes out and usually it isn't warranted. One of the first things I got hit with when I started posting here was that my post count was too low to have an opinion on hockey. That way of thinking permeates this place

Number of posts means absolutely nothing.
I'm all for posting the age of the poster under their username so this way a reader can get a sense of where that poster is coming from. I think it would go a long way in avoiding any misunderstandings.
I don't think the condescension or the woe is me crowd will ever go away. I remember first posting around here and can bet anything that same woe is me crowd were the same ones going crazy when we had players like Balej and Kondratiev and ready to name Jed Ortmeyer as the next captain.

 

[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.

Well, we now have the 16th best record in the league by winning percentage, so we seem to be holding to the Sather pattern quite nicely.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Well, we now have the 16th best record in the league by winning percentage, so we seem to be holding to the Sather pattern quite nicely.

Yeah, but the 16th best record still gets you in the playoffs!

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

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.

How often do I watch MSG and contribute to ratings? I have no idea how to measure how much I contribute to ratings. I watch 98% of the games. Of that 98%, I DVR them because I can't make a 7PM start between working, commuting and spendinga bit of time wih my daughter before putting her to bed.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

 

[Jersey Girl]

How often do I watch MSG and contribute to ratings? I have no idea how to measure how much I contribute to ratings. I watch 98% of the games. Of that 98%, I DVR them because I can't make a 7PM start between work, commuting and spend a bit of time wih my daughter before putting her to bed.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

It has to do with this person deflecting the conversation away from Sather's record, and onto things like who is contributing to ratings and who isn't.

 

[Off Sides]

The only way to defend what they have done since Sather has been here is to talk about luck and the Rangers being in a poor position compared to other teams? Like they did not make the choices to get to where they are.

There are two factors in my mind,

One, an ownership issue. The money, any possible way they can create more revenue, profit, franchise value, it's always considered and usually that road is taken. It's a business, it's understandable to a point if one is willing to admit the primary motivation is not winning.

Two, a GM issue. The Rangers even with that money factor still have made lot's of poor choices on who to put on the roster to both generate that money and also truly contend.

I also believe any new GM will do things in a similar manner. The best I can hope for is at least the next one will pick better players to spend money on and maybe pass up a past their prime marketable player here and there.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I also believe any new GM will do things in a similar manner. The best I can hope for is at least the next one will pick better players to spend money on and maybe pass up a past their prime marketable player here and there.

I think that's a bit of a cop out. The new GM could be better at player evaluation. The new GM could draft better (their record with 1st round picks isn't stellar). The new GM could instill an organizational philosophy and then make personnel and coaching moves around that philosophy.

I don't think anyone is against spending money. But spend it with a purpose.

The owner wants to make money. Money comes from more games played. More games played means the team is playing deep into the playoffs. The owner has done what you want from an owner (other than fire this GM) and that's open the wallet and give the team the resources to win. The GM needs to build the team that wins.

 

[True Blue]

I tend to agree with this.

I have no idea of how anyone cannot agree with it. Facts are facts.

 

[McRanger]

Well, we now have the 16th best record in the league by winning percentage, so we seem to be holding to the Sather pattern quite nicely.

I think they are a fair bit better than 16th, but you have to marvel at their consistency.

Even their on-ice inconsistency is consistent.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I think they are a fair bit better than 16th, but you have to marvel at their consistency.

Even their on-ice inconsistency is consistent.

We are exactly 16th in winning percentage. Not in points, but in winning percentage. Just behind Columbus and Philadelphia, and just ahead of Detroit and Phoenix.

 

[McRanger]

We are exactly 16th in winning percentage. Not in points, but in winning percentage. Just behind Columbus and Philadelphia, and just ahead of Detroit and Phoenix.

I don't doubt it.

I just think the team will finish closer to it's post '05-'06 record of 9th-11th. That's where they've been trending. They're 11th in winning percentage since November. 9th in winning percentage in 2014.

 

[True Blue]

We are exactly 16th in winning percentage. Not in points, but in winning percentage. Just behind Columbus and Philadelphia, and just ahead of Detroit and Phoenix.

And even that gets skewed in terms of being a successful organization. Consider that in that time, the Devils have won 2 Cups. As have the Red Wings, who we are just ahead of. Expansion teams like Tampa, Anaheim and Carolina have won one each. And Carolina managed to appear in another finals. Our rival Pittsburgh has one. Original 6 teams like Boston and Chicago won. The Flyers managed to make an appearance. They did not win, but they were there. Heck, Edmonton managed to make an appearance as well.

This is all since 2000. You know where we compare favorably to other organizations.

 

[Ruggs225]

And even that gets skewed in terms of being a successful organization. Consider that in that time, the Devils have won 2 Cups. As have the Red Wings, who we are just ahead of. Expansion teams like Tampa, Anaheim and Carolina have won one each. And Carolina managed to appear in another finals. Our rival Pittsburgh has one. Original 6 teams like Boston and Chicago won. The Flyers managed to make an appearance. They did not win, but they were there. Heck, Edmonton managed to make an appearance as well.

This is all since 2000. You know where we compare favorably to other organizations.

Since when is Carolina an expansion team. That franchise has been in the NHL since 1979.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I don't doubt it.

I just think the team will finish closer to it's post '05-'06 record of 9th-11th. That's where they've been trending. They're 11th in winning percentage since November. 9th in winning percentage in 2014.

Hopefully. We did just sacrifice some of the future for right now, so hopefully that pays off right now.

 

[McRanger]

And even that gets skewed in terms of being a successful organization. Consider that in that time, the Devils have won 2 Cups. As have the Red Wings, who we are just ahead of. Expansion teams like Tampa, Anaheim and Carolina have won one each. And Carolina managed to appear in another finals. Our rival Pittsburgh has one. Original 6 teams like Boston and Chicago won. The Flyers managed to make an appearance. They did not win, but they were there. Heck, Edmonton managed to make an appearance as well.

This is all since 2000. You know where we compare favorably to other organizations.

All of those teams are ahead of the Rangers in both playoff games played and series wins. Since 2001.

Except Edmonton. Edmonton and Calgary both made cup finals, but it was the only playoffs they gotten out of the first round. Combined they've missed 16 out of the 24 years of the playoffs.

 

[ThisYearsModel]

Sather's reign has been a train wreck, plain and simple. Look at the years, and look at the number of playoff series' won. How can anyone argue that he has done a good job?

 

[True Blue]

Since when is Carolina an expansion team. That franchise has been in the NHL since 1979.

My mistake. However, that does not make the Rangers appear to be the superior organization.

 

[True Blue]

Except Edmonton. Edmonton and Calgary both made cup finals, but it was the only playoffs they gotten out of the first round. Combined they've missed 16 out of the 24 years of the playoffs.

That just makes it seem the Rangers organization even fails the "blind squirrel" argument.

 

[True Blue]

Sather's reign has been a train wreck, plain and simple. Look at the years, and look at the number of playoff series' won. How can anyone argue that he has done a good job?

And again, this is not just about Sather. This is just more of the same that has come to be the norm for this organization. However, Sather's blatant incompetence since he took over has taken this organization to new heights of mediocrity.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It has to do with this person deflecting the conversation away from Sather's record, and onto things like who is contributing to ratings and who isn't.

Incorrect it should be very obvious.why I asked that. You should not keep making inferences bc u have been wrong almost every time