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

[McRanger]

The board wasn't this excited when we were in the conference finals.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Dramatic much?

There is no blueprint to winning a cup.

Winning the cup is about a bunch of intangibles that all have to strike right for the team to win it.

Some of those intangibles can be controlled, like a team that catches fire at the right time. A team that is unwilling to quit and sacrifice anything to tie it up. A team that doesn't deviate from what makes them successful.

There has been a plan since the 04 lockout. To some extent it has been successful, as we went to perennial playoff contenders. To some extent it hasn't as we can't get over that hump and win a cup, or even get into the round for that.

The problem is, as everyone says, a lack of a plan.

Sather can't commit to a certain group of players for longer than a season... And that's where the problem lies. Does stockpiling draft picks help? Maybe. Or maybe just a GM who knows when to stop being trigger happy.

 

[Off Sides]

I am still confused why a new GM changes anything. At the first glimpse of the numbers not trending the same as they were before, that guy is fired.

The mandate given to the GM is not to build a contender and win championships, it's to make the owner's asset more valuable and profitable both short and long term.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

I'm just done wasting time being angry over it.

This is the MSG mentality, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

Also, I don't have a problem with the deal. MSL is elite, and we're in win now mode anyway with Hank. By the time that 1st made it to the NHL Hank will be at the end of his career.

 

[True Blue]

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

What has the track record been in the last 75 years?

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I am still confused why a new GM changes anything. At the first glimpse of the numbers not trending the same as they were before, that guy is fired.

The mandate given to the GM is not to build a contender and win championships, it's to make the owner's asset more valuable and profitable both short and long term.

Why can't the mandate be both? Someone find that taco girl gif... cf. the Red Wings.

 

[Ian]

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

Just because you are getting rid of something, doesn't mean you can't take that opportunity to get something better you wouldn't have otherwise.

Moulson essentially netted 2 2nds, which is probably the same thing Callahan would have gotten. What does that really add to this team long term? What guarantee does that bring to future success? We've seen how draft picks are easily squandered by all teams, including the Rangers, so what ultimately would have been the result of having those extra choices? The flexibility to make other trades for players likely of lesser quality than MSL?

Obviously acquiring a player(MSL) instead doesn't guarantee anything either, but the idea that this trade is some crippling, set the franchise back another 10 years type move is beyond ridiculous.

 

[True Blue]

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.

If, if, IF. ALWAYS IF. IF things break right. IF all goes well. IF XYZ does XYZ. When are we going to start not planning on catching all of the breaks. Or hoping that player like Nash starts to become a completely different player than he has been his entire career?

Will we be the favorites? Absolutely not. But can we win? Hell yeah. Every team has holes in it.

Were the Rangers a "one player away" team?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

It isn't hard to say "How often can you acquire player X...blah blah blah" They're putting in minimal effort. If I were to actually watch all the hype machine pre game/post game drivel that gets put on I'd be bitter and disgusted too. If I continued to contribute at all to MSG's bottom line via merchandise, ticket sales or ratings I'd be more disgusted. When the PO's roll around due to my awful schedule I may have to do something disgusting and add MSG + DVR to my cable so I can actually catch the games. Actually now that I think about it the games aren't every day in the PO's and MSg only shows the first round so **** it I just have to get DVR.

I wonder how many of the disgusted fans continue to contribute to the bottom line though?

Some schill delivering a cliche line about acquiring player X doesn't stop or cause Sather doing a **** job. Sather being left in office and the fans continuing to buy into the product does.

 

[Ian]

What has the track record been in the last 75 years?

The ups and downs of being a typical sports franchise?

 

[Thirty One]

Were the Rangers a "one player away" team?

One player away from what?

He gives them a significantly better shot at making some noise in the playoffs for the next two springs at least, and hopefully more than that.

 

[Off Sides]

Why can't the mandate be both? Someone find that taco girl gif... cf. the Red Wings.

It could be but how do they accomplish both goals at the same time?

They trade Callahan for draft picks, it takes years for them to show any return on investment if any at all, so short term that move does little for them.

Long term that may or may not work out to increase the franchise value at all. Does the viewership on a rebuild support raising sponsorship rates? Does it sell the suites? Sky bridges?

The only way to really build a contender is through making all the right long term and short term moves, it's much safer and easier just to say here is MSL, Nash, Richards, buy them up.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I just don't see the point of watching sports if you're going to be so damn negative about it. This team is frustrating as ****. I agree. But damn, the negativity is brutal. I would stay in the "We are legitimate contenders" thread but you Negative Nancys have ventured over there as well.

 

[slipknottin]

Just because you are getting rid of something, doesn't mean you can't take that opportunity to get something better you wouldn't have otherwise.

Moulson essentially netted 2 2nds, which is probably the same thing Callahan would have gotten. What does that really add to this team long term? What guarantee does that bring to future success? We've seen how draft picks are easily squandered by all teams, including the Rangers, so what ultimately would have been the result of having those extra choices? The flexibility to make other trades for players likely of lesser quality than MSL?

Obviously acquiring a player(MSL) instead doesn't guarantee anything either, but the idea that this trade is some crippling, set the franchise back another 10 years type move is beyond ridiculous.

If cally could have brought back 2 2nds,

You are fine with trading 3 2nds and a first. (Or potentially 2 2nds and 2 1sts) for a 38 year old winger?

 

[True Blue]

The ups and downs of being a typical sports franchise?

A typical sports franchise does not have one shiny Cup to show for it in 75 years. Sprinkled in a few FInals appearances and a handful of conference finals.

This is not a typical NHL franchise. This is one of the least successful sports franchises in sports history. And among the least successful ones in the NHL.

 

[OverTheCap]

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

You jinxed it

 

[True Blue]

One player away from what?

One player away from being a Cup contender.

 

[Thirty One]

One player away from being a Cup contender.

Who are the Cup contenders in the East, in your opinion?

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

There is a blueprint to winning in the current NHL and it's really very simple: Tank, draft generational talent , profit. Since 2009, The Penguins and Blackhawks have won a combined 3 out of a potential 5 cups. It's not really a secret why.


The Rangers will never, ever, follow that blueprint and this move supports that. We should have traded Callahan FOR draft picks, instead of giving up extremely valuable picks PLUS Callahan for a 38 year old, regardless of how good he might be in the present

 

[Ian]

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).

It also gives this team another 1st line player, a dangerous PP weapon, more cap flexibility, further balance to the lines and a significant (hopefully) statistical boost to the current players on the team.

 

[Ian]

If cally could have brought back 2 2nds,

You are fine with trading 3 2nds and a first. (Or potentially 2 2nds and 2 1sts) for a 38 year old winger?

What does the team look like without Callahan and where does his allotted money go?

I'm not convinced that adding Chris Stewart to this team does anything to improve it, nor do I think the players will be there for acquisitions/FA signings this summer to fill that gap either.

I'm not 100% pleased with the trade, but again, I don't think it's a end-the-franchise type of move it's being portrayed as.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Who are the Cup contenders in the East, in your opinion?

Pittsburgh and Boston.

I think the Rangers are in a 2nd tier of teams. I think they were there before the trade too.

 

[Ian]

A typical sports franchise does not have one shiny Cup to show for it in 75 years. Sprinkled in a few FInals appearances and a handful of conference finals.

This is not a typical NHL franchise. This is one of the least successful sports franchises in sports history. And among the least successful ones in the NHL.

The Rangers aren't even in the realm of the top 15 least successful NHL teams, let alone all of sports.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Can we please lose the "Hank's window" excuse? Before that it was Jagr's and before that Leetch's and before that Messier's. It's ALWAYS some good player's window coming to a close. When Hank's is over, McDonagh will be next.

There are two ways to address it - perpetually plugging holes with older players whose best years were elsewhere. And building a system that always has new players primed to step in as the old ones fade off into the sunset (or, you know, get traded to a team like the Rangers). The latter tends to win a lot more than the former.

This was a pivotal moment. We had a chance to stick our stake in the ground for the latter model. We went for the former. It feels a lot like 1997 to me. I sincerely hope we're not about to go on a similar 7-year run like the one that followed that...

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

It also gives this team another 1st line player, a dangerous PP weapon, more cap flexibility, further balance to the lines and a significant (hopefully) statistical boost to the current players on the team.

And yet, they're still not a contender....