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

[Ian]

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 assets primed to step in. 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 former model. We went for the latter. 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...

Stepan - 23
Kreider - 22
Hagelin - 25
MZA - 26
MCD - 24
Staal - 27

Fast - 22
Miller - 20
Lindberg - 22
MCI - 21

Looks like there's a decent pipeline there

 

[Ruggs225]

I hate to break it to all the doom and gloomers, but in the NHL there will always be at least 1 team who has not won a cup in 30 years. If we go to 32 teams than it goes back to at least one team not winning a cup in 32 years. That's just simple math.

Winning a cup (or any championship) is extremely hard. It is actually harder to win a conference championship now than a cup in the early 1970's and just as hard by the late 70's... it is almost as hard to win a conference championship now than it was to win the cup until 1990's expansion.

While aiming for the cup every year is the ultimate goal, the math is against every team of actually winning it. That's just the way it is.

So sit back, enjoy the fantastic sport of hockey and root for the Rangers to win. But they probably won't in any given year, because almost every team doesn't. You have to be lucky as much (and if not more) than good these days.

And by luck, I mean which division you are in, who you play in the playoffs, who beats who in the playoffs and other stuff out of your control.

 

[Thirty One]

Pittsburgh and Boston.

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

And what would you rank their chances of making the Stanley Cup Finals?

 

[sickboy35]

I think the thing that got me the was the fact that there were 2 trades according to Sather and he did what he is known for, like someone said earlier, "Instant gratification" we dont know what that deal was but if it were picks n a prospect u have to take the painstaking step of resisting getting a St.Louis and take the picks and retool for next year and beyond, this team is the softest i think i have seen, if ur getting a St.Louis u better also get a McGratton because no one on this team is scaring anyone, The team we went with to ECF was almost the perfect team for me a mix of everything scoring, grit some speed, shot blocking etc. he has not replaced any of the grit at all, and some will say Dorcett and Carcillo? no they dont scare anyone, hell Prust didnt either but he still was way tougher n more useful on this team then those 2, trading Callahan i really didnt have a problem with its lets go for it and screw what we can be in 2 to five years and make a few more dollars by squeaking in to the playoffs? it still is status quo at MSG, and that needs to somehow be stopped, he has done a few things right this season though Hank, Girardi and McDonagh all signed long term, DelZotto being traded all were good moves n steps to move in to the future with our "core" still intact, Cally wanted way too much money n length also with NMC? sorry got to go son. To do what he did yesterday made us a better team right now but he sacrificed our teams future for it and that is unacceptable, I will root for them because thats what we do, but to be a bubble team and go for it? it is not happening theis year or the next so, Artie has just as many goals as Nash, Columbus got out #1 and Dubinsky and they are tied with us we lose these trades more than win them when we "go for it" im tired of it. do whats right for the team not for your personal interest Sather!

 

[Off Sides]

I hate to break it to all the doom and gloomers, but in the NHL there will always be at least 1 team who has not won a cup in 30 years. If we go to 32 teams than it goes back to at least one team not winning a cup in 32 years. That's just simple math.

Winning a cup (or any championship) is extremely hard. It is actually harder to win a conference championship now than a cup in the early 1970's and just as hard by the late 70's... it is almost as hard to win a conference championship now than it was to win the cup until 1990's expansion.

While aiming for the cup every year is the ultimate goal, the math is against every team of actually winning it. That's just the way it is.

Which goes back to building a team who can compete for cups for as many years in a row as possible, which is sort of the opposite of what they did.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

And what would you rank their chances of making the Stanley Cup Finals?

Ill leave that up to a mathematician like you.

At best, I think the St. Louis addition allowed the Rangers to go from extremely unlikely to very unlikely.

 

[Ian]

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

And trading Callahan for 2 2nds would make them more of one?

I understand this thread and point is more over some hypothetical direction people wish the Rangers were in, but if you're judging this trade in a vacuum then reverse that logic.

 

[Thirty One]

Ill leave that up to a mathematician like you.

At best, I think the St. Louis addition allowed the Rangers to go from extremely unlikely to very unlikely.

I meant Boston and Pittsburgh.

 

[slipknottin]

And trading Callahan for 2 2nds would make them more of one?

I understand this thread and point is more over some hypothetical direction people wish the Rangers were in, but if you're judging this trade in a vacuum then reverse that logic.

It does for the future. You get a good young player who can stick around for 10 years with one of those picks perhaps.

Keep drafting well and you have an unlimited supply of good young players to keep your team competitive year after year.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I meant Boston and Pittsburgh.

I think its very likely one of them makes it to the finals.

 

[Ruggs225]

Which goes back to building a team who can compete for cups for as many years in a row as possible, which is sort of the opposite of what they did.

Not really. Look at it this way. We have the best goalie in the NHL. Go for it now.... when he fades that is when you will NEED to rebuild and will probably be forced to anyway.

Right now the team should be in win now mode because we have players like Nash, Lundqvist, Girardi, Richards etc.

In 4 or 5 years we will be starting a rebuild because we then be forced to. Lundy will be getting older, McD will be over 30, Staal will be over 30, Stepan, MZe etc will probably be past their true prime.

And while I am still don't like giving up two potential first round picks, for MSL it probably was the right choice for how this team is made up now.


The only think I could think of is if we guaranteed 2 first round picks for MSL and then swung a deal with SJ for Cally to get some prospects or picks back. Though I don't know if TB would do that (probably not)

 

[haveandare]

And thats fine. If thats their vision and what they've been setting out to accomplish. Like I said, if he came out and said "We want to win now, because Hank is getting older, the makeup of our team, the makeup of our current prospects, etc." then fine - i could live with that. It shows me they have made an organizational decision with goals and a clear cut plan attached.

But according to Sather in the press conference they were considering both options but MSL trade was better. So they are walking down a road and choosing their direction as they go. Its scary. Trade one hole and open another. Sign one player at the expense of retaining another. Back and forth we go.

If he said that it would all make it okay? Is it not obvious that is the plan regardless of what he says? Hank is getting older. The team is currently leaning on a defensive surplus that is unsustainable with McD, Girardi and Staal all at once.

 

[Ian]

It does for the future. You get a good young player who can stick around for 10 years with one of those picks perhaps.

Keep drafting well and you have an unlimited supply of good young players to keep your team competitive year after year.

Forget the Rangers in this equation, but do you know how likely it is to produce a player that plays >500+ NHL games in the back end of the 1st round, let alone the 2nd?

Like I said earlier, MSL guarantees nothing either, but I hope you're playing the lotto every day if you like those odds.

At a certain point, you have to take a risk in acquiring something you wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. Yes, there's a chance that one of the 1st round picks could turn out better than MSL, but I'd bank more on getting 3 1/2 very good years out of him more than that.

 

[Bluenote13]

Forget the Rangers in this equation, but do you know how likely it is to produce a player that plays >500+ NHL games in the back end of the 1st round, let alone the 2nd?

Like I said earlier, MSL guarantees nothing either, but I hope you're playing the lotto every day if you like those odds.

At a certain point, you have to take a risk in acquiring something you wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. Yes, there's a chance that one of the 1st round picks could turn out better than MSL, but I'd bank more on getting 3 1/2 very good years out of him more than that.

Yeah, drafting legitimate top line Centers and Dmen are just like 1 and 175 million odds

 

[Off Sides]

Not really. Look at it this way. We have the best goalie in the NHL. Go for it now.... when he fades that is when you will NEED to rebuild and will probably be forced to anyway.

Right now the team should be in win now mode because we have players like Nash, Lundqvist, Girardi, Richards etc.

In 4 or 5 years we will be starting a rebuild because we then be forced to. Lundy will be getting older, McD will be over 30, Staal will be over 30, Stepan, MZe etc will probably be past their true prime.

And while I am still don't like giving up two potential first round picks, for MSL it probably was the right choice for how this team is made up now.


The only think I could think of is if we guaranteed 2 first round picks for MSL and then swung a deal with SJ for Cally to get some prospects or picks back. Though I don't know if TB would do that (probably not)

I just don't see any go for it now ending in anything other than what it already has.

I don't see any window, or rebuild after the supposed window.

In 4 - 5 years I see pretty much the same organization as Sather had when he came here 14 years ago. From there I see the next GM doing the near the exact same thing Sather did.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Forget the Rangers in this equation, but do you know how likely it is to produce a player that plays >500+ NHL games in the back end of the 1st round, let alone the 2nd?

Like I said earlier, MSL guarantees nothing either, but I hope you're playing the lotto every day if you like those odds.

At a certain point, you have to take a risk in acquiring something you wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. Yes, there's a chance that one of the 1st round picks could turn out better than MSL, but I'd bank more on getting 3 1/2 very good years out of him more than that.

How do the odds change if you potentially have one 1st in 4 years? And 28th overall to boot.

I understand your point, but it actually magnifies the importance of keeping most of your picks unless you are getting a long term core piece back. Any one individually is risky - but when we are talking over 5 years you should get 2 impact players (at least) out of the first round.

Draft picks don't always work out. But the top teams in the NHL have hit on their key picks. They have homegrown talent. If you want to be a consistent contender you have to hit on your picks. You shouldn't throw them away because they "aren't a guarentee." Not having picks and whiffing on picks are both recipes for failure. Unless you are trading top picks for young impact talent (Seguin, for example) instead of quick fixes.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

And trading Callahan for 2 2nds would make them more of one?

I understand this thread and point is more over some hypothetical direction people wish the Rangers were in, but if you're judging this trade in a vacuum then reverse that logic.

Not now. But possibly in the future, yes. At the very least, the two 2nds give the Rangers more flexibility and more assets.

 

[TomLaidlaw]

I think this front office has severe lack of appreciation for the importance of continuity and chemistry when building a hockey team. Teams that are constantly turning over chunks of their roster from year to year normally don't have sustained success.

There is one other important thing to keep in mind here. Yesterdays trade pretty much had to happen because they had gotten all the way down to Derek Dorsett on "Beginnings". Needed some new players to profile.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

Callahan wasn't going to resign. Sather didn't trade him out of the blue, we knew this was a possibility.

So the issue is the return? It's hard not to think this after the dark ages of trying to grab every aging superstar out there, but look what some of these others rentals got. What did Vanek get? Would we rather have a return like that?

Sather thinks we can win now and in the past we didn't have a goalie like Hank and a group of D men like we do now.

Yes, we acquired another aging superstar, but this move isn't something that I think set us back. We're a young team as it is. Sometimes adding a 38 year old, Cup winning, point per game player isn't a bad thing.

But given our past it's literally impossible to argue, because I can't blame anyone for thinking that way.

 

[Ian]

How do the odds change if you potentially have one 1st in 4 years? And 28th overall to boot.

I understand your point, but it actually magnifies the importance of keeping most of your picks unless you are getting a long term core piece back. Any one individually is risky - but when we are talking over 5 years you should get 2 impact players (at least) out of the first round.

Draft picks don't always work out. But the top teams in the NHL have hit on their key picks. They have homegrown talent. If you want to be a consistent contender you have to hit on your picks. You shouldn't throw them away because they "aren't a guarentee." Not having picks and whiffing on picks are both recipes for failure. Unless you are trading top picks for young impact talent (Seguin, for example) instead of quick fixes.

See, this is agree with. Which is why I'm not 100% behind this trade in general. MSL's age is worrisome, but I think with his level of health, overall track record and success of some recent guys at advanced ages/style of play, I think he has at least 3 very good years left, which I think is fine. But I get why people are concerned there.

At the same time though, I feel that at some point the Rangers were going to need to make an additional risk move to gain a top end player. They've have a had hard time hitting in the draft, and there's no way they were going to progress from "semi-contender" to legitimate contender without adding at least 1 elite player.

Unless the Rangers were going to do something else with Nash/Henrik/Girardi then have them play out their contracts/resign them, I think this was perhaps the best current move to be made.

Obviously time will tell on that.

 

[Bluenote13]

Yes, we acquired another aging superstar, but this move isn't something that I think set us back. We're a young team as it is. Sometimes adding a 38 year old, Cup winning, point per game player isn't a bad thing.

.

Brad F'ing Richards, the proof is right in front of your face.

And he was years younger than Marty St Louis !

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think this front office has severe lack of appreciation for the importance of continuity and chemistry when building a hockey team. Teams that are constantly turning over chunks of their roster from year to year normally don't have sustained success.

There is one other important thing to keep in mind here. Yesterdays trade pretty much had to happen because they had gotten all the way down to Derek Dorsett on "Beginnings". Needed some new players to profile.

Very well put.

Look at the '10-11 to '11-12 teams. That core stayed pretty constant...I believe Richards was the only big addition. And wouldn't you know it - out came the best season in 20 years.

 

[Ruggs225]

I just don't see any go for it now ending in anything other than what it already has.

I don't see any window, or rebuild after the supposed window.

In 4 - 5 years I see pretty much the same organization as Sather had when he came here 14 years ago. From there I see the next GM doing the near the exact same thing Sather did.

And that's called a cycle. It happens. Look at Pitt, Chi, and Bos... all three were terrible at before they were good, and one day they will be terrible again.

We have been a good team for the last 8 years about. We will probably be good for another 5 or 6 years... then we start all over again.

But why sell this group short for the unknown, and draft picks who might never play in the NHL. Again, a teams chances of winning the Stanley Cup are very small to begin with. Even the best teams odds aren't great. There is a better chance of Chicago losing or not even making the SC championship than winning it. Same goes for every team.

In a Salary Cap world, you have to be lucky more so than good. Lucky to lose in the right years to get great players and lucky to have get the right match-ups in the playoffs. Then you have to be good enough to take advantage of the luck.

All I know is that I would rather watch my team make the playoffs year after year, than be like the Isles, BJs or Edm who can stockpile top picks every year and still be awful.

Top picks guarantee nothing!

 

[Killem Dafoe]

Brad F'ing Richards, the proof is right in front of your face.

And he was years younger than Marty St Louis !

Yup, and when we signed him i said, "He won't be like the rest of these aging stars. This guy still has it." Like i said, I can't argue with you, but what other option would have been better for us right now? Getting a 2nd and a prospect? Sure, in the long run.

Look, I'm all for grabbing picks and it sucks not having a 1st, and in a year this might just bite us if we suck and Tampa gets to choose in the top 10 on a deep draft. Right now I can only sit back, look at what we have, and try to stay positive. I think MSL helps this group. Makes us a contender? Well I don't think any move would have done that.

 

[Ian]

Yeah, drafting legitimate top line Centers and Dmen are just like 1 and 175 million odds

How many, in your mind, current legitimate top line centers were drafted outside of the top 10 picks, or wasn't a product of the 2003 draft?

Kopitar? 11th pick
Datsyuk - '98 draft
Giroux - 22nd pick

I'm being a bit facetious with those odds, but not by a lot.