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

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Good post TB. Although i don't agree with all of it, the points you are making are valid.

I take issue with comparing the trades from yesterday from the trades in the past. The Rangers situation in the standings a lot different than when they made those "go for it" trades in the early 2000's. We traded for Bure when we were 7 points out of playoff spot. The Rangers also have a good coach who has a system. They have better support players, a better farm system. Smarter men running the draft. This isn't all doom and gloom. St. Louis fills a need. The team has scoring issues. On paper the Rangers have 3 solid, balanced lines.

Look, should Sather be the guy running the show? Of course not. Did Sather have to include the draft picks? Based on Yzerman's press conferance yesterday I'd say no, Sather could've held firm with Callahan and a 2nd round pick.

I don't think things are as bad as they seem. I really don't. I don't think the Rangers are going to go on some magical run this years but they have a core group to build around.

I don't think it's right to say Gretzky will be the new GM and even if that's the case who knows if he will be good or bad. Right off the bat we are going to be skeptical. Not that that's wrong but how can we crap on moves the team didn't even make yet?

Lets see how this plays out before we write the obituary....

 

[Ail]

Couldnt agree more.

In 1994, Neil Smith had a 54 year drought hanging over his head. He also had a core involving Messier, Leetch, Graves, and Richter. THATS a reason to go for it.

Nowadays, the fanbase finds any friggin excuse to beat the drum of going for it all right now. I love Lundqvist, but he cant be the reason this team haphazardly throws rosters together in a futile attempt to win immediately. It hasn't worked, and it wont work. The rest of the roster just isn't strong enough for it.

Not to mention there is life after Lundqvist. Fortunately in recent times teams have proven you don't need the best goalie to win, just one who outplays the other 4 along the way.

This team is still young at the core, the Lundqvist prime argument is a bad one.

The only saving grace is that MSL could very well have another 3 pretty good years in him. I think this team can be good enough to win while he's here with a few smart moves. Consider it a silver lining however to risking the future for what might be one shot at a 'Cup in the forseeable future.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Not defending Sather at all.

BUT...

Does Dolan have any input here?

Sure. He should have fired him after the Trottier/Sather as coach and GM fiasco.

 

[McRanger]

No, that's called cherry picking. This is adjusting for a statistical anomaly, with arguably the greatest draft year of all time.

But even if you want to whine about it and miss the point, feel free to add it.

So let's add Getzlaf, Bergeron, Richards and Kesler (with the last two being extremely generous).

So that's 7 1st line centers outside of the top 10 picks drafted in the past 16 years, unless you'd like me to add any players to that.

Your reasoning is unwelcome here. You are ruining the sweet meltdown vibe.

 

[Ruggs225]

That much I agree on, I find this team more entertaining to watch than many of the previous generations.

As far as winning now or in the future, gonna still have to disagree on that one but no reason to try to sway each others opinion, time will tell.

Oh, I don't think we will win the cup, but I still think the next 3-5 years is our best shot and then we need a full rebuild.

But then again, I try to look at it realistically in which I basically know that my team won't win a championship b/c the math is just against it. That and my other favorite teams being the Mets and Jets don't help the optimism at all.

 

[Ian]

You really think Edm, Cal, NYI, FLA are similar organizations to LA, CHI, PIT, BOS, NYR ? Look at the whole picture, not just the records. Those teams have had no choice to gain picks for a reason, and they still ALL have better looking prospects going forward.

The Rangers along with those major cities have no trouble with cap space and getting players to sign on, can you see the difference between those perennial bottom feeders and the ones I mentioned ?

The point was that having more draft picks guarantees nothing, as I'm sure you know.

The fact that you're highlighting CHI/PIT/LAK is a good point though, how many 1st round picks do you think those teams have traded in recent years to get the players that would supplement their core?

 

[pld459666]

The reason why the Rangers haven't won a cup is due to a lack of talent. The Rangers just went out and got one of the most talented players in the league. I don't see the problem.

No #1 center.

No PMD

Small players, and big men that play a small mans game.

 

[pld459666]

Sure. He should have fired him after the Trottier/Sather as coach and GM fiasco.

agree 100%

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

can anyone tell me what the Sharks were rumored to have offered?

I don't remember reading of their interest at all.

some help?

I don't think the offer's been leaked - and I don't think I want to know what it was either.

 

[Bluenote13]

The point was that having more draft picks guarantees nothing, as I'm sure you know.

The fact that you're highlighting CHI/PIT/LAK is a good point though, how many 1st round picks do you think those teams have traded in recent years to get the players that would supplement their core?

Difference is they traded the picks AFTER they already had enough top talent where they could afford to give up 1sts for help now.

And the more picks you have the more chances you have at getting it right, its not rocket science, teams are doing this all the time.

And forget the top Centers in the game, they can't even draft a Paul Stastny or Jamie Benn or Ryan O'Reilly !! All great players that were not drafted with high picks, yet would be godsends to a team so weak up the middle without destroying the cap or having to trade peter to get paul.

 

[Ruggs225]

The point was that having more draft picks guarantees nothing, as I'm sure you know.

The fact that you're highlighting CHI/PIT/LAK is a good point though, how many 1st round picks do you think those teams have traded in recent years to get the players that would supplement their core?

Los Angeles - looks like they traded 2 #1's since 2000. But they did have multiple years with more than 1 first round pick.

Chicago - has had at least one first round pick every year since 2000

Boston - has not had a first round pick in 2 drafts since 2000, and more than one in multiple years.

NY Rangers - have not had a first round pick in 3 drafts since 2000 and have had more than one in only one draft.

 

[Ian]

Difference is they traded the picks AFTER they already had enough top talent where they could afford to give up 1sts for help now.

And the more picks you have the more chances you have at getting it right, its not rocket science, teams are doing this all the time.

And forget the top Centers in the game, they can't even draft a Paul Stastny or Jamie Benn or Ryan O'Reilly !! All great players that were not drafted with high picks, yet would be godsends to a team so weak up the middle without destroying the cap or having to trade peter to get paul.

The Kings had enough talent before they traded for Richards/Carter? Sorry I disagree with that.

Regardless, this is getting extremely off topic for no reason.

Do you want me to agree with you that the Kings, Blackhawks and Bruins are run better than the Rangers? Okay, happy to do that. Those are the three best run franchises in hockey right now.

Considering the lengthy downcycles those three franchises also had, and seeing how 26 other franchises are having trouble replicating it as well, acting like there's some set formula that just works every time is bonkers.

 

[OverTheCap]

Chicago has had 37 draft picks from 2010-2013, while I believe the Rangers have had about 21 in the same span. They have simultaneously managed to be in "win now" mode (and have succeeded in doing so) while stockpiling picks and building through the draft.

 

[Ruggs225]

The Kings had enough talent before they traded for Richards/Carter? Sorry I disagree with that.

Regardless, this is getting extremely off topic for no reason.

Do you want me to agree with you that the Kings, Blackhawks and Bruins are run better than the Rangers? Okay, happy to do that. Those are the three best run franchises in hockey right now.

Considering the lengthy downcycles those three franchises also had, and seeing how 26 other franchises are having trouble replicating it as well, acting like there's some set formula that just works every time is bonkers.

excellent post

 

[True Blue]

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

Which franchise in the NHL has had less success in 75 years?

 

[McRanger]

Aside from Redden, I never got as worked up over poor UFA signings as others. The Rangers had so many roster holes and so few quality prospects to fill them that burning cap and money, back then anyway, never really concerned me.

But trading 1st rounders or young players is another thing entirely.

You can't build a team without high picks. You can't build a team without developing young talent.

Well, maybe a great GM can. This GM can't.

It started with Nash. Now St. Louis. What's next?

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Sather. Rinse. Repeat.

Will never change until he abdicates the throne in 10-15 years

This pun isn't getting enough love. Excellent.

I agree with the overall sentiment. There is no plan. Oh, St. Louis wants to be a Ranger? We should probably just go for it this year than, huh?

 

[Bluenote13]

The Kings had enough talent before they traded for Richards/Carter? Sorry I disagree with that.

Regardless, this is getting extremely off topic for no reason.

Do you want me to agree with you that the Kings, Blackhawks and Bruins are run better than the Rangers? Okay, happy to do that. Those are the three best run franchises in hockey right now.

Considering the lengthy downcycles those three franchises also had, and seeing how 26 other franchises are having trouble replicating it as well, acting like there's some set formula that just works every time is bonkers.

So we have a Doughty and Kopitar like the Kings had ? How about Quick ? You're right, they had no foundation.....

3 best run franchises bottomed out, not too long ago, about two or three Ranger coaches ago. Yet one GM has watched all those teams pass him by from bottom to top.

 

[stan the caddy]

Chicago has had 37 draft picks from 2010-2013, while I believe the Rangers have had about 21 in the same span. They have simultaneously managed to be in "win now" mode (and have succeeded in doing so) while stockpiling picks and building through the draft.

The Blackhawks are good because they sucked for awhile. Their core isn't good because of a quantity of picks, it's good because they have Kane and Toews, one was drafted first overall, the other third.

 

[RGY]

A lot of whining in this thread. I'd like to give the "team" a few games before i go off the deep end in regards to the trades.

 

[True Blue]

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.

How many Cups have the Rangers won in 75 years? Now compare that to the teams that you mention.

 

[Ian]

So we have a Doughty and Kopitar like the Kings had ? How about Quick ? You're right, they had no foundation.....

3 best run franchises bottomed out, not too long ago, about two or three Ranger coaches ago. Yet one GM has watched all those teams pass him by from bottom to top.

I said they had no foundation? Must have missed where you quoted that.

Didn't have enough? That's a different story, which is what I said.


Again, Sather should have been fired in the 2000s and is one of the bottom 10 GMs in the NHL, I agree.

 

[Off Sides]

It started with Nash. Now St. Louis. What's next?

Well the most obvious would be Lecavalier but any of Datsyuk, Doan, Iginla, Hossa, the Sedins would probably fit in.

 

[Ruggs225]

Which franchise in the NHL has had less success in 75 years?

In 75 years we have won 3 cups. Here is a list of teams that have not won 3 cups in that timeframe.

Dallas Stars
Calgary Flames
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
Colorado Avalanche
Anaheim Ducks
Los Angeles Kings
Carolina Hurricanes
Buffalo Sabres
Florida Panthers
Ottawa Senators
Washington Capitals
Tampa Bay Lightning

additionally here are the teams that have not even made it to the SC finals in that time period

Colombus
Minnesota
Nashville
Winnipeg/Atlanta
San Jose
Phoenix/Winnipeg

so there is your answer

 

[True Blue]

11 players remain on this roster from that team. In less than two years, Sather has turned over half the roster of the most successful team we've had in almost 20 years. Incredible.

I am fortunate to be able to go to some events. One was a luncheon with Dave Maloney and Ron Greschner. Maloney equated the gutting of th e11'12 team with what happened with his team that went to the finals. Said that the pieces that got you there were traded away and the results were expected.