Sather Speaks

[Tawnos]

I'm not insinuating the Nash trade was bad. I'm outright saying it. It's not a terrible trade in a vacuum. It was a terrible trade for that team at that time. I said it then, I'm saying it now.

 

[pld459666]

I'm not insinuating the Nash trade was bad. I'm outright saying it. It's not a terrible trade in a vacuum. It was a terrible trade for that team at that time. I said it then, I'm saying it now.

Disagree.

Had we gotten similar production from both Gaborik and Richards this past season that we got the season before the Nash trade makes sather look like a genius.

As it was Nash still out produced both Dubi and Double A.

Both Gabby and Richards no showing the season made the deal look worse than it was.

Pressure to score was placed on lower lines that wouldn't and shouldn't have been there.

 

[Ola]

I'm not condoning Sather's stint as the GM of the NYR, but I'm seeing some poster seemingly insinuating that the Nash trade was a bad one which is ridiculous to me.

The 2012-13 New York Rangers would not have made the playoffs had they not done that trade. The decline primarily stemmed from poor shooting luck and the surprising sharp decline of play from Richards and Gaborik.

The two trades with Columbus is a big net plus for the Rangers IMO.

I agree for sure.

I saw a rerun of one of our games against Tampa the other day (it was from early February). Nash was on fire. You have to go back to JJ's absolute best games and then Leetch in his prime to find better showings than like 10 of the games Nash has last season.

Its easy to get stuck in how the PO's looked. Nash say that he wasn't hurt. But I don't know, something was going on for sure. He was acting very weird whenever he lost a footing (twisting and turning before hitting the boards and what not). Dubi and AA together makes as much as Nash does. Its not like we took on money either.

 

[Ola]

My impression is definitely that anyone who thinks the Nash trade was bad is based on those people really overrating the 2011/12 team.

Not only does I don't believe that team could have beaten a Boston or Pittsburgh, I don't even think they had potential to beat a team like that without the roster being restructured like it was with the Nash trade.

You don't get a chance play a pretty weak 8th seed, a 7th seed and NJD in the CFs. And no matter how well that team came together, lets be honest, that really weak NJD team for a conference final opponents, were siginificantly better than us.

I mean, sure, you can argue that the trade in itself made us weaker for the moment. But we certainly got more potential to ever complish something by making it.

 

[pld459666]

My impression is definitely that anyone who thinks the Nash trade was bad is based on those people really overrating the 2011/12 team.

Not only does I don't believe that team could have beaten a Boston or Pittsburgh, I don't even think they had potential to beat a team like that without the roster being restructured like it was with the Nash trade.

You don't get a chance play a pretty weak 8th seed, a 7th seed and NJD in the CFs. And no matter how well that team came together, lets be honest, that really weak NJD team for a conference final opponents, were siginificantly better than us.

I mean, sure, you can argue that the trade in itself made us weaker for the moment. But we certainly got more potential to ever complish something by making it.

Don't agree.

We had the better goalie and better defence. Our sniper was playing with a bum wing.

A healthy Rangers team against that devils team, I like our chances alot.

They were not better. WE may not have been better, but they were not better than the Rangers.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm not condoning Sather's stint as the GM of the NYR, but I'm seeing some poster seemingly insinuating that the Nash trade was a bad one which is ridiculous to me.

The 2012-13 New York Rangers would not have made the playoffs had they not done that trade. The decline primarily stemmed from poor shooting luck and the surprising sharp decline of play from Richards and Gaborik.

The two trades with Columbus is a big net plus for the Rangers IMO.

Not necessarily so. How do you explain Rangers team the year before Nash was first in the East? The Nash trade cost the Rangers a lot in terms of depth especially at forward which wasn't finally addressed until we traded away Gaborik. The Rangers lost 4 key penalty killers in one off season--Dubinsky, Anisimov, Prust, Fedotenko all of whom added something to the offense and to other areas--they replaced them with guys who weren't as well rounded and who added virtually nothing to the offense. The way I look at is the second trade with Columbus corrected to a large degree the problems that the first trade helped to create.

 

[Tawnos]

Eco stated exactly what I think. Moreover, that type of trade fails to recognize the reasons we were successful as a group the year before. It isn't about overrating the team we had, it's about understanding it.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The 2011-12 Rangers hung in games, relied on Hank shutting the opposition down while getting timely goals from Gaborik. They were an average possession team in the reg. season which makes them a poor possession team in the POs since the actually poor ones are weeded out.

The 2012-13 Rangers were one of the better possession teams in the league, how did that happen? Their bottom lines were way out of their league and were getting slaughtered out there. But we also had one of the better top lines in the league.

Our middle 6 weren't actually that bad, and the depth problem has been adressed for this season.

But if they were so good, how come they dropped from #1 to #6?

Answer: Shoddy freaking luck. Their overall 5v5 Sh% dropped from 8.30% to 7.41% (-10.72%), that's tough but not out of this world.

Their 5v5 close % is a different story. It dropped an astounding 23.98% from 7.88% to 5.99% and was 28th in the league ahead of only the Florida Panthers and the Binghamton Senators.

Now some teams have a naturally high Sh % like Tampa, their forwards have good shots and have career % above league average. Did the Rangers forward corps become one that should expect this kind of poor shooting? NO! The Rangers forwards are historically at worst average at shooting. The team's shooting % should regress upwards (especially in close game situations) and with the offseason improvements once again compete for the President's Trophy, and this time with a legit team backing it up.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Not necessarily so. How do you explain Rangers team the year before Nash was first in the East? The Nash trade cost the Rangers a lot in terms of depth especially at forward which wasn't finally addressed until we traded away Gaborik. The Rangers lost 4 key penalty killers in one off season--Dubinsky, Anisimov, Prust, Fedotenko all of whom added something to the offense and to other areas--they replaced them with guys who weren't as well rounded and who added virtually nothing to the offense. The way I look at is the second trade with Columbus corrected to a large degree the problems that the first trade helped to create.

True.

In the end, I wish we could have just done a Nash for Gaborik swap.

 

[Tawnos]

Man, if you think that the 11-12 team was successful simply from Lundqvists play and Gaborik being clutch, you should rewatch the games from the November-January stretch that defined the season. The team was simply dominant for most of that stretch. What you're talking about happened more regularly as January wound down and through the playoffs. That type of game isn't what made them successful.

 

[Crease]

Sather is getting a lot of criticism for the Nash trade but IIIRC the consensus around here at the time of the trade is that it was a great deal that solved a major need for more primary scoring. I'm not saying people criticizing him for it in this thread are the same ones who liked the deal last year, but I would have expected more people in this thread to say they were wrong too.

 

[Tawnos]

Sather is getting a lot of criticism for the Nash trade but IIIRC the consensus around here at the time of the trade is that it was a great deal that solved a major need for more primary scoring. I'm not a Sather apologist but I see a lot of armchair GMing with the benefit on hindsight.

Not from me. I was upset at the time that we gave up both forwards. I worried about our depth the entire summer and lockout, while hoping for the best.

 

[Crease]

Not from me. I was upset at the time that we gave up both forwards. I worried about our depth the entire summer and lockout, while hoping for the best.

Beat me to my edit.

 

[Doctyl]

True.

In the end, I wish we could have just done a Nash for Gaborik swap.

john moore is better than erixon. dubi has fallen off a cliff and has a monster contract, he is better than dorsey but when you take contracts into account i would rather have dorsett. brass and arty are about equal, what brass lacks in defense compared to arty he makes up for in the offensive skill he brings.

nash>gabs, moore>erixon, brass>arty (in his time as a ranger, considering the rest of his career they are roughly equals) dubi>dorsett (but taking contracts into account, especially this offseason i would rather have dorsett.)

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Sather is getting a lot of criticism for the Nash trade but IIIRC the consensus around here at the time of the trade is that it was a great deal that solved a major need for more primary scoring. I'm not saying people criticizing him for it in this thread are the same ones who liked the deal last year, but I would have expected more people in this thread to say they were wrong too.

At the time of the trade, I thought Sather had something up his sleeve to replenish the depth lost in the trade. In fact, I thought it was a foregone conclusion. I liked the trade for that reason, in a vacuum.

As time went on and it became apparent that Asham, Kreider, and Pyatt were going to be tagged to replace Prust, Dubinsky, and Anisimov, that reality became quite horrifying.

 

[Jim Ramsay]

john moore is better than erixon. dubi has fallen off a cliff and has a monster contract, he is better than dorsey but when you take contracts into account i would rather have dorsett. brass and arty are about equal, what brass lacks in defense compared to arty he makes up for in the offensive skill he brings.

nash>gabs, moore>erixon, brass>arty (in his time as a ranger, considering the rest of his career they are roughly equals) dubi>dorsett (but taking contracts into account, especially this offseason i would rather have dorsett.)

Agree with all of this... I still say Erixon doesn't have the top end offensive ability to compensate for him being extremely soft as an everyday top 4 defenseman.... I think Moore will definitely end up being the better of the two.

Dubi's game hasn't been the same the past few years and while I feel he has some great leadership abilities he is not worth his contract.

I most miss Anisimov out of the guys flipped but he still hasn't really reached his offensive potential and maybe he won't ever.....

 

[Jim Ramsay]

At the time of the trade, I thought Sather had something up his sleeve to replenish the depth lost in the trade. In fact, I thought it was a foregone conclusion. I liked the trade for that reason, in a vacuum.

As time went on and it became apparent that Asham, Kreider, and Pyatt were going to be tagged to replace Prust, Dubinsky, and Anisimov, that reality became quite horrifying.

I agree that Asham Kreider and Pyatt weren't great replacements, but Prust still isn't worth that contract and still seemed to have some nagging injury this past season... the guy is banged up....

Kreider is probably the one of the biggest 'x' factors for this team this season.... That LW depth is really hurting

 

[Tawnos]

john moore is better than erixon. dubi has fallen off a cliff and has a monster contract, he is better than dorsey but when you take contracts into account i would rather have dorsett. brass and arty are about equal, what brass lacks in defense compared to arty he makes up for in the offensive skill he brings.

nash>gabs, moore>erixon, brass>arty (in his time as a ranger, considering the rest of his career they are roughly equals) dubi>dorsett (but taking contracts into account, especially this offseason i would rather have dorsett.)

Well, were getting way OT, but Dubinsky hasn't fallen off a cliff. He could stand some more balance to his game, but he put up a pace of 56 points last season. It would've been only 5 goals. The guy is back to being productive offensively and I would be completely unsurprised to see him have a similar season to 10-11 this year.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Man, if you think that the 11-12 team was successful simply from Lundqvists play and Gaborik being clutch, you should rewatch the games from the November-January stretch that defined the season. The team was simply dominant for most of that stretch. What you're talking about happened more regularly as January wound down and through the playoffs. That type of game isn't what made them successful.

I did watch most of the games, and while winning is fun and the team was extremely loveable I don't agree that they were really dominant.

In 11-12 the Boston Bruins, St: Louis Blues, and Pittsburgh Penguins had simply dominant stretches. But while the Ranges went on a mighty streak, they were never really dominant. The Canucks were similar that year and managed to win the President's Trophy despite most of their fans being pretty disappointed with the play of the team. The Canucks fans were pretty spoiled at that point though.

The Rangers blocked a ton of shots, Hank came up big, and they did create plenty scoring chances as well. They were the better team in most of their wins, but not by that much. How many of those wins would be losses if one Ranger shot missed and/or one opposing shot went in? In likelihood more than most of us would care to admit.

The 12-13 Rangers had their problems, but that team did actually dominate from time to time. I know it may seem backwards but I would rather be down 0-2 after 1 period winning the shots 14-3 than the other way around. The 14-3 shot score is a much more likely indicator of the better team than the 0-2 score. That example was pulled from a Leafs-Rangers game from 2013. It ended 5-2 Rangers. That was during a period after our slow start when we were actually dominating teams, controlling 5v5 play night in night out. Sure we hit some bumps during that period like Montreal 0-1, but we looked like an actual contender even without adding the Lundqvist factor. Even that Montreal game was spent entirely in their zone. People on this board were livid with the result, but those kind of games happen to every team and is a million times better to have than a heroic 2-3 loss where we lose the shots 24-41.

If our skaters can outplay the opposition, we will win a very high percentage of games since we have the best goalie in the league on top of that. And I believe our current crop of players just might be able to do that.

Imagine if Gaborik scored on 14% of his ES shots in 2012-13 instead of 7%. He did in 2011-12.

 

[Tawnos]

I think distance has faded your memory of the 11-12 team at its best. I also think you've allowed the imbalance in the Rangers schedule last season to fool you. They spent most of the first part of last season playing teams who finished above them in the standings. They played the latter part of the season playing teams who finished below them in the standings. That's not a slow start fast finish. It's a schedule imbalance.

 

[eco's bones]

The 2011-12 Rangers hung in games, relied on Hank shutting the opposition down while getting timely goals from Gaborik. They were an average possession team in the reg. season which makes them a poor possession team in the POs since the actually poor ones are weeded out.

The 2012-13 Rangers were one of the better possession teams in the league, how did that happen? Their bottom lines were way out of their league and were getting slaughtered out there. But we also had one of the better top lines in the league.

Our middle 6 weren't actually that bad, and the depth problem has been adressed for this season.

But if they were so good, how come they dropped from #1 to #6?

Answer: Shoddy freaking luck. Their overall 5v5 Sh% dropped from 8.30% to 7.41% (-10.72%), that's tough but not out of this world.

Their 5v5 close % is a different story. It dropped an astounding 23.98% from 7.88% to 5.99% and was 28th in the league ahead of only the Florida Panthers and the Binghamton Senators.

Now some teams have a naturally high Sh % like Tampa, their forwards have good shots and have career % above league average. Did the Rangers forward corps become one that should expect this kind of poor shooting? NO! The Rangers forwards are historically at worst average at shooting. The team's shooting % should regress upwards (especially in close game situations) and with the offseason improvements once again compete for the President's Trophy, and this time with a legit team backing it up.

The 11-12 team was a better team without a doubt. More character--more grit--a lot more fun to watch. They won more. We weren't going down to the final two three games of the season to secure a playoff spot. We had it locked up long before. Rolled 4 lines constantly. All 4 lines had something to add to the final product. They fought for each other figuratively and literally. Maybe less top end talent but more of a sum of all parts--team--approach. I could give a **** less how many elite scorers we have as long as we win--and that team won most of the biggest games it played only coming up short in the conference finals and I don't really understand Ola's comment that it was overrated. It won a lot of games during the regular season and two grueling playoff series as well. The 12-13 team squeaked in in the final week--finished 6th in the East and lost badly and looked awful doing it against the Bruins in the 2nd round. A absolute rookie Torey ****ing Krug ate the Rangers up. I don't understand either how one could compare it favorably to the team of the season before. The Rangers took a step back last year--no doubt about it in my mind anyway.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I think distance has faded your memory of the 11-12 team at its best. I also think you've allowed the imbalance in the Rangers schedule to fool you. They spent most of the first part of last season playing teams who finished above them in the standings. They played the latter part of the season playing teams who finished below them in the standings. That's not a slow start fast finish. It's a schedule imbalance.

I'm not talking about their finish, I'm talking about a ~15 game stretch in the early middle of the season. Then their play tailed off for a while, picked up after the deadline and tailed of again. They didn't play all that well at the end but were saved by the schedule.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The 11-12 team was a better team without a doubt. More character--more grit--a lot more fun to watch. They won more. We weren't going down to the final two three games of the season to secure a playoff spot. We had it locked up long before. Rolled 4 lines constantly. All 4 lines had something to add to the final product. They fought for each other figuratively and literally. Maybe less top end talent but more of a sum of all parts--team--approach. I could give a **** less how many elite scorers we have as long as we win--and that team won most of the biggest games it played only coming up short in the conference finals and I don't really understand Ola's comment that it was overrated. It won a lot of games during the regular season and two grueling playoff series as well. The 12-13 team squeaked in in the final week--finished 6th in the East and lost badly and looked awful doing it against the Bruins in the 2nd round. A absolute rookie Torey ****ing Krug ate the Rangers up. I don't understand either how one could compare it favorably to the team of the season before. The Rangers took a step back last year--no doubt about it in my mind anyway.

The 11-12 Rangers were an extremely likeable team and their success was very enjoyable to follow, but they also caught a ton of breaks.

The teams in the NHL have become so close in skill that skill only amounts to 24% of the outcome, the rest is random chance.

In 11-12, a lot of random outcomes were in the Rangers favour and an above average team (average + Lundqvist) was propelled into #1 in the East and an ECF loss.

In 12-13 (only regular season) a lot of random outcomes went against the Rangers and dropped a top team into #6 in the East.

In the playoffs however, the Rangers were playing legitimately mediocre, which IMO overshadows their reg. season play. But I still believe that was due to Tortorella making sure that the team wasn't putting one skate outside the borders of his system, which he allowed to some extent in the reg. season.

 

[eco's bones]

The 11-12 Rangers were an extremely likeable team and their success was very enjoyable to follow, but they also caught a ton of breaks.

The teams in the NHL have become so close in skill that skill only amounts to 24% of the outcome, the rest is random chance.

In 11-12, a lot of random outcomes were in the Rangers favour and an above average team (average + Lundqvist) was propelled into #1 in the East and an ECF loss.

In 12-13 (only regular season) a lot of random outcomes went against the Rangers and dropped a top team into #6 in the East.

In the playoffs however, the Rangers were playing legitimately mediocre, which IMO overshadows their reg. season play. But I still believe that was due to Tortorella making sure that the team wasn't putting one skate outside the borders of his system, which he allowed to some extent in the reg. season.

I don't buy it. The playoffs are about attrition and defense. Ottawa was a team built to play an attrition game. The Rangers eventually knocked them out playing with an injured Gaborik, Boyle and with Hagelin suspended for 3 games.

Washington not so much an attrition team but they had numerous big, gritty forwards and got a great performance out of their goalie.

New Jersey as well an attrition team with lots of larger players. The Rangers were beaten territorially--not by skill.

The Penguins--the team with the most skill got smoked by the Flyers that year and smoked by the Bruins this year.

The Rangers played 20 games of grind it out hockey in the 11-12 playoffs and fell short but that was what it was going to take to get to the finals--grind it out hockey. The Bruins that made it in 12-13 were more skilled but also play a grinding physical style. All those teams the 11-12 Rangers, Devils--the 12-13 Bruins played a grinding physical brand of hockey with variations of skill and it's important if you play like that that you're always able to roll 4 lines--that those lines build or keep momentum from shift to shift. Bringing in guys like Halpern, Pyatt, Powe did nothing for that. Not getting Kreider up to speed also hurt. The Rangers lack of depth hurt the team all season long more than their lack of top end goal scoring.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think distance has faded your memory of the 11-12 team at its best. I also think you've allowed the imbalance in the Rangers schedule last season to fool you. They spent most of the first part of last season playing teams who finished above them in the standings. They played the latter part of the season playing teams who finished below them in the standings. That's not a slow start fast finish. It's a schedule imbalance.

I think its more about people wanting to watch beautiful hockey that dont like and/or don't appreciate play in the trenches. Those "little things" that every hockey coach in the history of hockey talks about. Generally, they are the ones trying to discredit the Rangers 2011-2012 season