Second impressions of Marty St. Louis (Mod warning in OP)

[aufheben]

Hmmmm I wonder......Maybe it's that the Rangers are playing something called consistent hockey. A FACT I can backup with their record since January 3rd, a record that is 11 games over 500. I mean is that not consistent hockey?

What should the Rangers record be in those 35 games for you to call the team consistent? 35-0-0, no you don't seem like you want it to be unfair. So I'll guess if the Rangers were 33-1-1 you would say they are being consistent. Perhaps, I'll just ask you want you think the Rangers record should be for your to label the team as being consistent?

Thanks for answering my question.

 

[haveandare]

Who said that? TB said "we do not have an abundance of very good young players" and he was countered with "we have young players, and a couple of them are good."

Step isn't very good? McD isn't very good? Zucc isn't very good? Kreider, just shy of 20 goals in a rookie campaign isn't very good for his age and experience level?

Where are these teams that have nearly entire lineups of very good young players? Any team only has a finite number of "very good" players of any age. McD is legitimately in the conversation for best d-man in the entire league. Step is flirting with a 60 point season full of solid defensive play. Kreider, again, just shy of 20 goals and 40 points in his rookie season. That's 3 very good young players right there. Then, there are good young players who fill the roles that good players fill on any team.

NYR aren't Colorado, no, but almost nobody is, and NYR hasn't been awarded top draft picks year after year after year.

 

[Pizza]

I think you're underselling a lot of these players. We've gotten a ton of good players through the draft, and the best team we've had in 20 years was filled with homegrown players.

I think you can safely say we're 4 out of 9 from that list. Decent, but not excellent.

We're much better from the 2nd round on down.

 

[True Blue]

I don't understand this.

Kreider (22) - technically still a rookie, with size, speed, and skill, his future looks bright. Could have scored 20 this year if not for the injury.

Stepan (23) who has 193 points in 288 career games.

Zuccarello (26) - nothing needs to be said.

McDonagh (24) - elite, #1 defenseman

Hagelin (25) - brings a unique element to the game and good for 15-20 goals, minimum

Brassard (26) - solid #3C, meh #2C.

Miller (21) - good prospect. Could be a 2/3 liner, or better.

Then Staal (27), Pouliot (27), Talbot (26), Moore (23), are all young. Nash and Girardi are only 29. We also have Haggerty, McIlrath, Buchnevich, Duclair, Skjei, all who project to be at minimum players who should be on an NHL roster some day.

We have 4 players 30 or over on the roster.

This team is not old by any stretch. We are the 13th youngest team in the NHL in average age (27.263).

Again, your posts make no sense.

I will give you Krieder as having good upside. And clearly MCD. Stepan is a good bet to be a 2nd line player (though funny how so much of this board has hate for him. Zucc is 26 but in my view is not a top line player. Brassard is hardly anything to brag about if your view of him is as 3rd line player. Staal I view as a vet. You have no idea of what Miller is and if you see him as a 3rd line player, again, hardly antying to beat your chest about. Pouliot, really?? Talbot is a back up goalie. Moore, not sure what there is to be overly thrilled with.

Haggerty, McIlrath, Buchnevich, Duclair, Skjei, all who project to be at minimum players who should be on an NHL roster some day. Being NHL players and being good NHL players are two different things. None are what you consider can't mix.

Makes sense to me.

 

[True Blue]

MSL is 38/39 now, but he could easily play for another 4 years.

What makes you say that? And you DO realize that the most likely result each year is that his play deteriorates more with each passing year?

 

[True Blue]

How dare the Rangers make a trade when they play on such bad ice!

Umm...yeah. My point exactly. Thanks for such clarity. I view the MSL trade as a bad trade because they play on bad ice. Had this trade been made and the Rangers had better ice, I would be all for it.

 

[aufheben]

What makes you say that? And you DO realize that the most likely result each year is that his play deteriorates more with each passing year?

It doesn't matter, we traded for 1.5 years of him, not 4.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Umm...yeah. My point exactly. Thanks for such clarity. I view the MSL trade as a bad trade because they play on bad ice. Had this trade been made and the Rangers had better ice, I would be all for it.

Well, I was obviously being sarcastic. You say the team wasn't in a position in to make the trade. Fine, even though the team IS in a position to make a deal like that, you don't see it that way, and that's fine. You say the team does not have abundance of very good young players. And the farm system is fairly barren. Ok, but just a quick view of the roster shows your point to be completely wrong. A quick peak at the prospect pool shows you to be wrong. This is all ON TOP of the ridiculous notion that the team HAS TO win a Cup for this trade to be a success. When myself and others showed you different scenarios that this trade could still be a success you completely ignored them.

My post, the one you quoted about the ice surface was clearly a joke.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Thanks for answering my question.

Fire on all cylinders for one series? Maybe. 4 series? This team has been inconsistent all season...

This is the post I quoted. You said the team has been inconsistent all year and this is flat out untrue. I'll ask again, since the calendar turned to January what would the Rangers record have to be for you to see the team as consistent?

 

[aufheben]

My point was that their record has nothing to do with it, at least for me. I don't see how a winning record necessitates consistency.

W-L-L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W

Is that a consistent team just because they're 6-4?

 

[True Blue]

You say the team does not have abundance of very good young players. And the farm system is fairly barren. Ok, but just a quick view of the roster shows your point to be completely wrong. A quick peak at the prospect pool shows you to be wrong.

No, as was pointed out. I stated "abundance of good young players." I was show young players and a few of them were good. If I am completely wrong, then why does HF rank the farm system 27th overall?

Fine, even though the team IS in a position to make a deal like that, you don't see it that way, and that's fine.

So you view the team as having as good a chance as Boston, Pitt or any of the elite Western teams to win? Do you view the Rangers as much a legitimate contender as any of these teams?

This is all ON TOP of the ridiculous notion that the team HAS TO win a Cup for this trade to be a success. When myself and others showed you different scenarios that this trade could still be a success you completely ignored them.

I do not ignore them. I have laid out my thoughts very clearly why I believe that short of the Cup, this trade is a failure. I have done so over and over and over again.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

My point was that their record has nothing to do with it, at least for me. I don't see how a winning record necessitates consistency.

W-L-L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W

Is that a consistent team just because they're 6-4?

I understand what you are getting at but if a team won 6 out of 10 games for a whole season that would add up to 49 wins. A 49 win team in today's NHL is a team that played consistently well through the year.


I mean this hypothetical and your example a bit skewed because the shootout and how the point system relates to a team record.

I get what you are saying though. Look, I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers got swept in the first round. I just don't think it's fair to call a team that seemingly found it's game the past 35 games an inconsistent hockey team. The team has played some bad games but for the most part even in the games they lost they played well. I think the 8-4 game in Ottawa was the worst game the Rangers played in months. I guess THAT games helps your argument about inconsistency BUT that was still one game. Can you name other games were the Rangers just completely **** the bed?

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

No, as was pointed out. I stated "abundance of good young players." I was show young players and a few of them were good. If I am completely wrong, then why does HF rank the farm system 27th overall?

You would have to ask the people of HF why they had that is the FALL ranking. I expect that ranking to improve in the Spring. All things being equal the Rangers all of Miller, Lindberg, Mclllrath, Allen, Fast, Lindberg, Kristo (to give an example the #1 rated prospect by HF standards) and possibly Sjkei will have a chance in camp to make the club next season? This doom and gloom outlook you have (and I understand it) isn't based on what the Rangers actually have in the system and pipeline.

So you view the team as having as good a chance as Boston, Pitt or any of the elite Western teams to win? Do you view the Rangers as much a legitimate contender as any of these teams?

I'm keeping the Western teams out of this conversation because if the Rangers do (please Jesus) make it to the Finals we have no idea who we will be facing. Also, I'd wager the team that makes it out of the East will not be as battle worn as the Western Conference. Whoever is left standing in the West is going to have gone through at least 2 "war" like series. Would you disagree with that assessment? I know you are trying to paint me into a corner to say the Rangers are in the same class as Pittsburgh and Boston, I know that because you have tried that with other posters. You know it's not that easy with me!

So, lets say the Rangers have to play Pittsburgh in a series.

1) The Rangers would have a better goalie. Fleury is just not that good anymore.

2) The Rangers special teams particularly the penalty killers are good enough to match up with what Pittsburgh does on the power play

3) The Pittsburgh defense is not that deep. Even on the road, the Rangers will always have one of Nash, St. Louis, or Zuccerello on the ice against the bottom pair of the Penguins. That's advantage Rangers.

I don't think the Rangers are as good as Pittsburgh but I do think the Rangers COULD BEAT Pittsburgh. As I explained above the Rangers have a team that matchups up well to the Penguins

So lets now turn our attention to Boston. Boston is the best team in the East and is the only team the Rangers could play in the East that the Rangers don't have a goaltender advantage. The Bruins would be the heavy favorite but that doesn't mean the Rangers couldn't beat them. I think 5 on 5 the Rangers can go toe to toe with the Bruins. If the Rangers can win the special teams battles, they have a shot to beat the Bruins. What that being said it's possible if the Rangers make it to the Eastern Conference finals the Bruins won't be the team facing them. Do you think it's possible the Bruins lose in the 1st or 2nd round?

This isn't as cut and dry as the Rangers aren't as good as team x. That shouldn't stop the Rangers from improving the team. Your argument should be against Sather not being the guy to make the decisions anymore, I'm with you 1000000% with that but you lose me when you try to paint a gloom and doom brush over the team and prospects. I mean this team has talent, this team has young talent that can step in.

I do not ignore them. I have laid out my thoughts very clearly why I believe that short of the Cup, this trade is a failure. I have done so over and over and over again.

And I'm sure you will do so over and over and over and over and over again. It still doesn't make the point accurate. If you were so worried about the development of young players and and a winning culture you would take pride in the fact that having St. Louis on the roster gives the Rangers a chance to play meaningful games in the playoffs. You have given St. Louis no chance to prove his worth to you. You just make blanket statements that this one transaction is a failure unless the team wins the cup. I don't have an issue with that, well I guess I do but that's not my main issue. I think if you want to have that standard how St. Louis is playing now shouldn't matter to you. Shouldn't you just be saying "He looks off but if he looks like this in the playoffs the deal is a bust" Shouldn't you hold every translation to your Stanley Cup or bust philosophy? How could you hate a trade when we don't even know what the hell Tampa is going to end up with in the draft. What if the Rangers don't win the Cup the next two years but the organization is clearly making steps into being a consistent contender? Will you still hate the trade? I mean we have no idea what possible scenarios that could come out of this trade.

 

[Jersey Girl]

2015 might be the best draft class, but that amazing talent is always gone after 10 picks.

It's also considered to be one of the deepest draft classes regarding top end talent in a long long time.

Also, St. Louis wanted to be traded to NYR, so I wouldn't count out him re-signing with us

Doesn't matter. We only traded for his rights through this year and next. After that St Louis can sign anywhere for 'free', including here.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Who said that? TB said "we do not have an abundance of very good young players" and he was countered with "we have young players, and a couple of them are good."

Sounds like you're tying things up with the semantics of what constitutes "An abundance" and what constitutes "very good"

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's also considered to be one of the deepest draft classes regarding top end talent in a long long time.



Doesn't matter. We only traded for his rights through this year and next. After that St Louis can sign anywhere for 'free', including here.

I think we gave up too much and I HATE that we are giving up a 1st in that draft but quite a few years have been hyped like 15 and only 1 lived up to the hype (03
... ).

While I like that we traded for MSl I think it's ridiculous we had to give up potentially 2 1sts when for a CHEAPER price we should have been able to get Vanek, Moulson, AND Hemsky and potentially kept Cally for this run too. I'd honestly rather have vanek and Cally than MSL . The fact that MSL has been such a ghost makes this really hard to swallow.

 

[Jersey Girl]

While I like that we traded for MSl I think it's ridiculous we had to give up potentially 2 1sts when for a CHEAPER price we should have been able to get Vanek, Moulson, AND Hemsky and potentially kept Cally for this run too. I'd honestly rather have vanek and Cally than MSL . The fact that MSL has been such a ghost makes this really hard to swallow.

Well in fairness Vanek and Moulson are UFA's after this season - and I think Hemsky is too, though I'm not positive. We have St Louis for one more season, which SEEMED like a good thing at the time, but now I'm not so sure!

They were joking on NHL Network radio yesterday, wondering if the Rangers will use their last buyout this summer on Richards or St Louis.

 

[True Blue]

You would have to ask the people of HF why they had that is the FALL ranking. I expect that ranking to improve in the Spring. All things being equal the Rangers all of Miller, Lindberg, Mclllrath, Allen, Fast, Lindberg, Kristo (to give an example the #1 rated prospect by HF standards) and possibly Sjkei will have a chance in camp to make the club next season? This doom and gloom outlook you have (and I understand it) isn't based on what the Rangers actually have in the system and pipeline.

Guess we have to agree to disagree. I look at these names and there is nothing on which I would hang my hat on. Some hope, sure. But nothing I feel too confident about. My so-called doom and gloom is based on exactly what the Rangers have in the system and pipeline.

This isn't as cut and dry as the Rangers aren't as good as team x. That shouldn't stop the Rangers from improving the team.

Ok, fair. But again, I do not see the Rangers as a "one player away" team. And while anything COULD happen, I am not willing to sacrifice picks for hope. In the end, I just do not see the risk/reward of making the MSL trade as a good bet.

Oh, and I am completely with you on the desire to see the Rangers in the Finals.

And I'm sure you will do so over and over and over and over and over again. It still doesn't make the point accurate.

Again, we will need to agree and disagree. Given that I view the risk profile of this trade as very poor, to me the sole way it is a winner is if it nets a Cup. I need not go into the details as to why, as you know them too well.

You always were much more of an optimist that I am when it comes to this team, SOS. Time in and time out, I have not seen the quick fix work for this team. It is fair for you to view this with more sunshine than I do, but being a Ranger fan for along time, I have seen the same thing fail over an over again. Sorry, but until I see a reason to, I am in the same fox hole as Melnyk.

 

[True Blue]

Sounds like you're tying things up with the semantics of what constitutes "An abundance" and what constitutes "very good"

There were two distinct terms. "Abundance" and "very good". I still have yet to see a list of young players that marries the two terms.

 

[Inferno]

Fire on all cylinders for one series? Maybe. 4 series? This team has been inconsistent all season...

so totally and completely wrong.

Rangers have one of the best records in hockey since Christmas.

Top 3 in the East since the first 9 games of the season.

We've actually been pretty consistent all year long.

2 terrible stretches...basicallly the 2 9 game homestands/roadtrips.

take those 2 stretches out and youre looking at an elite team.

nobody wants to admit it.

but it's true.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

There were two distinct terms. "Abundance" and "very good". I still have yet to see a list of young players that marries the two terms.

Yes you have but since this is a semantic/opinion based evaluation you may choose to disagree with what was in fact presented despite your assertion in this post

 

[aufheben]

so totally and completely wrong.

Rangers have one of the best records in hockey since Christmas.

Top 3 in the East since the first 9 games of the season.

We've actually been pretty consistent all year long.

2 terrible stretches...basicallly the 2 9 game homestands/roadtrips.

take those 2 stretches out and youre looking at an elite team.

nobody wants to admit it.

but it's true.

My point was that their record has nothing to do with it, at least for me. I don't see how a winning record necessitates consistency.

W-L-L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W

Is that a consistent team just because they're 6-4?

I know, we can't say anything bad about the precious Rangers.

lol "since Chrismas" so, -3 months of the season? Color me impressed. I'll admit that if you pick and choose successful parts of the season, we have an elite record.

 

[Cassano]

6 wins outta 10 games correlates to nearly 50 wins over a full season. I don't see the issue with going 6-4.

 

[Jersey Girl]

so totally and completely wrong.

Rangers have one of the best records in hockey since Christmas.

Top 3 in the East since the first 9 games of the season.

We've actually been pretty consistent all year long.

2 terrible stretches...basicallly the 2 9 game homestands/roadtrips.

take those 2 stretches out and youre looking at an elite team.

nobody wants to admit it.

but it's true.

Having to throw out two 9 game stretches to be able to call the Rangers consistent kinda flies in the face of actually showing consistency.

 

[aufheben]

6 wins outta 10 games correlates to nearly 50 wins over a full season. I don't see the issue with going 6-4.

I don't have a problem with our record, we have a good record for sure, I just don't see how that necessitates consistency. Just my feeling on it.