Sergei Zubov & Petr Nedved for Ulf Samuelsson & Luc Robataille

[Hitch16]

The King+Domi for Olczyk trade was a loss. Could have kept their grit and Olczyk provided nothing in 94, anyway.

Bob - I 100 percent agree - I posted earlier my age and I was a senior in HS. After Probert vs Domi II - Dec 1992, it felt like that was Domi's time as a Ranger. They had TOO much depth that year. they came off 91-92 and essentially added to a stacked roster. Also, I credit some of the posters here - a lot of the core players had to come to terms that management was ready to ship them out for Eric Lindros.

Roger Neilson (RIP) said he was setting lineups similar to the way a baseball manager would against righties and lefties.

 

[Edge]

It didn't feel real then & still doesn't now. To this day I've seen very few hockey players on the level Brian Leetch played for those 2 months. It really was magical.

Something we forget is that Leetch's career arch was almost the mirror reflection of Lidstrom.

Whereas Lidstrom got better and hit his peak in his 30s, Leetch really started to decline sharply at 29.

Some of it was being the captain, but he was also never quite the force at either end of the ice he was up to 1997.

There were flashes and stretches afterwards no doubt. But Brian Leetch more or less stopped being Brian Leetch in his late 20s.

Meanwhile, Lidstrom really didn't start becoming Lidstrom until his late 20s.

But what Lidstrom did through the 2000s is kind of what I expected Leetch to do.

 

[SML2]

If those are your tools, master painter, Raphael and Michelangelo have no worries. For sure.

None of your proposals are going on the cieling of the Sistine Chapel either my friend. That brush fits the job.

 

[Machinehead]

Great promos in wrestling history

 

[Boris Zubov]

This was a great post. Was there an issue with Ferraro and Messier? I thought that season (95-96) Ray was a great 2C option behind Messier and that trade actually unbalanced the roster. Holding onto Laperriere and we still had Momesso and Langdon (who I believe Messier liked) as physical players.

That season started out with so much promise & ended with a with a giant thud. That trade took the wind of out the sails of the players & the fans. All it added up to was another 2nd round exit those asshats in Pittsburgh.

Ferraro played great during that partial season for us. Plus, Messier was having an MVP caliber season until he had the ribcage injury & wasn't nearly the same in the playoffs. Same with Verbeek...I think he broke his arm when he crashed into the goalpost. He had an outside shot at 50 goals before that. Sigh.

 

[Edge]

We moved two of the fastest players in the league. Guys that were 30 and 40 goal threats for slugs.

We became plodding and predictable and I'd say EASIER to play against.

Its all water under the bridge now, but I think the Rangers made their road to the cup harder with those trades

To your point and Boris Zubov's, I've felt that way for years.

I get what they were going for, but they went so far to the extreme that they lost a ton of speed and fire power. I always felt that's why they struggled against New Jersey and Vancouver way more than they should've.

In a post-Keenan world, which came quickly, they essentially lost 60-80 goals on the right wing, and went from having Weight and Turcotte behind Messier (a pair of centers capable of 50-70 points during that time period) to having to hunt for answers at center (be it Kovalev, or Nedved, or Ferraro, or Gretzky).

I'd even argue that Neil Smith's abilities as a GM can essentially be divided into three distinct eras - 1989-1992, 1993-1997, and 1998-2000.

He was great during the first era, went overboard and became desperate in the second era, and couldn't figure out what he was doing in the third.

But when you look at the Rangers roster, they should've been what Detroit became. They matched them in depth in the early 90s. And maybe if they don't make some of those trades, but instead move someone like Kovalev for Shanahan, things are quite different.

But baseball and hockey teams are similar in the sense that success can often boil down to one or two moves where you must choose between which young talent is worth keeping, and which young talent should be moved to plug holes.

That's the point we are going to be approaching soon and our success will depend on the ability to figure out which guys we keep and which guys we move, and for whom.

 

[Edge]

That season started out with so much promise & ended with a with a giant thud. That trade took the wind of out the sails of the players & the fans. All it added up to was another 2nd round exit those asshats in Pittsburgh.

Ferraro played great during that partial season for us. Plus, Messier was having an MVP caliber season until he had the ribcage injury & wasn't nearly the same in the playoffs. Same with Verbeek...I think he broke his arm when he crashed into the goalpost. He had an outside shot at 50 goals before that. Sigh.

And we lost Richter for a large stretch.

 

[NYR94]

No, I don't think so.

I get why it was made but I was never a fan of that trade even though I wasn't a fan of Nedved at the time and was happy to get Robitaille. I just don't like making changes in reaction to just one opponent like they did trying to get bigger and tougher to handle the Flyers. Brought in all that grit just to get smoked by Lemieux and Jagr in 96, then lose to the Flyers again in 97 because they were--surprise--old and lacking depth from all the trades they had made shipping out young players for vets. That 97 Rangers team got 6 goals from players under 30 in 15 playoff games (Kovalev missing the playoffs was part of the problem but that's still very little). That's it! For comparison, the champion Red Wings that year got 40 goals from players under 30 in 20 games. What makes it even more frustrating is they got a stellar performance from Richter in the playoffs that year. But that was Messier's team in those days and the Rangers were definitely in a "win now" mode so they were veteran heavy and they ended up paying for it well into the next decade.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Something we forget is that Leetch's career arch was almost the mirror reflection of Lidstrom.

Whereas Lidstrom got better and hit his peak in his 30s, Leetch really started to decline sharply at 29.

Some of it was being the captain, but he was also never quite the force at either end of the ice he was up to 1997.

There were flashes and stretches afterwards no doubt. But Brian Leetch more or less stopped being Brian Leetch in his late 20s.

Meanwhile, Lidstrom really didn't start becoming Lidstrom until his late 20s.

But what Lidstrom did through the 2000s is kind of what I expected Leetch to do.

I think he was really lost when Messier left the team & there was this hangover that pervaded around the Garden for a few years. Plus the team just crashed & burned almost instantly after losing the ECFs in '97. Even with Gretzky around for two more years, Leetch was basically the entire team at that point. Then they drop the C on him & the expectations became totally unrealistic.

He had some decent years on some really bad teams during those dark ages, but his career arc could also be compared to Eli Manning. 2 deep playoff runs & the rest of his prime was wasted playing on really bad teams built by inept management. Sigh.

 

[Boris Zubov]

And we lost Richter for a large stretch.

That's right. Pulled his groin against that same shitty team in Pitt.

 

[Hitch16]

Plus, Messier was having an MVP caliber season until he had the ribcage injury & wasn't nearly the same in the playoffs. Same with Verbeek...I think he broke his arm when he crashed into the goalpost. He had an outside shot at 50 goals before that. Sigh.

Yep - I thought both were going to get 50 that year!

 

[Edge]

I think he was really lost when Messier left the team & there was this hangover that pervaded around the Garden for a few years. Plus the team just crashed & burned almost instantly after losing the ECFs in '97. Even with Gretzky around for two more years, Leetch was basically the entire team at that point. Then they drop the C on him & the expectations became totally unrealistic.

He had some decent years on some really bad teams during those dark ages, but his career arc could also be compared to Eli Manning. 2 deep playoff runs & the rest of his prime was wasted playing on really bad teams built by inept management. Sigh.

That's why I don't know if fans who weren't around for that era truly understand the impact Messier had on the franchise. And I'm not talking about some of the weird urban myths that developed and stuck around from the early days of the internet.

Brian Leetch was know him, doesn't not become the player we know with the Rangers if there is no Messier. You talk to anyone with the team from that era, or even within the sport, and it's the same message. Ditto for a bunch of other guys.

That was a culture shifting move that completely changed this franchise's trajectory.

The downside of that is that is that the franchise didn't have a great follow-up plan for a post-Messier world in the 90s.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

even though the Amonte, Gartner and Weight trades hurt, they did lead to a Cup so you can't critique them too much. The post-94 trades were abominable though, and yes I think the team could have at least stayed competitive and maybe made another SCF.

 

[Hitch16]

To @Edge and @Boris Zubov points.

Detroit is a great example of what should have been. Now Neil was the GM but he WANTED Scotty Bowman over Keenan (I believe) and Scotty was available later in the summer but Neil couldn't lose Keenan as I think the Flyers were interested in a reunion (which is odd because I thought Keenan had an issue with Bobby Clarke - surprise). I wonder how the dominoes fall with Bowman as head coach, the other coach he wanted over Keenan was Al Arbour. Now if we win the cup with Arbour -well that would have been awkward and if the Islander/Ranger rivalry isn't aready intense now, that would have been some gas to throw on the fire.

Leetch - as captain. I understand why they went with Leetch and couldn't argue at the time. Graves was probably the better choice but Leetch had longevity as a Ranger over Graves - Gretzky as the new C after Messier left would have been odd. I could envision management / coaching offering it to Gretz and him declining. I am not on the inside so that is purely speculation.

 

[Edge]

even though the Amonte, Gartner and Weight trades hurt, they did lead to a Cup so you can't critique them too much. The post-94 trades were abominable though, and yes I think the team could have at least stayed competitive and maybe made another SCF.

The 1994 trades are always tricky because you have have a tangible result versus a hypothetical.

But I can remember even at 15 feeling like the Rangers won despite the deadline moves, and Keenan, not because of those moves or Keenan.

I've never been able to shake that feeling.

 

[NYSPORTS]

The King+Domi for Olczyk trade was a loss. Could have kept their grit and Olczyk provided nothing in 94, anyway.

oh geez, those players may have really helped once the Flyers became a problem. Team wouldn’t have appeared so small with Zubov and, down the line, that crazy Churla, McSorley, Kurri deal may not have happened (although based on that era i’m sure Smith would have obtained Kurri)

Way on the back burner is the colossal mistake Smith made by not protecting Ray Sheppard. Literally, forgetting to put Ray on the protected list .

 

[Boris Zubov]

That's why I don't know if fans who weren't around for that era truly understand the impact Messier had on the franchise. And I'm not talking about some of the weird urban myths that developed and stuck around from the early days of the internet.

Brian Leetch was know him, doesn't not become the player we know with the Rangers if there is no Messier. You talk to anyone with the team from that era, or even within the sport, and it's the same message. Ditto for a bunch of other guys.

That was a culture shifting move that completely changed this franchise's trajectory.

The downside of that is that is that the franchise didn't have a great follow-up plan for a post-Messier world in the 90s.

Leetch himself said that Messier joining the Rangers took his game to a level that he wouldn't have reached without his influence. I also think there was the simple element of Messier shifting the players thought patterns on those teams from"accepting defeat" to "demanding excellence" that had never been around the organization prior to that. Things were different immediately from his first game in Montreal when they won in OT back in Oct of '91.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

The 1994 trades are always tricky because you have have a tangible result versus a hypothetical.

But I can remember even at 15 feeling like the Rangers won despite the deadline moves, and Keenan, not because of those moves or Keenan.

I've never been able to shake that feeling.

Yeah. Maybe they could have kept those guys and still won, but maybe the Edmonton geezers really were the missing element? I mean they barely squeaked by NJ and won the SCF by the thinnest margin possible, 1 goal in game 7. Without those vets maybe they don't pull through. trading Zubov, Kovalev etc was just awful, Smith thinking since it worked before I can just trade my talented youngsters for more washed up has-beens and we'll win again!

 

[NYSPORTS]

The 1994 trades are always tricky because you have have a tangible result versus a hypothetical.

But I can remember even at 15 feeling like the Rangers won despite the deadline moves, and Keenan, not because of those moves or Keenan.

I've never been able to shake that feeling.

Now i can die in peace made every move worth it. Imo, without those deadline trades i doubt the first two Rounds of that playoff go so smoothly.

The Devils were a better playoff team than a regular season team so i would quickly dismiss any success the Rangers had during the regular season against them.

 

[eco's bones]

This was a great post. Was there an issue with Ferraro and Messier? I thought that season (95-96) Ray was a great 2C option behind Messier and that trade actually unbalanced the roster. Holding onto Laperriere and we still had Momesso and Langdon (who I believe Messier liked) as physical players.

My memory is that Ferraro had signed as a free agent and when the trade happened he blamed Mark for it. Vladimir Vorobiev was another player Mark didn't like. Mark liked Eric Cairns a lot but I think Cairns is liked by lots of people. I imagine Mark would have liked Langdon too. Most of the guys Darren took on were bigger than him and even though Darren is critiqued for lacking real punching power he won a lot more than he lost.

 

[True Blue]

The 1994 trades are always tricky because you have have a tangible result versus a hypothetical.

But I can remember even at 15 feeling like the Rangers won despite the deadline moves, and Keenan, not because of those moves or Keenan.

I've never been able to shake that feeling.

It is really hard to look in hindsight and be able to predict what could have been. Yes, if the deals are not done they could have still won. OTOH, we could still be hearing "1940".

 

[SML2]

We moved two of the fastest players in the league. Guys that were 30 and 40 goal threats for slugs.

We became plodding and predictable and I'd say EASIER to play against.

Its all water under the bridge now, but I think the Rangers made their road to the cup harder with those trades

It was a trench war league back then. When the post season came, being fast ranked just above having good hair. Watch a game from then and there's about 4 plays a shift where you can't believe they didn't call a penalty after being used to watching today. And they had the center red line to slow any non conformists like Gartner and Amonte down on top of it.

 

[Edge]

Yeah. Maybe they could have kept those guys and still won, but maybe the Edmonton geezers really were the missing element? I mean they barely squeaked by NJ and won the SCF by the thinnest margin possible, 1 goal in game 7. Without those vets maybe they don't pull through. trading Zubov, Kovalev etc was just awful, Smith thinking since it worked before I can just trade my talented youngsters for more washed up has-beens and we'll win again!

Zubov's situation was very different.

There was no way he was going be able to come back into that locker room in 1995. He'd pissed too many people off.

He then proceeded to do the same thing in Pittsburgh, which got him traded again.

It nearly happened a third time in Dallas before he "got it" and made the most of his talent.

But the Zubov that most fans remember and who put together a near HOF career was still a few years and a few teams off.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Robitaille should have been a lot better for us than he was. His two seasons with the Rangers might have been the two worst seasons he ever had. Don't know why but he just didn't click here.

Marcel Dionne, Guy LaFleur . . . Kurri, Robitaille, Stevens, Bure . . .Shanahan . . . Lindros . . . Gretzky . . . Jagr . . . Holik, Gomez . . . Drury . . . .. everybody deserves to be a Ranger.

Stunned Joe Thorton isn’t dragging his beard around the ice for us.

 

[eco's bones]

Didn't Keenan clown around and claim he wanted to trade Leetch for Stu Grimson? (someone already pointed that out).

Keenan felt that the playoffs were literal war and Gartner (especially Gartner) and Amonte weren't warriors. He was kind of right though, the Devils were beasts, and got better; this was their only shot. The Devils wrecked skilled teams all throughout the 90s.

The story about Keenan wanting to trade Leetch for Keenan is from the Barry Meisel book. I don't doubt the story though because most all of what I read in that book seemed pretty accurate and it came out shortly after the Rangers won the Cup.

On Keenan's view of Gartner I wouldn't agree. Like a lot of players his playoff production lagged a bit behind his regular season production but he was still a pretty good playoff performer. He wasn't as down and dirty a guy as Glenn Anderson was though. That said given the choice back them I would have kept Gartner.