Toggle sidebar

The Rangers lack of depth

RangersChamps2417 said:
I would like to see us bring some of the guys from the Whale up. Some combo of Ferriero, Palmeri, Segal and Newbury could help us out in terms of depth. Krieder needs to come up NOW and play. The guy has 5 goals in 7 games and has played pretty well it seems. Segal seems to have a lot of heart and hustle, as well as some skill. We saw what Ferriero brought and how he played. Palmieri is someone I'm interested in seeing in up here. The guy is a big body and could help on the third line in terms of getting in front of the net. He also has some skill, probably more than Boyle. I would like to see Boyle and Miller gone though to be honest

Edit: and actually, since making the moves for Ferriero and Palmeri, the whale have played much better. They started poor, but they have been playing much better and are actually in the playoffs right now
Click to expand...

and they need to play Kreider more than 4 minutes if we bring him up!
 
Smog said:
They gave up too much for Rick Nash for depth.
Click to expand...

That, and Sather didn't do a good job re-signing our UFAs.

I don't understand the Nash trade at this point.

Sure, Nash for what was essentially Anisimov/Dubinsky and a 1st round pick seemed like a no brainer.

But why move pieces when you're already so close to the Stanley Cup? We were two wins away WITHOUT Nash. You wanted to add a super star goal scorer, but gave up significant depth in the process? Well how did we lose depth? Well, it was two players (two key players for us) who had excellent defensively, good for 30-40 points, and had good work ethic. AND we had to factor in a $7.8 million cap hit on a long term deal.

Some people said it was one step back to take two steps forward. Why take a step back when you were already so close? In my opinion, the Nash trade took us a BIG step back. And with a select few years of Lundqvist's prime in place, we are losing time to achieve the goal of winning the Cup. The team needed to add assets, not exchange. The pieces were already in place. The team had chemistry. That TEAM bought into Tortorella's blue collar system.

In my honest opinion, you wait for a free agent to come on the market and grab him for a 1 year deal to help the team for a deep run. I still think Semin would have been the better choice (sign him for one year, he comes off the books when players like McDonagh and company need to be re-signed and he adds that extra scoring touch the team missed) without giving up significant assets. And he's doing great this season, just as good if not better than Nash and is a big reason why Carolina is back on top along with the effort of a tremendous season by Eric Staal.

And if you can't sign that free agent, let the home grown talent continue to develop and fill those roles on their own. Then try again the following off season to nab that free agent, within your budget, that can help the team. Not have half the team spread throughout the NHL to accomodate another monster contract on the books.

At this point, I don't like the team because it's clear that under Nash, and our pitiful role players, the team doesn't have an identity. And no matter what Callahan does, I'm sure his work ethic won't be nearly as infectious as the low confidence surrounding this team. Guys like Dubinsky, Anisimov, Fedotenko were players that played like Callahan and were willing to play that blue collar system. If we couldn't re-sign Prust because his girlfriend lives on MTL, fine, but don't lose the rest of the role players too. When you have those players buy into the system, you're a better team.
 
its not the Nash trade that killed this team, its the fact that ON TOP of the Nash trade we also let guys like Prust go. It was a lot of turnaround. I think this team has the talent, but we do need an upgrade or two in the bottom 6, but the biggest thing is the chemistry is clearly not there. We've only seen glimpses of how good they can be.
 
This is a product of losing a lot of quality depth guys. Guys like Prust, Dubi, Anisimov, Feds and even John Mitchel. They all offered solid roles on the bottom two or at times top lines. Losing a handful of effective players hurts a team and i think this is what were seeing with the Rangers. Plus the likes of Richards and Del zotto as catalysts on a PP or simply as top players i just dont think is good enough, imo.
 
Fataldogg said:
That, and Sather didn't do a good job re-signing our UFAs.

I don't understand the Nash trade at this point.

Sure, Nash for what was essentially Anisimov/Dubinsky and a 1st round pick seemed like a no brainer.

But why move pieces when you're already so close to the Stanley Cup? We were two wins away WITHOUT Nash. You wanted to add a super star goal scorer, but gave up significant depth in the process? Well how did we lose depth? Well, it was two players (two key players for us) who had excellent defensively, good for 30-40 points, and had good work ethic. AND we had to factor in a $7.8 million cap hit on a long term deal.

Some people said it was one step back to take two steps forward. Why take a step back when you were already so close? In my opinion, the Nash trade took us a BIG step back. And with a select few years of Lundqvist's prime in place, we are losing time to achieve the goal of winning the Cup. The team needed to add assets, not exchange. The pieces were already in place. The team had chemistry. That TEAM bought into Tortorella's blue collar system.

In my honest opinion, you wait for a free agent to come on the market and grab him for a 1 year deal to help the team for a deep run. I still think Semin would have been the better choice (sign him for one year, he comes off the books when players like McDonagh and company need to be re-signed and he adds that extra scoring touch the team missed) without giving up significant assets. And he's doing great this season, just as good if not better than Nash and is a big reason why Carolina is back on top along with the effort of a tremendous season by Eric Staal.

And if you can't sign that free agent, let the home grown talent continue to develop and fill those roles on their own. Then try again the following off season to nab that free agent, within your budget, that can help the team. Not have half the team spread throughout the NHL to accomodate another monster contract on the books.

At this point, I don't like the team because it's clear that under Nash, and our pitiful role players, the team doesn't have an identity. And no matter what Callahan does, I'm sure his work ethic won't be nearly as infectious as the low confidence surrounding this team. Guys like Dubinsky, Anisimov, Fedotenko were players that played like Callahan and were willing to play that blue collar system. If we couldn't re-sign Prust because his girlfriend lives on MTL, fine, but don't lose the rest of the role players too. When you have those players buy into the system, you're a better team.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree more with what you just said. No identity. The rangers of last year were built on outworking other teams and all lines contributing in some way. Now weve almost created a team more reliant on skill which, is not suited for imo for the current roster. Losing depth guys like we did really put us behind. Its typical Sather reverting back to the big ticket guys and names which never worked before and isnt working now. I can only hope things get better but with a short season it will be tough we need some 10 game winning streak or else it will be a second year of missed playoffs with Torts.
 
If Gaborik, Boyle, Kreider, and Richards were playing up to their pre-season expectations we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I already said this earlier in the thread, but you guys are seriously overstating the contributions of Dubinsky, Anisimov, Prust, Fedotenko, and Mitchell to last season's team. Sure they were useful players that I wouldn't mind back, but a more important part of last season's success was the big ticket players that everyone is complaining about recently. I think this board is too sour on big name acquisitions in general. Most of the big name players that Sather got haven't been that bad and were expected to carry bad teams. Without any star players you get the 10-11 Rangers (Gaborik doesn't count, he was injured and didn't play well when he was healthy.)
 
Last edited:
Fataldogg said:
That, and Sather didn't do a good job re-signing our UFAs.

I don't understand the Nash trade at this point.

Sure, Nash for what was essentially Anisimov/Dubinsky and a 1st round pick seemed like a no brainer.

But why move pieces when you're already so close to the Stanley Cup? We were two wins away WITHOUT Nash. You wanted to add a super star goal scorer, but gave up significant depth in the process? Well how did we lose depth? Well, it was two players (two key players for us) who had excellent defensively, good for 30-40 points, and had good work ethic. AND we had to factor in a $7.8 million cap hit on a long term deal.
Click to expand...

Disagree so much with this post.

Dubinsky did not become the 30 goal, 60 point player we envisioned and was vastly overpaid with 3 years remaining on his contract.

Anisimov was to be an RFA after this season with arbitration rights and was likely in line for a deal in the 3.5-4m range.

The 7.8 cap hit with Nash was a complete wash with the guys we already had on the books.

We have a cheaper, younger replacement for Dubinsky in JT Miller. He just needs a little time.

You have to make the Nash deal every day of the week. You don't have many opportunities to acquire star players in their prime. Where Sather failed was making other moves to replace our depth. We went into the year thinking Kreider was going to be able to play a prominent role and that didn't happen. We've been searching all season for some reliable depth forwards.
 
Now the Nash trade is a bad trade. :)

Prust got 4 years. Pyatt got 2 years. Its not just $1M more. Prust was not very good last season. The Rangers give Prust $10M and he played like last season. The complaint would be the Rangers gave Prust too much money and its hurting their cap with a $10M fourth liner.

You look at the Rangers record from the mid-point of last season,the Rangers are not much more than a .500 hockey team. Philly and Pitt nearly caught them for first in the division. The Rangers could have easily played Philly or Pitt in the 4-5 last season. They went 8-6 in the first rounds of the playoffs. Lost in 6 games in the ECF. What is their record this season?
 
nash trade you got to 10/10 times, we gave up a lot for him, but i agree with all you guys.. He shouldve resigned Prust, Feds, Mitchell.. guys who knew the system and gave us some kind of resemblance of last years team for the bottom 6.. then count on Kreider/Miller to try.. try to replace the losses of Dubi and AA..I wouldve rather over pay for Prust, due to the fact torts turned him into the player he was..especially then signing and over paying FAs.. Prust to me is irreplaceable.. hes a spark kind of player, fights, Pks, scored some points here and there when you least expected it.. and to me he was part of the core..

we need toughness in the worst way.. up and down the line up..
Id start with trying to trade for Torres.. perfect addition of toughness in bottom 6, who can still provde a little bit of offense.. Id also recall Palmieri to provide offense, size, physical play on bottom 6..

Nash-Richards-Callahan
Kreider-Step-Gaborik
Hags-Miller-Palmieri
Torres-Boyle-Haley
 
I like to think that most players catch Rangeritis (the disease that you get from the asbestos filled Garden).

As for Kreider, I'd be hesitant to bring him back up, but if he can score a goal or two in his first few games, it'll help his confidence. If he's brought up and produces nothing, it'll worsen him again. Kreider can slump pretty bad.
 
Would'a, could'a, should'a ???

Sorry if this has been discussed before as I can't imaging it hasn't.

With consideration to the Staal injury as of late.

What is your speculative opinion, on if we kept our ECF qualifying team together and added to them Semin instead of trading for Nash and depleting our scoring depth?

I know part of the trade was exchanging Dubie's salary for Nash's to make it work but I can't help thinking if we could have made it work otherwise, things might be different this season.

1) We would have our 1st as a consolation prize in case we pooped the bed either way.

2) We would have the secondary scoring we so sorely lack regardless of Prust & Fed's as well as the defensive work Arty & Duby excelled at.

3) Erixon, depending on development path during/after the lockout, would either be filling in for Staal, or could have been packaged by now to fill our obvious hole at RD, who knows maybe even a RD PMD.

I'm not a cap geek, so I don't know if we could have made the salaries work adding Semin to almost the same team that busted it's butt to the ECF. But I can't help but wonder.....

FYI, I do thoroughly enjoy watching Nash in Broadway Blue so I'm not dogging him at all.

**edit* Not paniking either, just disapointed. I expected a little step back because/when we made the trade but not this debacle.
 
Last edited:
satrabyk said:
I cannot agree more with what you just said. No identity. The rangers of last year were built on outworking other teams and all lines contributing in some way. Now weve almost created a team more reliant on skill which, is not suited for imo for the current roster. Losing depth guys like we did really put us behind. Its typical Sather reverting back to the big ticket guys and names which never worked before and isnt working now. I can only hope things get better but with a short season it will be tough we need some 10 game winning streak or else it will be a second year of missed playoffs with Torts.
Click to expand...

The team lost last year because they were worn down. They needed a talent upgrade so that they wouldn't rely solely on effort, Hank and blocked shots to win games. The team is now top heavy both up front and on D and the style hasn't changed, we just aren't playing it as well due to the fact that our players are more skilled and possess less jam. We need an upgrade at 3C badly. We need another line that can threaten the opponent and we need to get the puck out of our zone more efficiently. The problem is system not players on the back end; especially when Staalsy comes back.
 
dethomas07 said:
nash trade you got to 10/10 times, we gave up a lot for him, but i agree with all you guys.. He shouldve resigned Prust, Feds, Mitchell.. guys who knew the system and gave us some kind of resemblance of last years team for the bottom 6.. then count on Kreider/Miller to try.. try to replace the losses of Dubi and AA..I wouldve rather over pay for Prust, due to the fact torts turned him into the player he was..especially then signing and over paying FAs.. Prust to me is irreplaceable.. hes a spark kind of player, fights, Pks, scored some points here and there when you least expected it.. and to me he was part of the core..

we need toughness in the worst way.. up and down the line up..
Id start with trying to trade for Torres.. perfect addition of toughness in bottom 6, who can still provde a little bit of offense.. Id also recall Palmieri to provide offense, size, physical play on bottom 6..

Nash-Richards-Callahan
Kreider-Step-Gaborik
Hags-Miller-Palmieri
Torres-Boyle-Haley
Click to expand...

You are pushing pretty hard to Palmeiri. From all accounts he's pretty useless. You will see Hrivik, Kreider, Thomas, Mash and Newbury before Palmeiri gets a shot.
 
Draft Guru said:
Disagree so much with this post.

Dubinsky did not become the 30 goal, 60 point player we envisioned and was vastly overpaid with 3 years remaining on his contract.

Anisimov was to be an RFA after this season with arbitration rights and was likely in line for a deal in the 3.5-4m range.

The 7.8 cap hit with Nash was a complete wash with the guys we already had on the books.

We have a cheaper, younger replacement for Dubinsky in JT Miller. He just needs a little time.

You have to make the Nash deal every day of the week. You don't have many opportunities to acquire star players in their prime. Where Sather failed was making other moves to replace our depth. We went into the year thinking Kreider was going to be able to play a prominent role and that didn't happen. We've been searching all season for some reliable depth forwards.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Now the Nash trade is under scrutiny? Yikes. When you can acquire a superstar player like Nash for a couple of role players, you do it. Nash's $7.8M salary will begin to look like a bargain soon enough -- look at Getzlaf and Perry getting over $8.5M per apiece. Welcome to the new CBA.

Sather fumbled the ball by assuming guys like Pyatt, Halpern, Kreider, and Asham would be suitable replacements for guys like Prust, Dubinsky, Anisimov, and Fedotenko. The latter guys, while no offensive dynamos, did contribute the odd goal here and there. This current incarnation of the bottom 6 has 7 goals all season.

Pyatt - 4 (no goals in 22 games, scored those 4 goals playing primarily on the top 6)
JT Miller - 2 goals (in one game against the Islanders on Valentine's day, none since)
Boyle - 1 goal
Asham - 1 goal
Halpern - 0 goals
Powe - 0 goals

That, almost 30 games into a season, is an unmitigated disaster - compounded by the fact that Gaborik and Richards have sucked for the majority of the year as well.
 
Lundsanity30 said:
We weren't going to win the cup with Dubi and AA (see last year) the Nash trade is literally the only thing saving this team so far this year.
Click to expand...

That's like saying the Penguins can't win with their roster because they don't win the Stanley Cup every year. Last year's team was much better than this one, and last year's playoff run had rookies and guys who were still learning on the fly if you will. This was a team that had 3 above average forward lines, 3 forward lines I'd be happy to run out every night. This year there's 2, and barely 2 the way Richards and Gaborik have played. We now have two 4th lines, and two 2nd lines.
 
Draft Guru said:
Disagree so much with this post.

Dubinsky did not become the 30 goal, 60 point player we envisioned and was vastly overpaid with 3 years remaining on his contract.

Anisimov was to be an RFA after this season with arbitration rights and was likely in line for a deal in the 3.5-4m range.

The 7.8 cap hit with Nash was a complete wash with the guys we already had on the books.

We have a cheaper, younger replacement for Dubinsky in JT Miller. He just needs a little time.

You have to make the Nash deal every day of the week. You don't have many opportunities to acquire star players in their prime. Where Sather failed was making other moves to replace our depth. We went into the year thinking Kreider was going to be able to play a prominent role and that didn't happen. We've been searching all season for some reliable depth forwards.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I don't care for the trade. Sure, it's tough to land super star forwards in their prime, but as someone else said, those "big ticket" players don't always equate to a winning squad. Why did Columbus just lose their mega super star? Why are they doing significantly better without him?

We lost two players in that trade that bought into Torts system. We didn't resign the other players that bought into his system. And he isn't an adaptable coach. Thus, he's trying to play the same system with a completely different personnel.

If the intent was to trade for Nash and use the same system to succeed... Then absolutely it was a terrible trade. If the plan was to acquire Nash and adapt the team to a different style of play, then I'd say okay.

But at this point, it's either it was a bad trade or Tortorella needs to be canned for not adapting his team game to the personnel on the team.

We already tried the big ticket superstars in the past. How many worked out? In recent memory, just Jagr. And let's be honest, Nash isn't even close to what Jagr was for us.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I just don't think you acquire a big name and you're a better team. It's clear we aren't. I will agree that the bigger problem with that trade was Sather's inability to replace quality role players via the free agent market. But again, he shouldn't have banked on Kreider at his youthful age being in the line up and scoring 20-30 goal pace.

We were too close before the Nash trade. We are further from where we wanted to be afterwards. And with Lundqvist's time running down (and believe it or not guys, he will be a much bigger factor for this squad winning the Cup then Nash can ever dream to be) you need to make the next few years count. You can't make that trade when we were two wins from the Stanley Cup Finals, take a step back and say "Well, after the Nash trade our youth will step up to fill in the holes in a few years," when Lundqvist's prime is ticking away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom