Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Tortorella Fired Pt II: "The Search"

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's no small thing that the Rangers fan base would seriously consider Pierre McGuire as replacement for John Tortarella. I can't say I'm surprised unfortunately.
 
Avoid Sacco he is a god awful coach. The team would be better of hiring a vagrant bum instead of him.
 
RothmanHockey said:
Just posted my article to Inside Hockey, wherein I discuss why this is a move looking towards the future, not a move because of the past:



http://insidehockey.com/firing-tortorella-about-future-not-past

I wasn't able to record the conference call today, but my article does include a full transcript of the 21-minute conference call with Sather.
Click to expand...

good read.

God Slats cracks me up.

"I don’t want to get into any specifics about the reasons", then in the next answer " I explained the reasons why we did it."

No you didn't you arrogant moo.
 
mike14 said:
good read.

God Slats cracks me up.

"I don’t want to get into any specifics about the reasons", then in the next answer " I explained the reasons why we did it."

No you didn't you arrogant moo.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, all we can do is ask the questions -- it's his job to answer them.

That's why I was never offended about the way Tortorella handled himself in press conferences. He couldn't control the questions, and we couldn't control the answers. I had no problem with it (most of the time, at least).
 
Really pulling for Guy Boucher as the new coach. Young guy, great hockey mind. Wouldnt sacrifice our D for Offense, yet is very competent in the offensive zone. I think he would be a great fit here.
 
NYR Sting said:
Warning: this is a long one. Haven't had a chance to join in the fray for a while now (nor am I up to speed on all of the rumors and hearsay about why Johnny Cakes got fired and who is going to replace him), but here's my two cents on this saga:

For most of his tenure, I've been totally split on Tortorella. Loved some of the things about him, detested some of the others. Can't help but think he is at least partially to blame for the lack of offense, particularly on the PP.

Still, I think it is absurd to fire a coach who took the team to the conference finals last season and didn't have a training camp, a big part of his whole system. You can't play his (over)demanding system without being in stellar shape. It helped them overachieve last season, and the lack of it led them to underachieve this season.

IF Lundqvist was the reason, then fine. I'm not going to doubt the best goaltender of his generation, and easily the biggest reason this franchise has had any success, as limited as it has been, since the lockout. If it is a Dolan/Sather reaction to some sort of media or fan pressure, or a suspicion of it, then it is a total overreaction.

No, I ultimately don't think that this team and this coach were going to win a championship, but is that necessarily going to change if the man behind the bench is different? I don't believe so. The problem is bigger than the coach; the problem is with the roster, and it always has been. That's always been the story. Under Tortorella, under Renney, under every other stooge or doom-destined man to coach a roster that has never, ever been properly constructed.

You can't win in this league without elite playmaking talent, creativity and depth down the middle. The Rangers still lack that, and that is not a dig at Stepan. He's a very, very good young player. But he's not that guy, not yet anyway. I'd give Richards one more season to find his game. That cap space isn't going to improve the team right now. Regardless, even if Richards turns it around, he's not that guy at this point in his career either.

The lack of such an integral piece of the puzzle was not solved with the acquisition of Rick Nash. Pure goalscorers like him, who are more or less one dimensional, are not players to build teams around. They are the guy you pair with those elite play developers. Sather, as usual, doesn't seem to grasp that Nash is in many ways similar to Marian Gaborik. Sure, he's bigger and stronger, more durable, and probably more effective. But like Gabs, he isn't notable in any way other than scoring. In the playoffs, he is not that difficult to eliminate as a consistent threat. He's predictable, and he doesn't do much besides try to force his way past numerous defenders, with and without the puck. It is no easier a task than Gaborik needing to find time and space so that he can use his best assets, his speed and shot.

Again, the problem lies with the man responsible for assembling this rag tag bunch. A ton of things to like about them, yes, and certainly a ton of players to admire; but they just aren't as good as the best teams in the league. Glen Sather has failed once again. When discussing the coaching change, he talked about how every season, the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, and how they failed to achieve that this season.

Glen Sather has had many, many tries to achieve that goal. Far more than almost any other peer in hockey or any other sport. He has never succeeded. The people he has brought in have never succeeded. Sather has produced largely mediocrity, at best, and probably would have achieved much less if not for Henrik Lundqvist.

How many seasons have to be wasted? How many coaches have to be hired and fired? How many trades? How many free agent signings? How many roster overhauls? How many chances can one man possibly get, how many mistakes can one man possibly make, how many times can one man fail to do his job before he loses it?

Sather again (and at this point I have lost track of how many times) deserves to lose his job. The man is incompetent. He does not understand how the game is played in 2013, which is why he has failed to win anything in 23 years (and without the best player of all-time and/or a team full of Hall of Famers). He is an embarrassment.

I know he won't get fired, though, so as far as who he should hire to replace John Tortorella, my pick would easily be Guy Boucher. Please, please, please don't hire another old timer or croney. Give someone with a fresh perspective a chance. Boucher got screwed in Tampa Bay. When he had the pieces, he did fine. His goaltending and defense sucked after that.

The focus now is on getting the offense to play, but that doesn't mean you want to stop being a great defensive team. Boucher can get this team to be at least tolerable offensively, IMO, while maintaining a top-10 defense. This is a smart, educated guy who understands the game at a deeper level. This team does not need any more motivation, Tortorella style or not. These guys are motivated, especially the captain and the best player. What they need is a tactician. They need to play smart, not just hard. Ron Wilson wouldn't be a bad second choice. Pretty indifferent about Vigneault. I think the Canucks should have won a championship during his tenure; they had the roster for it. Wasn't a huge fan of the job he did there.
Click to expand...

Sorry to reply again, I'm bookmarking this post.

Skimmed over it again, and I strong disagree with giving Richards another chance. He is DONE. And we can't risk an injury to prevent amnesty clause used on him. Sather has another get out of jail for free card with this buyout. He already used one on his other blunder, signing Wade Redden. :help:
 
The Rangers players had had enough of the coach and they said so during their exit meetings on Monday. Sources have confirmed Sather had no intention of dismissing Tortorella in the wake of the team’s second-round elimination by the Bruins until a critical mass of players informed the GM that the coach’s overbearing personality had become a roadblock to success.

When Henrik Lundqvist told the press Monday he would need time to think about committing his future to the Rangers, that was the tip of the iceberg. The franchise goaltender did not sing an executioner’s song, but we’ve learned that he was troubled enough by what had become a deteriorating dynamic between the coach and his teammates that he believed it was necessary to give voice to it.
Click to expand...

Here is the Larry Brooks article, don't want to post the whole thing, but worth clicking on the link to read the whole story.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/rang...6KKllcqh1K?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Rangers
 
lbrowne said:
Am I in the complete minority on here for not seeing what the heck people would want Boucher here as Torts replacement?

Like, I really can't wrap my head around it.
Click to expand...

Me neither, very unimpressed with Boucher in Tampa.
 
If Malkin hits free agency there would be a Lebron James like frenzy around the league. He'd easily be the best player to hit free agency since the pre-lockout days. It will ultimately boil down to if he wants prestige or money. If he wants to win cups he'll stay with Crosby and Pittsburgh. If he bolts and wants to get paid to be "the guy", I can definitely see him leaving too. Bet he ends up in Detroit if he makes it to FA. We'd definitely make an offer, but eventually lose out.

Back on topic, the calls for Pierre are laughable. I'd rather keep Torts for life over having him on our bench. Brooks' Post article definitely makes it sound like he lost the room. I bet Lundqvist was the leader of the coup. He can't be too happy about his buddies Avery and Gaborik being run out of town. It doesn't seem like he was too friendly with Richards. Torts' refusal to sit Richards until Slats' intervention is what made him lose the rest of the room. While guys like Kreider, Stralman, and Del Zotto were on short leashes and played scared while a guy like Richards gets free pass after free pass, it breeds resentment.

Torts' bizarre mancrush on JT Miller was also a head scratcher. I still think he'll be a good two way center in this league, but his demotion came five games too late. I bet sending him down required Mr. Penguin's intervention too.
 
Question: How much did Henrik Lundqvist not openly endorsing Torts have to do with this decision?

Sather: It didn’t have anything to do with it. We plan on signing Henrik to a long-term contract. I’m not going to make any public comments on the negotiations – how or when they’re going to take place. That had nothing to do with this. This was a decision that I made.
 
Tom Coughlin established a leadership council after their playoff loss to Philly in 2006. That was due to Tiki Barber shifting the focus from his fumble-itis to bashing TC publicly.

The council (Strahan, Pierce, Eli, Toomer) came back and told TC the players were tired of his act but they still respected him. TC -- all 60-plus years of him -- actually changed and became a better person, and let his leaders run the team.

Torts will learn one day. I think he's a very good coach who just needs to work on the interpersonal stuff.

Keenan on the 1994 Rangers was made out to be Himmler by Meisel and the players. He was actually tame compared to what he was in Philly and Chicago. Everybody knows how Messier approached Keenan during the playoffs and told him to tone it down.

This team doesnt need a Drill Sergeant and a buffer. It needs a mentor and a pragmatist.

Ruff isnt one. AV isnt one. Maurice isnt one. Marc Crawford sure as **** isnt one.
 


I'm shocked he was actually fired, but very happy as I couldn't stand watching paint dry for another year as it was anyway. Hopefully they'll bring in some more offensive minded coach - who actually coaches offense - who doesn't think humping the boards behind the net for 60 minutes is a good idea.
 
The Snouch said:
my thoughts exactly. this guy runs a 1-3-1. so what?

also, you don't fire a guy like torts and hire boucher. torts has a cup. how many of the coaches available today or currently coaching can say that? also torts went to the east finals last year. ok hes gone. Boucher is the answer? its a complete downgrade.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the Boucher hate around here. I also don't understand when people bring up a lack of a cup from a young coach as a reason not to hire. He's been a head coach for what 4 seasons? Scotty Bowman hadn't had a cup yet either so does that mean he would have been a downgrade automatically? EVERYONE starts at zero. Also I kind of think the young coach who is hungry and excited to get his first cup is exactly what these players need.

Also think the 1-3-1 gets too much of a bad rap. Just from that 30 seconds in Philly. I would much rather watch the 1-3-1 then a 6 goalie shooting range and that thing they call a "power" play. I find the strategies and nuances very interesting and I don't see why it is such an eye sore to people.

I also think Boucher is the perfect compliment to Torts in the sense that the players can still utilize the nuts and bolts stuff that Torts instilled in them. Most of what they gained from Torts doesn't need to be dropped to go to a more formulated system because...the system was jam? You can add jam onto everything. :sarcasm:

Like another poster mentioned, Boucher has his masters in sports psych. I didn't know that about him and I think that could be HUGE especially after playing under Torts. I'd suspect Boucher has a way to get the most out of his players in a healthier way. I also think knowledge in that subject would be extremely beneficial for the young players. I think we'd see the confidence and play from Kreider that we saw over the last few playoff games. Miller, Fast and Lindberg could also benefit if and when they make the jump up this next year.

Either way I'm psyched just for something different. I loved Torts as a person and wanted him to adjust and be successful but for the team he needed to go.
 
Ola said:
Question: How much did Henrik Lundqvist not openly endorsing Torts have to do with this decision?

Sather: It didn’t have anything to do with it. We plan on signing Henrik to a long-term contract. I’m not going to make any public comments on the negotiations – how or when they’re going to take place. That had nothing to do with this. This was a decision that I made.
Click to expand...

Sather isn't going to publicly admit that Lundqvist wanted him gone, would make Hank look like he is running the team.

Post, Daily News, Dreger all came out today saying players, including top players wanted him gone, hard not to believe Hank wasn't one of them. In the article Brooks says Sather was not thinking about firing him until his interviews with the players.
 
MTrangers said:
I don't understand the Boucher hate around here. I also don't understand when people bring up a lack of a cup from a young coach as a reason not to hire. He's been a head coach for what 4 seasons? Scotty Bowman hadn't had a cup yet either so does that mean he would have been a downgrade automatically? EVERYONE starts at zero. Also I kind of think the young coach who is hungry and excited to get his first cup is exactly what these players need.

Also think the 1-3-1 gets too much of a bad rap. Just from that 30 seconds in Philly. I would much rather watch the 1-3-1 then a 6 goalie shooting range and that thing they call a "power" play. I find the strategies and nuances very interesting and I don't see why it is such an eye sore to people.

I also think Boucher is the perfect compliment to Torts in the sense that the players can still utilize the nuts and bolts stuff that Torts instilled in them. Most of what they gained from Torts doesn't need to be dropped to go to a more formulated system because...the system was jam? You can add jam onto everything. :sarcasm:

Like another poster mentioned, Boucher has his masters in sports psych. I didn't know that about him and I think that could be HUGE especially after playing under Torts. I'd suspect Boucher has a way to get the most out of his players in a healthier way. I also think knowledge in that subject would be extremely beneficial for the young players. I think we'd see the confidence and play from Kreider that we saw over the last few playoff games. Miller, Fast and Lindberg could also benefit if and when they make the jump up this next year.

Either way I'm psyched just for something different. I loved Torts as a person and wanted him to adjust and be successful but for the team he needed to go.
Click to expand...

I don't care for Boucher at all, because I never have been impressed with Tampa when I've seen them play. Tampa is a bit of a odd bird in this league in terms of X and O. And I am not saying that Boucher couldn't make it work in the NHL, but I have no indication of that he can.

Tampa is trying to do what Detroit did, IE learn to play darn good defense and combinate that with an offensive game. That I can admire. I can admite Yzerman's boldness.

But then you gotta execute, and I've not been impressed at all with their execution. I definitely think Renney's plans in the NHL was more exciting and looked better than Boucher's. Renney had horrible rosters here in NY, and at the end we lost our offensive game. But considering the rosters we had, we played pretty darn well under him.

To put it like this, I wanted Yzerman as GM in NY (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=25134721&postcount=125). I was excited when I first saw what Boucher was trying to do in Tampa. But I just think (i) he has been way too defensive in his approch and (ii) has failed to be enough creative and find solutions offensively. A big problem for him has also been the lack of a "Lidström".
 
Boucher had Stamkos and MSL running his PP. After a great year in 2011 (despite 16 SHGA), TB's PP stunk in 2012.

PP's dont necessarily need to be coached or practiced. Sometimes you just have the let the players go out there and develop a rhythm. Torts pretty much ordered his d-men not to shoot the puck. The bulk of PP goals come from shots from the point.

Three of the final four teams have d-men who finished in the top-6 in shots for d-men. Letang would have been top-5 had he not been hurt.

Power play isnt the end-all-be-all. Boston's stinks. Rangers just made it look good with some bad zone play and soft goals.

Still, a decent PP this season may have given the Rangers home ice in the playoffs, maybe a berth in the CF.
 
17futurecap said:
Sather isn't going to publicly admit that Lundqvist wanted him gone, would make Hank look like he is running the team.

Post, Daily News, Dreger all came out today saying players, including top players wanted him gone, hard not to believe Hank wasn't one of them. In the article Brooks says Sather was not thinking about firing him until his interviews with the players.
Click to expand...

But I can add a few facts to this equation.

-Nobody knows when and why Slats made up his mind. Some of the same reporters states to know that.

-The same reporters states that Hank "did not openly endorse Torts".

That is not correct, and has taken a life of it own. On break-up day Hank is all of a sudden asked if he would resign a year in advance of his contract being up, and he is -- obviously -- not prepared, not for the question, but the issue completely. Its 13 month's till he is a UFA. To interpret his answer on that question as a lack of "open endrosement of Torts", if just not in touch with reality.

-The entire hockey world -- save for NY media -- where completely tearing Torts apart. I wonder if a coach ever has been torn apart in the Hockey News like Torts was.

NY media knows nothing about the X and Os of the game, and while the hockey world had seen that Torts was caught with his pants down, they where 100% suprised and where looking for answers late night.

Bottom line: Slats has undoubtedly talked with especially Callahan about this, and I doubt any player would be labelling our latest progress, or lack there of, as a step in the right direction.

But I don't quite buy the mutiny talk. First and foremost, because this is Slats we are talking about. We know that he isn't chit-chatting about his reasons with Brooks late last night. Hence, it is all speculation using tibits here and there.
 
Geez, now that Torts is gone, what's Kel Varnsen gonna do with his free time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom