OK, if we're going to consider usage after the fact, we should include the Yandle trade as well. I disagree that they had 0 shot at the Cup, of course.
It's just an extra point against the decision. Either way, they gave up a huge haul for a rental which did not address a major need. I don't see how you can defend the Eric Staal trade. Even if properly used, he wasn't going to push the 15-16 team into contention.
The Yandle acquisition is emblematic of the Rangers' half-baked management strategy. It was an objectively good trade, but they did it with no apparent plan to keep him long-term. Marc Staal had already signed his disastrous extension by then.
I think it's fair to view the organization's succession of win-now moves through this lens. Acquiring Nash, St. Louis, and Yandle all made the Rangers better. Each of those trades look good by themselves. But they wound up serving as band-aids rather than putting us over the top because of prior mistakes. We needed Nash to move us into the conversation instead of making us the favorites because we passed on Tarasenko. We needed Yandle to cover up the void Stralman left instead of giving us a dominant blueline.
The St. Louis deal is a bit of a separate issue, but again, Tarasenko would've made him a luxury. And Sather should've been able to pull it off without giving up two first rounders regardless or at least made one of them contingent on a Cup.
The Rangers have only had two picks in the top 60 of the last four drafts. It's inexcusable to do that much damage to the pipeline and not have a single Cup to show for it.
