Worst Rangers trade of all time

[Jxmarts]

You are all wrong! Worst trade in Ranger history occurred in 1971. The Rangers trade young Syl Apps Jr for the over the hill thug, Glen Sather. The trade still haunts us today!!!
By the Way, Apps Jr had a terrific career for the Penguins

I was going to post that, but you beat me to it. I remember the Rangers playing the Pens in the 70's & Syl Apps Jr was usually their best player.

The very, very good Rangers teams in the early 70's badly needed some grit, but Sather was small & washed up and did not deliver.

I've always wondered if he'd have been brought to New York years later to run the organization if not for his earlier "cup of coffee" with the Rangers via that trade.

 

[Jxmarts]

Phil Esposito and Carol Vadnais were not a major downgrade for us from Jean Ratelle and Brad Park. Esposito was definitely the better center over Ratelle at the time of the trade. Espo had won scoring titles. He'd been instrumental in both of Boston's cup wins. They were relatively the same age. Espo was more of a leader. One of the major issues with Ratelle was that he was an underachieving playoff player. He improved on that after he went to Boston but all in all that analysis was spot on for his time as a Ranger. Park was without doubt a better player than Vadnais but Vadnais was still a very good defenseman.

Rick Middleton for Hodge IMO is the worst trade the Rangers made maybe ever. A kid at the beginning of his career for one of Espo's pals at the end of his career. Middleton was arguably Boston's best forward for over a decade. A team that made several Cup runs and never missed the playoffs. Hodge played on full year for us--maybe a quarter of a season the next year--went to the minors and never played in the NHL again.
...
...
...

The Middleton deal is the worst of them all. You don't trade a kid with tons of talent for a guy who is at the end of the line.

I'll disagree about the Joe Zanussi trade... Park+Ratelle+Zanussi for Esposito+Vadnais. It was that bad, IMHO.

Park was not only arguably the best player in the trade at the time, but also the youngest. That in itself made it a bad deal at the outset.

Although Ratelle was the oldest, he had always been a great skater who played with great finesse. His game did not suffer from the physical grind as it does for players who muck it up. He remained nearly the same player he always had been until he hung up his skates at 40.

Esposito, on the other hand, while possessing some of the best hands in NHL history was very limited otherwise. He benefited from playing on the great Bruin teams where he could plant himself in front of the opposition net, swat at pucks and worry about little else. He took a beating throughout his career, and when Boston decided to trade him, he was on a steep decline physically. He had slowed down considerably when he came to the Rangers, and it showed. He was never the same scorer again, and he was atrocious defensively because of his skating. It became obvious that he needed support, which induced the Rangers to trade Middleton for Hodge, hoping that reuniting him with his old linemate would help. It did not, and it wasn't until 1979 when Esposito meshed with a new group of younger Rangers to make a Cup run that kept his Rangers career from being a complete disaster.

Vadnais did have some productive seasons for the Rangers statistically, but it wasn't until his role on the team decreased that the Rangers improved. It was his misfortune that he had to replace Brad Park where he was more suited to a lesser role.

I always considered the Middleton/Hodge trade as part 2 of the earlier trade, which makes me frown upon it even more.

And why throw in Joe Zanussi too!

 

[Ola]

Trading away a productive 25 year old Zubov pissed me off. He and Nedved were traded to Pitt for Ulf frickin' Samuelson and Luc Robitaille. Zubov had 89 points our Cup year and 36 pts in 38 games the following year...then we traded him. Luc couldn't even match Zubov's offensive production. I understand unloading Nedved...that was fine....but Zubov? Broke my heart.

Yeah this is the one that during my time hurts the most. Zubov had 10+ very good years left. We had an unique weapon in both Zubov and Leetch, but tried to adjust and beat Philly on their home court instead and it was a big mistake.

 

[haohmaru]

(1) Quotes need citations for me to discuss it.

I don't see why, but I'll digress. Question and answer should be enough and the link is on the next page.

(2) If they didn't want him back after they traded him as a rental on the near death of the NHL, then why did they want him to comeback when he decided to sign with the Bruins?

This changes the subject from Leetch to the Rangers. I don't care what you think the Rangers "wanted". Leetch was completely justified in telling them to **** off.

 

[Edge]

Here is a question.......

1991-1992 the Rangers were after Adam Oates all season. I'm fairly certain they almost got him. Does Oates help the Rangers get past Pittsburgh? I think missing out on Oates in 1992 is on par with missing out on Shanahan in 1995.

The 1992 Rangers might be the greatest "what-if ?" Rangers team of the past 35 years.

I go back and forth on them.

On paper, they were probably the most talented and deepest Ranger team I've ever seen - with the 1993 team's overall roster not too far behind.

But I felt they had three fatal flaws - they had a lot of young, untested talent, the defense was somewhat suspect (particularly in 92) and they seemed to lack a killer instinct.

It's as if they "wanted" to have that instinct and some guys got it through osmosis by being near Messier, but I don't think it came naturally. In a lot of ways the 91-92 and 92-93 Ranger teams remind me of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 Ranger teams. There's talent, some concerns about applying that talent, a respected veteran coach who doesn't seem to be adjusting very well following a President's Trophy, and a group of players that fans have come to really like, but whose core be a little comfortable with each other.

But I digress.

I think it's 50/50 that Adam Oates pushes them over the top in 1992. But Oates was a guy who never seemed to be the answer to winning wherever he went. Perhaps playing behind Messier would've been the ideal spot for him.

I felt The Pens might have been the only team could stop that Rangers team and that series turned on a kind of fluke. Does Oates prevent that or give them enough cushion to overcome a couple of bad plays? I'm not sure.

Push comes to shove I think 1992 should've been a learning year for the Rangers and the team probably should've won with (close to) that same group in 93 and 94.

As for the Shanahan deal, personally I always felt he was the missing piece to those mid-90s Rangers. Both his personality and his ability. I think Shanahan makes a huge difference on the 1996 and 1997 Rangers - maybe even one last cup win. Beyond that, the Rangers lack of depth and age still eventually catches up to them.

The real fantasy is imagining a world in which the Rangers win in 93 and 94, and don't have to trade guys like Amonte and Weight, and still go out and get a guy like Shanahan in 95. Now I think you're talking about a 90's Ranger team that is viewed in the same manner as the Devils or Wings teams from that era.

But that's all make believe - no real way to say it would've happen or facts to back it up.

 

[Cliffy1814]

The 1992 Rangers might be the greatest "what-if ?" Rangers team of the past 35 years.

I go back and forth on them.

On paper, they were probably the most talented and deepest Ranger team I've ever seen - with the 1993 team's overall roster not too far behind.

But I felt they had three fatal flaws - they had a lot of young, untested talent, the defense was somewhat suspect (particularly in 92) and they seemed to lack a killer instinct.

It's as if they "wanted" to have that instinct and some guys got it through osmosis by being near Messier, but I don't think it came naturally. In a lot of ways the 91-92 and 92-93 Ranger teams remind me of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 Ranger teams. There's talent, some concerns about applying that talent, a respected veteran coach who doesn't seem to be adjusting very well following a President's Trophy, and a group of players that fans have come to really like, but whose core be a little comfortable with each other.

But I digress.

I think it's 50/50 that Adam Oates pushes them over the top in 1992. But Oates was a guy who never seemed to be the answer to winning wherever he went. Perhaps playing behind Messier would've been the ideal spot for him.

I felt The Pens might have been the only team could stop that Rangers team and that series turned on a kind of fluke. Does Oates prevent that or give them enough cushion to overcome a couple of bad plays? I'm not sure.

Push comes to shove I think 1992 should've been a learning year for the Rangers and the team probably should've won with (close to) that same group in 93 and 94.

As for the Shanahan deal, personally I always felt he was the missing piece to those mid-90s Rangers. Both his personality and his ability. I think Shanahan makes a huge difference on the 1996 and 1997 Rangers - maybe even one last cup win. Beyond that, the Rangers lack of depth and age still eventually catches up to them.

The real fantasy is imagining a world in which the Rangers win in 93 and 94, and don't have to trade guys like Amonte and Weight, and still go out and get a guy like Shanahan in 95. Now I think you're talking about a 90's Ranger team that is viewed in the same manner as the Devils or Wings teams from that era.

But that's all make believe - no real way to say it would've happen or facts to back it up.

If Richter does not let one in from center Ice in Pittsburgh, the Rangers may have broken that jinx two years earlier in 92'

I still believe one of the worst trades in history was the Amonte deal. I am one of those firmly in the camp that the Rangers would have won the cup regardless.

If you look at the minutes played and the impact through the playoffs Matteau and Noonan did not have a huge impact.

Even if you were in the camp that Noonan and Matteau were vital pieces, they should have been able to get players like that for a lesser return than a budding star who had already proven himself in NHL.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't see why, but I'll digress. Question and answer should be enough and the link is on the next page.



This changes the subject from Leetch to the Rangers. I don't care what you think the Rangers "wanted". Leetch was completely justified in telling them to **** off.

He's justified to say whatever he wants, but he was wrong. You really need to look at the context in regard to the team and more importantly the league in 2004. The Rangers did t ship him off as they did Gartner right before the big run. He didn't want to travel at his age. The whole "I wanted to be a Ranger" argument is a straw man. Furthermore, even if he really, really didn't want to leave, it was not one of the worst trades in Rangers history. Not even close.

 

[OrbitalDynamics]

Neil Smith and his quest to acquire anyone who even walked past Northlands Coliseum during the Oiler glory days.

Marty McSorley,the washed up ghost of Jari Kurri and Shane Churla

For Ray Ferarro (Smith assured him he wouldn't be traded after coming over from Isles),Mattias Norstrom,Ian Laperrier and Nathan Lafayette and a 4th in the '97 draft.

Replacing Zubov with Bruce Driver was great too.

 

[Edge]

If Richter does not let one in from center Ice in Pittsburgh, the Rangers may have broken that jinx two years earlier in 92'

I still believe one of the worst trades in history was the Amonte deal. I am one of those firmly in the camp that the Rangers would have won the cup regardless.

If you look at the minutes played and the impact through the playoffs Matteau and Noonan did not have a huge impact.

Even if you were in the camp that Noonan and Matteau were vital pieces, they should have been able to get players like that for a lesser return than a budding star who had already proven himself in NHL.

I always felt the Rangers hung onto the Beezer-Richter tandem for way too long. One of those guys should've been moved for depth in another area.

As for Amonte, I've always felt that way about both him and Gartner. I think the Rangers win with them all the same and probably aren't in a spot where they need a double OT goal from Matteau.

They lost a lot of offensive firepower and speed at the deadline and as a result of that, and other factors, we struggled more than we should've against both the Devils and the Canucks. Keenan knew how to push buttons. The problem is that he didn't know when to stop and I think he hurt as much as helped the Rangers win the cup.

Back on topic, I think we tend to forget that Matteau was only about a year older than Amonte and the thought was that he might have a pretty solid upside - 25 goals, 50 points. Obviously that never materialized, but I still felt the Rangers severely overpaid for what they got back. There were a lot of deals in 93 and 94 where you could see the Rangers anxiety about winning the cup. Even then I remember thinking, "Wow, that's a high price for a guy who is clearly well past his prime." But the league was also different then as well.In the early 90s a lot of guys rode past accomplishments significantly further than they'd ever be even remotely allowed to these days.

 

[True Blue]

Nemchinov was a VERY underrated player. Solid defensively, chips in points.

A prime Nemchinov would be a highly valued player in today's NHL.

Absolutely. He was a very, very solid 3rd liner.

 

[haohmaru]

He's justified to say whatever he wants, but he was wrong. You really need to look at the context in regard to the team and more importantly the league in 2004. The Rangers did t ship him off as they did Gartner right before the big run. He didn't want to travel at his age. The whole "I wanted to be a Ranger" argument is a straw man. Furthermore, even if he really, really didn't want to leave, it was not one of the worst trades in Rangers history. Not even close.

I've said multiple times that I think the trade was GOOD for the Rangers.

Leetch deserved better and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Tawnos]

I always felt the Rangers hung onto the Beezer-Richter tandem for way too long. One of those guys should've been moved for depth in another area.

As for Amonte, I've always felt that way about both him and Gartner. I think the Rangers win with them all the same and probably aren't in a spot where they need a double OT goal from Matteau.

They lost a lot of offensive firepower and speed at the deadline and as a result of that, and other factors, we struggled more than we should've against both the Devils and the Canucks. Keenan knew how to push buttons. The problem is that he didn't know when to stop and I think he hurt as much as helped the Rangers win the cup.

Back on topic, I think we tend to forget that Matteau was only about a year older than Amonte and the thought was that he might have a pretty solid upside - 25 goals, 50 points. Obviously that never materialized, but I still felt the Rangers severely overpaid for what they got back. There were a lot of deals in 93 and 94 where you could see the Rangers anxiety about winning the cup. Even then I remember thinking, "Wow, that's a high price for a guy who is clearly well past his prime." But the league was also different then as well.In the early 90s a lot of guys rode past accomplishments significantly further than they'd ever be even remotely allowed to these days.

I can only imagine how these boards would react to trading a 25 year old who averaged 60 points per season in his first 4 years for a 32 year old hold-out in decline. Granted that Larmer scored 70 points the year before and Turcotte never recovered from the injury he sustained that season. Still. The immediate reaction around here would be insane.

 

[iamthewalrus]

Not a bad trade per se, but I'm still salty about getting rid of Dubi.

Still my favorite player.

 

[Cruxial]

1988-Oct-11 Mark Tinordi Traded from New York Rangers with Brett Barnett, Paul Jerrard and round 3 pick in the 1989 draft (Murray Garbutt) to Minnesota North Stars for Rick Bennett, Brian Lawton and Igor Liba

1986-Dec-18 Bob Froese Traded from Philadelphia Flyers to New York Rangers for Kjell Samuelsson and round 2 pick in the 1989 draft (Patrik Juhlin)


I hated the Tinordi trade when it happened.

I liked getting Frosty, but he was done soon thereafter, and Big Kjell played another (almost)800 games after the trade, almost all of which were played for our Patrick Division rivals.

 

[McRanger]

The 1992 Rangers might be the greatest "what-if ?" Rangers team of the past 35 years.

Easily.

If the Rangers win the cup, and break the curse, in '92 you likely don't see a lot the same moves made.

Neilson stays on as coach for a while, probably for as long as he wants, maybe another decade. The team likely keeps most of Gartner, Weight, Amonte, Zubov, etc. Or maybe they find a way to actually get Lindros. By the mid-late 90's you might have another cup and maybe a team that is still deep and young.

Everything changes.

 

[Edge]

1988-Oct-11 Mark Tinordi Traded from New York Rangers with Brett Barnett, Paul Jerrard and round 3 pick in the 1989 draft (Murray Garbutt) to Minnesota North Stars for Rick Bennett, Brian Lawton and Igor Liba

1986-Dec-18 Bob Froese Traded from Philadelphia Flyers to New York Rangers for Kjell Samuelsson and round 2 pick in the 1989 draft (Patrik Juhlin)


I hated the Tinordi trade when it happened.

I liked getting Frosty, but he was done soon thereafter, and Big Kjell played another (almost)800 games after the trade, almost all of which were played for our Patrick Division rivals.

Good memory.

Also worth mentioning that sometimes the trades we don't like dont necessarily involve big stars or make the back the page of the paper.

 

[cwede]

...Replacing Zubov with Bruce Driver was great too.

freakin' Bruce Driver
his one and only (barely) memorable action as a Ranger was in a preseason game (given the date of article below, i assume it was '96 preseason) at MSG, I believe vs Pens, when, for the 1st and 3rd period, he wore a different name and number jersey - that of Bruce Willis's character in a planned hockey movie. In the 2d period, an opponent wore that name on his jersey.

the movie never happened
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-13/entertainment/ca-37642_1_broadway-brawler

https://books.google.com/books?id=RSuvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA314
100 Things Rangers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die By Russ Cohen

 

[Edge]

I can only imagine how these boards would react to trading a 25 year old who averaged 60 points per season in his first 4 years for a 32 year old hold-out in decline. Granted that Larmer scored 70 points the year before and Turcotte never recovered from the injury he sustained that season. Still. The immediate reaction around here would be insane.

It would like trading Stepan for Steve Ott, or Kreider for a pair of third liners. The board, and most fans, would go ballistic.

Amonte and Weight always stung for me, regardless of what they brought back and the Cup win. I can't tell you why they stood out compared to others, maybe I just liked them more.

Between the two, neither of which played past the age of 23 for us:

2,412 regular season games played

694 goals

1,933 points

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think the Espo trade gets a little bit of a bad rap at times because Espo put down NY before coming here and NY hated Espo before the trade. Ratelle and Park were both great Rangers. I think Boston got the better of the deal but it was not a horrible trade.

Espo was still a legit player/scorer. He was going to give us around 40 goals and 80 points a season. Espo did lead us in scoring in all of his four full seasons as a Ranger. He had such a great snap shot. I remembered even after Espo retired he did a in between periods bit with Mike Eruzione on shooting. The difference in their shots was jaw dropping. At that point I realized why Espo (at age 40) was Espo and why Mike was not in the NHL.

 

[Tawnos]

It would like trading Stepan for Steve Ott, or Kreider for a pair of third liners. The board, and most fans, would go ballistic.

Amonte and Weight always stung for me, regardless of what they brought back and the Cup win. I can't tell you why they stood out compared to others, maybe I just liked them more.

Between the two, neither of which played past the age of 23 for us:

2,412 regular season games played

694 goals

1,933 points

I think part of it probably had to do with an attachment to the youth movement around that time. Even though we've had great moments with Nash and St Louis, I still really miss Anisimov, Dubinsky and Callahan. Brian Boyle too.

The players in that early 90s Rangers youth movement represented the transition from the competitive but lacking late-80s teams. Turcotte was part of that movement too. And beyond being Rangers homegrown players, what did Leetch, Turcotte, Richter, Amonte, and Weight have in common? They're all Americans. Not only did they represent a shift in the Rangers organization, they represented a shift in USA hockey. It's not hard to imagine why there was attachment to these guys. Turcotte just doesn't hurt as much because his career fizzled not long after he was dealt. The fact that Amonte and Weight had near-HOF careers just piles onto it.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

The Turcotte for Larmer deal was smart. Larmer was a stud, both offensively and defensively. And although he was on the decline (nobody knew it since he was coming off a great season with Chicago), Turcotte would never be the same again either (again, no one knew at the time but he did have a terrible start to the 1993-94 season).

Larmer wound up having a better season for us than Turcotte would have, even though he was off his career averages, and he had an awesome playoffs where he was exactly as advertised.

The Amonte deal was terrible, but yeah, Matteau. You could argue that we would have had an easier time in the playoffs with Amonte and hence wouldn't have needed the Matteau magic OT goals, but I certainly wouldn't want to go back and find out.

Gartner for Anderson though, what a waste. Anderson did absolutely nothing for us, and Gartner was still awesome. No question we still win the Cup with Gartner.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The Amonte deal was terrible, but yeah, Matteau. You could argue that we would have had an easier time in the playoffs with Amonte and hence wouldn't have needed the Matteau magic OT goals, but I certainly wouldn't want to go back and find out.

Gartner for Anderson though, what a waste. Anderson did absolutely nothing for us, and Gartner was still awesome. No question we still win the Cup with Gartner.

I always think never trade players based on the current coach because coaches come and go in the NHL very often.

 

[Tawnos]

The Turcotte for Larmer deal was smart. Larmer was a stud, both offensively and defensively. And although he was on the decline (nobody knew it since he was coming off a great season with Chicago), Turcotte would never be the same again either (again, no one knew at the time but he did have a terrible start to the 1993-94 season).

Larmer wound up having a better season for us than Turcotte would have, even though he was off his career averages, and he had an awesome playoffs where he was exactly as advertised.

It was a great trade, but Larmer had been in decline for 2 years. He went from an 85-100 point player to a 70-75 point player.

I agree it was good. I'm just saying the narrative around here would have been young center with some success entering his prime for a declining winger who was selfishly holding out.

Also, not a single person around here wouldn't have panned the deal because it left the team without a legitimate 2nd line center. Obviously they overcame it, but that would have come up.

 

[KingDeathMetal]

It was a great trade, but Larmer had been in decline for 2 years. He went from an 85-100 point player to a 70-75 point player.

I agree it was good. I'm just saying the narrative around here would have been young center with some success entering his prime for a declining winger who was selfishly holding out.

Also, not a single person around here wouldn't have panned the deal because it left the team without a legitimate 2nd line center. Obviously they overcame it, but that would have come up.

The one caveat to that is 1994 being pre-cap, when teams didn't pay such a severe price for trading away young talent to "win now." This board tends to overrate young talent, mostly because the league is younger than at any time. Everyone watches the cap, and it's brutal, so giving up young assets even for guys in their late 20s always looks bad. In reality, without a cap in place, it's not that big of a deal unless you're giving up a future star like Calgary did with Doug Gilmour.

 

[Mandar]

You are all wrong! Worst trade in Ranger history occurred in 1971. The Rangers trade young Syl Apps Jr for the over the hill thug, Glen Sather. The trade still haunts us today!!!
By the Way, Apps Jr had a terrific career for the Penguins

Actually, Francis did Apps a favor by dealing him....they had many talented young centers at that time (including Don Luce and others), but none were going to crack the lineup and play over the top three of Ratelle, Tkaczuk and Stemmer. 4th lines just were not that important back then, so Apps would have had no future with the Rangers.

Personally, I hated when they traded Hadfield to the Pens for Nick Beverley. Stupid supposed reason of Hadfield laughing in the penalty box as they were getting eliminated by the Flyers.