NYIsles1 said:
The Rangers essentially bought the 94 cup from Edmonton. Seven players came in deals on the same level as the Kovalev-Pittsburgh trade. Where were Leetch and Richter in those deals because they should have been part of the return for Messier as opposed to eight million dollars plus marginal players and prospects?
Lowe, Tikkanen, Graves, MacTavish, Anderson, Beukeboom.
...
When they were in first place in Dec 2001 they had the same media attention as they receive now, one article per day, per paper. They traded Leetch and it did not make the back pages. Major Market?
...
You want to trust an owner in Dolan who's idea of a youth movement is to sign Nylander to a three year deal for three million with an option. Anyone think Joe Balej in Hartford (who cannot score in the AHL) is going to be a second line right wing in the NHL when a work stoppage ends is kidding themselves, not as long as Jagr, Holik and Messier are still in the mix. Why do you really think Yashin got the deal he got from the Islanders, if he scored 50 goals and led the Islanders to a cup with only a three year deal someone would have made him an offer for more than he makes now, especially based on 2001 contract offers.
Just a couple of points.
The Rangers got less than two seasons of Tikkanen for Doug Weight who went on to be a first line center for the next ten years. The Rangers got 35 games from MacTavish for Todd Marchant who went on to become a valuable third liner for the next ten years (and by valuable I only mean that he is/was one of the league's better players in the role he plays). Anderson (who also played 35 games) was acquired from the Leafs for Mike Gartner.
As far as I know, Smith exploited some loophole to sign Graves and I believe Edmonton was subsequently awarded Troy Mallette as compensation. I agree that Graves and Lowe were essentially bought. Cash was a large factor in the Messier deal, but Nicholls was still a ppg player at the time of the trade (he dropped off afterwards, though). I can't recall how highly thought of Rice and DeBrusk were at the time. I know Rice was a former 1st rounder and DeBrusk was nothing more than an enforcer. I don't know the terms of the future considerations, but it lead to the exchange of David Shaw for Beukeboom. It's obvious that the Rangers won the trade even without Beukeboom involved; again I don't know the terms of his inclusion but I'd lay that blame more on Sather (because what leverage would Smith have to demand a provision that could possibly land him Beukeboom when the deal was obviously slanted in his favor to begin with). Messier was also devauled because he asked to be traded. Also, I realize this in an area reliant purely on speculation, but nevertheless, assuming Fraser and Sather had other options besides Rice and DeBrusk they have to subject to accountability for choosing players who failed to become valuable NHLers.
To reiterate amidst the above clutter, I believe Tikkanen, MacTavish, and Anderson were legitimately acquired and both Edmonton and Toronto benefited from those deals as well (and longer than) the Rangers.
Graves was either stolen, or astutely signed/traded for by Smith. I'd be on the side of stolen (but either way, I'm thankful he was acquired). Lowe held out and was bought. Messier was devalued and bought/traded for. Nicholls was a legitimate asset, at least.
Two of the most important goals in the '94 playoffs were scored by a player acquired in exchange for Tony Amonte (who scored 268 regular season goals for his new team as opposed to the 11 regular season goals Matteau gave the Rangers). Larmer was acquired for players who played far longer than he did.
You can't pretend that some significant players in the Rangers' core weren't drafted/developed by the organization (Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Kovalev) and that they won the cup solely as a result of illegitimate acquisitions.
...
As far as I know, they were in first place for a short time in 2001 (due to the FLY line's one month run) by a slim margin. I don't know if a slight early season lead in the standings is supposed to cause widespread media buzz or not.
I don't subscribe to or regularly read any NYC papers, so I can't comment for sure on the Leetch trade. I do find it unlikely that the Leetch deal was completely ignored, though.
Are you contending that New York isn't one of the league's largest markets? As far as I know, the Rangers' attendance figures are still among the highest in the league. Interest in the team certainly isn't at it's peak, which is logical since they've been a consistent failure since October of 1997. Most franchises suffering from such a run of incompetence and futility would be hard pressed to keep people buzzing over their existence.
...
I'd be alright with Nylander in the short term, but I agree that four years is too long and for that amount of time his price tag is high.
However, whose progress is he impeding? The Rangers have four forwards on their roster (Nylander, Holik, Jagr, Lundmark). Nylander is their first line center when play resumes. They have no prospect in their system capable of filling that role. Theoretically, they could spend their next first round pick on a player projected as a number one center and let that player develop for three seasons while Nylander plays out his contract (if in fact he does remain a Ranger for its duration).
On their depth chart, Balej should be right behind Jagr on right wing which would place him on the second line. Nylander and Jagr are the only true top-six forwards they have and Holik may or may not play a third line checking role. That's three or four top-six spots open. Lundmark and Balej should each fill one, and honestly no one else in Hartford is projected for such a role and I'd be surprised if a prospect outside the AHL jumped to a top two line position in the NHL.
Balej's in a slump, he's not producing. He's been scratched the past two games (sweet accountability) and hopefully he'll get the message. He has already proven, last season, that he can score in the AHL, I disagree that he "cannot" score there. His stint in the NHL was decent and showed promise.
Yashin's contract was influenced by outside elements, but Milbury has to be somewhat accountable for it.
Just for clarification, I'm not defending/in agreement with Brooks and his points. My ideal situation would be the ability of every team who drafted/developed/traded intelligently to keep their players together indefinitely.