Larry Brooks: Rangers season already on thin ice

[Trxjw]

With a real GM this sounds like a plan, but we're talking about (queue Allen Iverson's 'practice' speech)...Sather. We're not talking about a good GM, one who knows what he's doing, we're talking about...Sather. It's just...Sather.

Sather isn't completely incompetent. He has the personnel to do this if he would just commit to it. The commitment is the problem, not the ability. He's made some good trades, the scouts have found good players, and together they've managed to assemble a pretty solid group of players amongst the **** show we're watching now.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Sather isn't completely incompetent. He has the personnel to do this if he would just commit to it. The commitment is the problem, not the ability. He's made some good trades, the scouts have found good players, and together they've managed to assemble a pretty solid group of players amongst the **** show we're watching now.

He's been here 13 years and he obviously has not made enough good trades or found enough good players or signed enough good free agents (BWAAAAAA!!!!!) over that time period.

I'm going to quote my new favorite poster, SBOB. Sather has taken 13 years to get us to...here.

 

[Trxjw]

He's been here 13 years and he obviously has not made enough good trades or found enough good players or signed enough good free agents (BWAAAAAA!!!!!) over that time period.

I'm going to quote my new favorite poster, SBOB. Sather has taken 13 years to get us to...here.

He's done plenty of asinine things to counteract the good things he's done, but he has done some good things. I'm not saying it's probable -- it really isn't likely at all -- just noting that it wouldn't be impossible.

 

[Jersey Girl]

He's done plenty of asinine things to counteract the good things he's done, but he has done some good things. I'm not saying it's probable -- it really isn't likely at all -- just noting that it wouldn't be impossible.

Bring in a real GM and I'm on board.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Mike O'Connell did good things in Boston after the mess he inherited from Sinden. But he wasn't the right guy. The Bruins were getting better but nothing to fear. Chiarelli hit some home runs with Bergeron and Krejci but ultimately it was Chiarelli who made them into a powerhouse.

Sather needs to realize this. He did a good job but he's not cut out for the NHL anymore. He has two cornerstone pieces in Lundqvist and McDonagh, maybe three if Stepan progresses. Lots of his former picks have value to other people.

If the Rangers win/contend for a Cup in three years under a different GM, it'll still have him imprint on it. Just like Theo with the 2013 Red Sox, the Dynasty Yankees with Stick and Watson, and the Acorsi with the 2007 Giants.

 

[True Blue]

He did a good job but he's not cut out for the NHL anymore.

What do you consider "good"?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Mike O'Connell did good things in Boston after the mess he inherited from Sinden. But he wasn't the right guy. The Bruins were getting better but nothing to fear. Chiarelli hit some home runs with Bergeron and Krejci but ultimately it was Chiarelli who made them into a powerhouse.

Sather needs to realize this. He did a good job but he's not cut out for the NHL anymore. He has two cornerstone pieces in Lundqvist and McDonagh, maybe three if Stepan progresses. Lots of his former picks have value to other people.

If the Rangers win/contend for a Cup in three years under a different GM, it'll still have him imprint on it. Just like Theo with the 2013 Red Sox, the Dynasty Yankees with Stick and Watson, and the Acorsi with the 2007 Giants.

At 70 years old, one would think Sather will be stepping down sometime fairly soon.

But I promise you it wouldnt be because he feels hes no longer cut out for the NHL. Its why pride is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

What do you consider "good"?

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

The rules about signing Europeans were different in those days, there was no urgency to sign a player like Lundqvist and I seriously doubt he would have signed anyway--he wasn't going to ride the bus for years in the minors herewhen he could progress through the Swedish system and ultimately earn a championship there. Even then, there was a doubt that Lundqvist would adopt to the North American game and would be around more than a year or two. Most people were expecting him to end up in Hartford that first season.

 

[chosen]

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

Some claim Sather didn't draft Hank, but let's say he was responsible. He obviiusly did not think that highly of him considering when he was drafted.

Thirteen years in, with a franchise spinning its wheels and not one definite young goal scorer in even the pipeline, and I am supposed to look upon him as even attaining a passing grade?

 

[pld459666]

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

Sather took over less than a month before the draft. He barely had time to put his staff together let alone actually oversee a draft.

Lundqvist was a NS staff pick 1000%

 

[RangerBoy]

Sather's best friend Harry Sinden retired in 2006 as Bruins president at 73. He added the president title in 1989. He gave up the GM duties to his assistant Mike O'Connell on November 1, 2000. Sinden was 68. Sinden is an advisor to Jeremy Jacobs. Slats turned 70 last month. Gorton and Clark worked for Sinden with the Bruins. People say Gorton handles the day to day operations of the team now but Sather is involved. Sather is the ultimate decider. Jim Schoenfeld is in the mix too. Sather hired him in 2002 as an assistant coach for Bryan Trottier. Schoenfeld was offered the opportunity to replace Trottier but he rejected it. He became GM of the Pack. In 2007,he was promoted to AGM with the Rangers and retained his Pack duties. If Gorton is the guy or will be the guy,allow him to bring his own people.

In 2004,the Rangers talked to Brian Burke after he left Vancouver. Sather wanted to bring him in without giving him the GM title and final decision making responsibility. Burke went to Anaheim. Sather doesn't want to give up the power and he wants other people to do the work. What does a team president do? The Garden has other people to handle the business side of the Rangers. New York isn't like other cities where the team president is out there hawking season tickets and luxury boxes. Board of governor? Dolan and Ratner can handle that.

Prior to his dismissal as general manager in 2006, Mike O’Connell — a native of Cohasset, Mass. — put a number of pieces in place that would go on to carry the Bruins to their Stanley Cup victory, including draftees Patrice Bergeron and David Krejci.

“When you’re a general manager, you leave that to your scouts,†said O’Connell, now the director of pro development for the Los Angeles Kings. “You have a little bit of say. So if you’re going to give me credit for those guys, you’ve got to give me credit for Milan Lucic, Brad Marchand, Phil Kessel and all those other guys, because I was part of the same staff that selected Bergeron and Krejci.

“The three guys who picked those players were Daniel Dore, Nick Bobrov and Jeff Gorton. The scout they retained, Scott Bradley, was sick that year and did very little scouting. Those three guys basically made those selections and many prior to that, and were very important to the Bruins’ organization. Those guys should not be forgotten because they are what helped bring the Stanley Cup to Boston.â€

http://hockeyjournal.com/news/pros/From_NEHJ-_O-Connell_reflects_on_Bruins_glory

MOC works for Dean Lombardi in LA.

 

[fredrikstad]

I would have loved to see Brooks publish a similar article (not that I completely disagree with it) with Torts still in town. And people wonder why I am not on the AV bandwagon.

If so, what would have happened to his cap hit then?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Sather took over less than a month before the draft. He barely had time to put his staff together let alone actually oversee a draft.

Lundqvist was a NS staff pick 1000%

Lundqvist was drafted in 2000. Sather thought so much of Hank four years later that when the Rangers had the number six overall draft pick in 2004, Sather chose Al Montoya...a goalie!

Not good.

 

[chosen]

The captain of the Titanic had a great career if you take away the incident with the iceberg.

 

[94now]

Larry is playing to stupid part of fan base as usual. After all Post is a business. He can't blame poster boy Hank cause no one will read his opuses then.

I challenge him or anyone on this board to name a team who was able to produce a winning record with poor goaltending. Like ever. Just on pure enthusiasm or what Uncle calls competiveness. This team won two games having Lundqvist impersonator in net. No NHL or other league player can do anything if puck goes into the net like there is nothing on the way. Sure defense can play better, but it is chicken vs. egg puzzle: the best way to improve defense is to have a solid G behind them.

Hopefully Talbot will prove my point tonight.

BTW, Chad Jonson looked okay last night for BOS.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

Say you want to give Sather credit for drafting Lundqvist, which is an ominous way to view things.

How about Sather drafting a goaltender with the 6th overall pick in 2004? At the very least it shows he had zero clue what he had in Lundqvist. I'm chalking this one up to pure luck, which is something you need when drafting, but not a good thing when it produces your one and only dominant home grown player over the past 13 years.

 

[True Blue]

Lundqvist was drafted by Sather in 2000. They waited four full seasons (five years) until they named him the starter.

I'd say his patience with Lundqvist paid off. Wouldnt you?

Henke was a product of Rockstrom, from the Smith regime. Jackass does not get credit for him. And even if true, THIS ONE item is what your example of "good work"?

 

[McRanger]

Sather was GM when Lundqvist was drafted but it is very unlikely he had anything to do with the pick, other than not fire the person who made it.

I've never heard for certain but it has always been my understanding that Sather likely would have recused himself from the Rangers draft because of his involvement with the preparation of Edmonton's draft.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Larry is playing to stupid part of fan base as usual. After all Post is a business. He can't blame poster boy Hank cause no one will read his opuses then.

I challenge him or anyone on this board to name a team who was able to produce a winning record with poor goaltending. Like ever. Just on pure enthusiasm or what Uncle calls competiveness. This team won two games having Lundqvist impersonator in net. No NHL or other league player can do anything if puck goes into the net like there is nothing on the way. Sure defense can play better, but it is chicken vs. egg puzzle: the best way to improve defense is to have a solid G behind them.

Hopefully Talbot will prove my point tonight.

BTW, Chad Jonson looked okay last night for BOS.

Theres a point here? You completely fooled me.

 

[The Gloaming]

Theres a point here? You completely fooled me.

Seriously, that was one of the worst posts I've read all year.

 

[chosen]

Seriously, that was one of the worst posts I've read all year.

It was something but I am not sure what.

 

[94now]

Theres a point here? You completely fooled me.

Read the entire article and you won't be fooled. Larry put blame directly on players and therefore indirectly on new coach for team miscues:

Injuries. Contract negotiations. Brutal travel. Mutual unfamiliarity with the coach. All excuses for the Rangers, who are taking every one of them.

There is, however, no excuse for an inferior work ethic. No excuse at all for these players who, given half the chance, seem to be invoking their non-compete clauses.

He bases his conclusions on this:

The Rangers are built on the proposition they will receive elite goaltending night after night after night, the way they have year after year after year since Lundqvist arrived from Sweden nine seasons ago.

That is FAULSE. No coach, Renney or Torts or AV would build a team on such assumption. They all built/will build Rangers on NHL Level Goaltending expectation. We did not have that expectation fulfilled. Both Lundqvist and Biron sucked profusely.
I am sure if we had Mason in net we would not need to read what Larry had to write. Mason is no Hank, but he is performing on NHL level NOW, while Lundqvist isn't. It is a chance for Talbot to perform on NHL level. No more than that is needed.
Blaming players and new coach doesn't do any good at this point. That's the point.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Read the entire article and you won't be fooled. Larry put blame directly on players and therefore indirectly on new coach for team miscues:



He bases his conclusions on this:



That is FAULSE. No coach, Renney or Torts or AV would build a team on such assumption. They all built/will build Rangers on NHL Level Goaltending expectation. We did not have that expectation fulfilled. Both Lundqvist and Biron sucked profusely.
I am sure if we had Mason in net we would not need to read what Larry had to write. Mason is no Hank, but he is performing on NHL level NOW, while Lundqvist isn't. It is a chance for Talbot to perform on NHL level. No more than that is needed.

Its been so rare over the past 8 years, that you Lundqvist haters get all giddy when he struggles for a few games. He'll be fine. You know why? Because hes been more than fine for almost a friggin decade -- and being the goaltender is the only dominant player on the team, the team is/has been built from the crease outward. Party because Lundqvist is great, and partly because Glen Sather is so bad at building a team.

You're trying to frame this bad start on Lundqvist's play. Hes been bad. The team has been worse. And there you have it. If this team picks up its play immensely and Lundqvist still has a 3+ GAA, then you might approach a point. But for now, you are woefully lost as usual.

 

[94now]

Its been so rare over the past 8 years, that you Lundqvist haters get all giddy when he struggles for a few games. He'll be fine. You know why? Because hes been more than fine for almost a friggin decade -- and being the goaltender is the only dominant player on the team, the team is/has been built from the crease outward. Party because Lundqvist is great, and partly because Glen Sather is so bad at building a team.

I agree, except 1st statement, not a few games, he has to change the style entirely and get out of the net. But he has to be in the net to feel where the net is, otherwise he loses net behind him. Sather is no good. Hank will be fine. All correct . No one here hates our best asset. What I hate is when people blame the bench and the manager when a pitcher is way off.