Sather’s Quest for Deterrence Continues to Punish Rangers

[Thirty One]

Sather’s Quest for Deterrence Continues to Punish Rangers

Even in Sather’s far more successful, post-2004 lockout, second life as Rangers’ GM, he’s still using resources towards this unproductive avenue.

Sather acquired Colton Orr, Brandon Prust and Jody Shelley at low costs and wisely neglected to pay their much higher prices when they hit free agency. But restraint isn’t a theme for Sather in the tough-guy free agent market. Sather took that savings and turned around to give a combined $17.3 million commitment to Donald Brashear, Derek Boogaard, Mike Rupp, Stu Bickel and Arron Asham on the first days of free agency from 2009 to 2012. The five rewarded him with a combined 175 games, scoring a combined 7 goals, and 3 assists, with a -18 rating and a 42.3 CF%.

Click to read more...

 

[McRanger]

Bickel was a minor league signing. He probably wouldn't have played if not for injuries. That was more of a depth problem than anything else.

The rest were unacceptably stupid signings. Not just wasting a roster spot but paying a premium. Brashear, Boogaard, Rupp, Asham and now Glass.

It is practically the same exact mistake repeated over and over and over again.

 

[Ail]

Hahaha. Nice write up. I have to agree it would seem this is Sather's hang up and not AV.

In before someone points out AV's comments regarding the Glass contract as if that matters.

 

[Thirty One]

Bickel was a minor league signing. He probably wouldn't have played if not for injuries. That was more of a depth problem than anything else.

Given that:

- He signed a two-year, one-way deal
- He was in the opening night lineup without any injuries on defense

I would disagree.

 

[Off Sides]

Rupp in the winter classic tho

 

[Miamipuck]

I could have written a thesis to rebut your article but then I came to my senses and realized I could destroy your article in 2 words:

Dave Semenko

 

[Thirty One]

Hahaha.

Thank you. Just the response I was hoping for.

 

[Thirty One]

I could have written a thesis to rebut your article but then I can to my senses and realized I could destroy your article in 2 words:

Dave Semenko

"There may well have been a time when deterrence was a real factor in winning and losing hockey games. But it isn’t now. Not with the game called as strictly as it is today, and any serious show of aggression on an unwilling opponent likely meaning a five minute penalty kill. And not with the minimum league salary being $550,000. I don’t like to get punched in the face, but if my reaction to it was a significant factor in me earning half a million annually and not earning half a million annually, I think I could be pretty brave."

 

[Ail]

Thank you. Just the response I was hoping for.

Jord pls. Ungrateful!

 

[nyr2k2]

I was okay with the Brashear and Rupp signings. Well, I was okay with bringing them in--didn't like the terms. I thought they both still had something left to contribute on the ice other than just fighting. Wrong on both counts.

Bickel was a depth signing. That first season he actually looked--at times--like a decent #7. He was competing with Eminger and Gilroy, both of whom also looked like trash. I don't know if Bickel's role with the Rangers was an infatuation with the "deterrent" players so much as it was him being marginally better than a bunch of other ****.

 

[NewLife]

Depressing really. I would really like to hear some day what was going on in his head with his latest stupidly signing in Glass, first of we didn't needed him (who does anyway?) and if he for whatever drunken thought believed he was a necessary piece this team was lacking, why the **** 3 years @$1.5m? Only thing I can think of was that he went in to a bidding war with Holmgren just to have some fun.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Glass' advanced stats are horrendous when you consider a) his salary vs others and b) his non-existent P/60

Duclair in a sense has exacerbated the depth issue because he's really a 3rd liner getting 4th line minutes, which means you had four guys with under 10 mins last night.

I don't like the bottom-6 at all. Only reliable guys are Hagelin, Moore and Stempniak.

Rookies and Glass make up the rest.

 

[Miamipuck]

Glass doesn't even pass the eye test. The reason Glass is on the penalty kill is because when it's 4 on 5, it's the same thing as one of his regular shifts, the dude is brutal.

Is it really that difficult to find a tough guy that isn't south of awful as a player?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I've been saying this more or less since the Boogaard signing.

 

[McRanger]

Given that:

- He signed a two-year, one-way deal
- He was in the opening night lineup without any injuries on defense

I would disagree.

Bickel signed a one-year, two-way deal with the Rangers in 2011. He was sent to Hartford after camp and only recalled in December when Sauer got injured.

Bickel was re-signed to the two-year, one-way deal the next year. He was suppose to be the teams 7th D-man. The only reason he started any games was because Eminger was a mess or there were injuries. He filled in at forward when Asham was hurt and on D when Del Zotto hurt his hip, Staal was out and the when the entire team had the flu. He only played 16 games the entire season.

Like I said, that was a problem with depth, not some delusion idea that Bickel was an every day player or a deterrent. I think he was put into the lineup once over Eminger against the Flyers to combat "tuffness". Nowhere near the same thing as the forwards you mentioned. Not the same perceived role or at nearly the high cost.

So I disagree with your disagreement.

 

[Levitate]

To *some* extent he's doing what the coaches want...Tortorella didn't roll 4 lines and wanted a goony 4th line he could play for 5 minutes per night for whatever dumb reason, and AV was the one who wanted Glass. Last season the Rangers didn't really have a useless punchy player on their roster for the most part BUT it was still AV who wanted a guy like Carcillo.

It's not just Sather...it's not even just the Rangers. Most teams in the league really like to waste roster spots on tough guys and the thinking on it falls on both GMs and coaches.

e: also remember that Renney liked Colton Orr a lot and put in a lot of time and effort to turn him into a "real player".

e2: my point being a pointed rebuke of Sather's "bad habits" loses some relevancy and bite when it's something that most of the league still does.

 

[Ail]

To *some* extent he's doing what the coaches want...Tortorella didn't roll 4 lines and wanted a goony 4th line he could play for 5 minutes per night for whatever dumb reason, and AV was the one who wanted Glass. Last season the Rangers didn't really have a useless punchy player on their roster for the most part BUT it was still AV who wanted a guy like Carcillo.

It's not just Sather...it's not even just the Rangers. Most teams in the league really like to waste roster spots on tough guys and the thinking on it falls on both GMs and coaches.

e: also remember that Renney liked Colton Orr a lot and put in a lot of time and effort to turn him into a "real player".

Re: bolded, according to who or what?

This is assumed and not necessarily the case.

 

[Levitate]

Re: bolded, according to who or what?

This is assumed and not necessarily the case.

this is what AV said:

On being with Tanner Glass again, “It was a factor and consideration but I think our whole staff of coaches and scouts and management thought that he would bring an edge to our team that we need. He would bring some PK. He has improved since I had him and I think we are getting a real solid player there.”

From his own words he is saying that he and his staff had input into the Glass deal

And as that quote implies, obviously Sather and the rest of management also feels like there is value somewhere in these type of players (and to be honest guys who are gritty but can play do offer some pretty good value beyond just points, for the right contract) but he's also working with his coaching staff to help bring in players that they want as well

 

[Off Sides]

Not saying they are a bad team, but if they were perhaps people would still pay to see a tough team that has someone who could fight?

Maybe Sather is just covering his bases. It's no fun to watch a team who is bad at actual hockey who also gets the snot kicked out of them on a nightly basis with no players who could retaliate at least a little.

Not saying it's not an antiquated idea, or this team is built that way, just may be the thinking behind it.

 

[Levitate]

Nah I think it's just a very prevalent thought in the NHL that everyone from management down to the players themselves have. GMs and coaches want to "protect" their team and have grit that makes them "hard to play against", while players continue to say stuff like "yeah I feel more protected when we have Boogaard in the lineup" and "it lets me relax and focus on playing" and stuff like that.

 

[McRanger]

To *some* extent he's doing what the coaches want...Tortorella didn't roll 4 lines and wanted a goony 4th line he could play for 5 minutes per night for whatever dumb reason, and AV was the one who wanted Glass. Last season the Rangers didn't really have a useless punchy player on their roster for the most part BUT it was still AV who wanted a guy like Carcillo.

It's not just Sather...it's not even just the Rangers. Most teams in the league really like to waste roster spots on tough guys and the thinking on it falls on both GMs and coaches.

e: also remember that Renney liked Colton Orr a lot and put in a lot of time and effort to turn him into a "real player".

e2: my point being a pointed rebuke of Sather's "bad habits" loses some relevancy and bite when it's something that most of the league still does.

I think he was doing exactly what the coaches wanted. I think for the most part he was bringing in the guys his coaches wanted on the roster.

But its Sather's job as GM to recognize an obvious mistake and not repeat it over and over and over again, regardless of what his coaches want.

You don't even need to be an advanced stats guru to see that bringing in slow zero dimensional players is a bad idea.

 

[Ail]

this is what AV said:



From his own words he is saying that he and his staff had input into the Glass deal

And as that quote implies, obviously Sather and the rest of management also feels like there is value somewhere in these type of players (and to be honest guys who are gritty but can play do offer some pretty good value beyond just points, for the right contract) but he's also working with his coaching staff to help bring in players that they want as well

I'm not saying it isn't true or a factor, but what AV says to the media and fans is not 100% a reflection of his actual opinion. That could simply be his justification for the idea being heavily suggested to him by Sather.


Another possibility is Sather coming to AV and saying we need a bottom 6 player who fits X description, who works for you and your staff? Perhaps this his was his solution to Sather's desire for that type of player. Could he have suggested someone better to Sather? Possibly, but that depends on who else was available and would satiate Sather.


Either way I'm not convinced AV is 100% in support of Tanner Glass being a staple in the roster.

 

[Thirty One]

Devil's advocate: if he had nothing to do with the signing, how would you expect him to answer that question differently? Surely you can see how washing his hands of the signing might be viewed negatively by management.

 

[nyr2k2]

Nah I think it's just a very prevalent thought in the NHL that everyone from management down to the players themselves have. GMs and coaches want to "protect" their team and have grit that makes them "hard to play against", while players continue to say stuff like "yeah I feel more protected when we have Boogaard in the lineup" and "it lets me relax and focus on playing" and stuff like that.

I think this is correct. Though I will say, this mentality is beginning to dissipate. Professional sports really epitomizes the term "old boys' club." It's slow to adapt. Ten years from now we'll probably be over the designated tough-guy thing completely.

 

[OverTheCap]

Sather has always been a huge proponent of enforcers and still is. He testified on behalf of McSorley at his trial and emphasized the importance of fighting in the game.

The coaches and players may still like having the security blanket of an enforcer on the ice. But even Brashear, Boogaard, and John Scott were healthy scratched eventually. The league is moving away from the role of an enforcer whose sole attribute is his ability to fight. If a player can fight, fine - but that can't be all his does, he needs to be able to play the game.