Second impressions of Marty St. Louis (Mod warning in OP)

[Vitto79]

Wow anyone see how happy the bench was for msl? Love it

 

[BroadwayHustle]

Wow anyone see how happy the bench was for msl? Love it

Yep, so much for Callahan leaving and creating a mess of the locker room. Seemed like Brassard and Richards were the happiest for him

 

[Killem Dafoe]

Wow anyone see how happy the bench was for msl? Love it

It's hard not to smile at that picture of MSL at the bench right after he scored.

 

[True Blue]

Let's stop acting like their team has been the pinnacle of correct roster building.

No, but let's also look at what is the NOW. NOW, they sit higher in the standings than the Rangers and not a leap of faith to say that they might have the better team. And they are better set up for the future, with more cap space and a fertile farm system.

Which team looks better for the NOW and THEN?

 

[Jersey Girl]

It's hard not to smile at that picture of MSL at the bench right after he scored.

Must have been a relief for all of them. I'm sure it was weighing on the entire team.

 

[Cake or Death]

No, but let's also look at what is the NOW. NOW, they sit higher in the standings than the Rangers and not a leap of faith to say that they might have the better team. And they are better set up for the future, with more cap space and a fertile farm system.

Which team looks better for the NOW and THEN?

You're comparing us to a team that in the past six seasons drafted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 10th overall picks... and that makes any sense to you whatsoever?

 

[Jersey Girl]

You're comparing us to a team that in the past six seasons drafted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 10th overall picks... and that makes any sense to you whatsoever?

An argument can be made not that teams should be expected to consistently draft better than teams that draft higher than them, but that it is better to go through a proper rebuild than draft in the 15-20 range almost every year.

 

[True Blue]

You're comparing us to a team that in the past six seasons drafted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 10th overall picks... and that makes any sense to you whatsoever?

What makes sense to me is to accumulate picks not discard them. In a salary cap league, they are currency.

And as Jersey Girl said, a proper rebuild makes more sense than being stuck in neutral.

 

[Cake or Death]

What makes sense to me is to accumulate picks not discard them. In a salary cap league, they are currency.

And as Jersey Girl said, a proper rebuild makes more sense than being stuck in neutral.

I can't see her posts, blocked her a while ago. Was my question not straight forward enough, you responded with something entirely unrelated. Sorry, I don't think TB's gaining top three picks through total ineptitude in possible to replicate. How any team - a few seasons removed from winning a Cup, with prime St. Louis, Richards, and Lecavalier - can get a first overall pick (and a second overall pick the season after) is mind boggling. That is not a re-build though, it's a level of mismanagement that's hard to comprehend, mixed with a league that rewards idiocy by allowing the same team to draft top picks season after season no matter how poorly the team is run.

The blow it up, rebuild model is a total crap shoot. For instance, if the lottery ball put Crosby on another team, the Pens are an outright bubble team. I watched Malkin in Russia - very talented but not a guy pre-Crosby who was carrying that team anywhere. He would've pushed them up in the standings to the extent that they get mid-tier drafts and are a non-entity. While the re-build worked in Chicago and LA, it has mostly not worked in most other places. Numerous teams seem to have been plugging top picks into the chain for 10 years running with little to show for it.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

An argument can be made not that teams should be expected to consistently draft better than teams that draft higher than them, but that it is better to go through a proper rebuild than draft in the 15-20 range almost every year.

Remind me again how this team is supposed to go through a "proper rebuild" with Lundqvist and McDonagh on the squad....unless you're advocating trading them both and starting from scratch.

While an argument can be made for that, I think its a much higher risk than the point you're trying to make.

People tend to remember the success stories like Pittsburgh and Chicago, and forget the multitude of train wrecks that outweigh those successes (Islanders, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus, etc)

 

[NYR Viper]

Remind me again how this team is supposed to go through a "proper rebuild" with Lundqvist and McDonagh on the squad....unless you're advocating trading them both and starting from scratch.

While an argument can be made for that, I think its a much higher risk than the point you're trying to make.

People tend to remember the success stories like Pittsburgh and Chicago, and forget the multitude of train wrecks that outweigh those successes (Islanders, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus, etc)

I'd say Columbus is finally coming out of it. They finally got a couple of guys in charge who know how to build a true team which helps.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Remind me again how this team is supposed to go through a "proper rebuild" with Lundqvist and McDonagh on the squad....unless you're advocating trading them both and starting from scratch.

While an argument can be made for that, I think its a much higher risk than the point you're trying to make.

I'm not making the argument either way, but history is telling us constantly saying 'how can we go through a proper rebuild with x (Jagr/Straka/Naslund/Drury/Lundqvist/McDonagh/St Louis) on the team' means we never go through a rebuild. And, arguably, never get past the point of fighting for the last few playoff spots most every year.

People tend to remember the success stories like Pittsburgh and Chicago, and forget the multitude of train wrecks that outweigh those successes (Islanders, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus, etc)

The train wrecks are for the most part because of horrible management. Columbus is trending higher (and younger) the last couple of years because of better management. Boston, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., went through rebuilds and are stronger for it, and still have prospects on the way. Tampa Bay, St Louis, Colorado and others seem to be on the same path, though time will tell.

And I do agree Sather has painted us into a corner where we probably have no choice but to constantly go for whatever big name is available at the time, year after year, until he finally draws to that inside straight flush.

Or never does, and finally goes away in 20-30 years.

 

[McRanger]

Remind me again how this team is supposed to go through a "proper rebuild" with Lundqvist and McDonagh on the squad....unless you're advocating trading them both and starting from scratch.

While an argument can be made for that, I think its a much higher risk than the point you're trying to make.

People tend to remember the success stories like Pittsburgh and Chicago, and forget the multitude of train wrecks that outweigh those successes (Islanders, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus, etc)

And it took Chicago a while.

They missed the playoffs 8 out of 9 years and had 5 top 10 picks (not counting the #3 overall that they traded) before they even drafted Toews and Kane.

And if they don't win the draft lottery in '07 (with an 8% chance) they dont even have Kane.

Rebuilds can definitely be ugly.

 

[McRanger]

I'm not making the argument either way, but history is telling us constantly saying 'how can we go through a proper rebuild with x (Jagr/Straka/Naslund/Drury/Lundqvist/McDonagh/St Louis) on the team' means we never go through a rebuild. And, arguably, never get past the point of fighting for the last few playoff spots most every year.

The train wrecks are for the most part because of horrible management. Columbus is trending higher (and younger) the last couple of years because of better management. Boston, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., went through rebuilds and are stronger for it, and still have prospects on the way. Tampa Bay, St Louis, Colorado and others seem to be on the same path, though time will tell.

And I do agree Sather has painted us into a corner where we probably have no choice but to constantly go for whatever big name is available at the time, year after year, until he finally draws to that inside straight flush.

Or never does, and finally goes away in 20-30 years.

Sather is an idiot but saying he "painted us into a corner" because we have a franchise goalie and defenseman on the roster is... an odd way to view things.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Sather is an idiot but saying he "painted us into a corner" because we have a franchise goalie and defenseman on the roster is... an odd way to view things.

Well, if you read the entire post, you'll see that's not exactly what I'm saying, but whatever.

 

[RangerBoy]

Some of those teams had a bad year or two. Anaheim. Boston. Both of them were good in the early 2000s and had a bad year or two. Boston was bad in 05-06 and 06-07. Got a top pick. Kessel. Both of them are top teams again. Anaheim has a million assets coming out of their ass and are still a top team. The year Perry won the Hart. They lost in the first round. 11-12 they were terrible. They have been a top team the last 2 years. They traded Ryan for futures and are still a top team. I know the Swedish kid from Ottawa was in that trade. That team is set up for now and beyond. Changing the coach was the only major change. No crazy free agents. No quick fix moves. Bob Murray stuck with the plan. The Rangers make a million moves and the team remains the same. Constantly churning the roster. With the Rangers,they have traded every top pick in order to win now. They aren't close to winning it all.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I feel like I've been reading the posts over and over since the lockout bemoaning we didn't go through a proper rebuild. There are no guarantees with a rebuild. I can see all of the *****ing if we suck for a few years with a rebuild.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yeah the Bruins's rebuild is what made them good again, not guys like Chara and Bergeron, neither a product of the rebuild.

 

[Ian]

No, but let's also look at what is the NOW. NOW, they sit higher in the standings than the Rangers and not a leap of faith to say that they might have the better team. And they are better set up for the future, with more cap space and a fertile farm system.

Which team looks better for the NOW and THEN?

They had the 3rd worst record in the league last season, and much of the reason they are slightly higher in the standings than the Rangers this year is because they're beating up on their own division, which houses 3 of the 4 worst teams in the East (and probably one of the worst of all time in Buffalo).

TBL looks to have a bright future, but as I'm sure you know as a NY sports fan, nothing is certain in sports.

What is certain, is that the Rangers have been one of the better teams since the lockout, and significantly better than TBL that time as well (373-251-75 to 320-296-82 to be exact).

If you're going to sit here and whine that you're upset the Rangers just haven't full out sucked the last 8 years on purpose in hopes of getting a generational talent and building a "dynasty," and instead made the playoffs and been an above average team for about a decade, I think you should reevaluate how you get enjoyment out of sports, or stop basing your ideas on franchise building from NHL 14.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I find it amazing that the Rangers just 7-1 and all I read is posts crying about lack of toughness, lack of prospects, how much the team sucks.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

They had the 3rd worst record in the league last season, and much of the reason they are slightly higher in the standings than the Rangers this year is because they're beating up on their own division, which houses 3 of the 4 worst teams in the East (and probably one of the worst of all time in Buffalo).

TBL looks to have a bright future, but as I'm sure you know as a NY sports fan, nothing is certain in sports.

What is certain, is that the Rangers have been one of the better teams since the lockout, and significantly better than TBL that time as well (373-251-75 to 320-296-82 to be exact).

If you're going to sit here and whine that you're upset the Rangers just haven't full out sucked the last 8 years on purpose in hopes of getting a generational talent and building a "dynasty," and instead made the playoffs and been an above average team for about a decade, I think you should reevaluate how you get enjoyment out of sports, or stop basing your ideas on franchise building from NHL 14.

Thank you! I've say the Hawks and Pens were 2 teams that won through "tanking". The Bruins definitely not. They won because they signed a top FA. They got Bergeron in the 2nd round. Marchand was a late round guy. I bet Rangers fans here would be complaining about the Chara signing too. Kessel and the subsequent trades are not the reason the Bruins are good.

 

[aufheben]

A winning streak doesn't change inherent flaws within the organization.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I find it amazing that the Rangers just 7-1 and all I read is posts crying about lack of toughness, lack of prospects, how much the team sucks.

7-1 is 7-1...good on 'em.

But in two weeks when we lace them up against the Flyers for real, 7-1 isn't going to matter anymore. How we are built for the playoffs is all that will matter. Perhaps St Louis (getting back to the thread topic) will be the playoffs factor everyone is hoping for.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

People tend to remember the success stories like Pittsburgh and Chicago, and forget the multitude of train wrecks that outweigh those successes (Islanders, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus, etc)

Agreed I brought this up previously. There are a multitude of high pick draft busts with all of those clubs and many of those busts had nothing to do with mismanagment and everything to do with the fact that every year kids who deserve to go high in the draft don't really have what it takes to reach anywhere near their potential. Therefore it's a massive crap shoot every year in the draft. It is important because it shows that blanket statements about keeping draft picks are inherently incorrect in many contexts. If we had traded our 06 first people would still be pissed we missed Giroux (plenty of people would be saying "Oh we would have drafted him!") but guess what we had the pick and still missed. We had our 03 and still missed (in what is obviously the most hilariously tragic draft failure possibly ever)

You have less than a 25% chance of getting a player at all out of the 1st round (I'm pretty sure it's less than 25%. beacon did the %'s. Point is even if it's 50% it's a crap shoot to get a player at all let alone a star/impact player)

People are overvalueing draft picks so they can harp on Sather even more than he deserves (and he deserves a good deal of harping). It was done in the other thread too by the same exact people. I wish we could have just kept the Sather thread which was perfectly suited for this conversation.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

A winning streak doesn't change inherent flaws within the organization.

Exaggerating inherent flaws ad nauseam doesn't make them worse than what they are