2002-2003: 32-36-10-4 78PTS. 210GF 231GA, 9th place
(2001-2002: 36-38-4-4 80 PTS. 227GF 258GA, 11th)
(2000-2001: 33-43-5-1 72 PTS. 250GF 290GA, 10th)
| Player | '02-'03 Stats (w/Rangers) | Grade | Comments | |
| Mike Dunham | 43 GP
19-17-5 2.29 GAA .924 SVP |
A
A-/A |
Here he is, the brightest
and best part of the season. Not only has he played wonderfully since arriving
in a mid December trade, he seems genuinely excited to be here, and also
seems to have a very good, ego free attitude. I couldn't possibly be happier
with the Rangers new goaltender. If you don't think Mike Dunham had an
all-star season and might very well be the steadiest goaltender the Rangers
have had since Eddie Giacomin, just look at those numbers.
Now look at them again. One more time, because I want you to memorize them.
2.29 and .924. 2.29 and .924. 2.29 and .924...
Besides being damn good, even for the modern NHL, why are those numbers so significant? You see, a Ranger goalie has never had a save percentage higher than .924 in the modern era. And there's only been one time in the modern era a Ranger goalie has done better than a 2.29 GAA, and that was Giacomin's amazing 2.15 season in 70-71. That's it. So, already, Mike Dunham has had one of the greatest seasons among all Ranger goalies in history. You might say, "yeah, but he's only two over .500 and they didn't make the playoffs", but was that Dunham's fault?? When the guy stops nine and a quarter of every ten shots he faces, you can't do any better, period. When I try to come up with reasons to be excited about next season, Mike Dunham always comes up as reason #1. |
|
| Mike Richter | 13 GP
5-6-1 2.94 GAA .897 SV PCT. |
n/a | That's now four seasons
in a row with a season ending injury. Hate to say I told ya so, but, as
hard as it may have been letting a life-long Ranger walk away, I suggested
the Rangers shouldn't resign the UFA Richter last summer because his injury
history makes him very unreliable. This injury, though, is most likely
the end of Mike Richter's career. After taking what looked like an innocuous
knee/thigh to his head way back in game #15, what was first diagnosed as
a "day-to-day" injury became week-to-week, then month-to-month, until it
was finally announced in mid-December that Mike will be taking the rest
of the season off. In a late season interview Richter said he seems to
be making slow, modest progress, but that's progress towards having a normal
life, never mind being a goaltender again. If I had to give a guess on
Richter returning next season, I wouldn't say any more than 5%.
Here's a interesting question regarding Richter: Should his number ever hang from the rafters? I say no. As phenomenal as he was in '94 and again in '97, Richter was really "merely" a good goalie who sometimes played as well as anyone. Never won a major award. His career stats are mediocre at best. However, if there should be a ceremony to retire Mike's number at the Garden sometime soon, I wouldn't be outside protesting it, either. |
|
| Dan Blackburn | 33 GP
8-16-4 3.17 GAA .890 SV PCT. |
D
C/F |
Played in exactly two more games than he did last season (31 to 33). GAA is down by a bit, but so is the save percentage. Flat out and with no debate about it (at least to me), Dan Blackburn would belong in the AHL next season if he could go there, but I'm uncertain if he can because of junior eligibility rules. Second string and fill-in duty isn't doing him any good here, because he's not a bit better now than he was in September of 2001. Last year I gave "Blackie" a "B-" for throwing in some decent work in his rookie season. You're only a rookie once, though, and since doing a solid job for the first few weeks of Richter's absence, Blackburn really hasn't played a good game since November outside of two periods of fill in duty in Philly. Matter of fact, his record is 1-13-1 since December 5th, and that one win came from a game he wasn't the starter. No one expects him to be a true #1 goalie at 19 years old, but a .333 winning percentage and .890 save percentage is completely and totally awful any way you slice it. | |
| Brian Leetch | 51 GP
12-18-30 -3 150 SOG 20 PIM 26:05 |
B+
B/A- |
Oh, I killed him in the year-end card last season along the lines of, "D+, one of the major reasons for the collapse, the Rangers will never be better until they ditch their old warriors", etc. What a difference a season makes. The first half of Leetch's season was solid, if modest. Better defensively than offensively, while Poti was racking up the points. Then came the major and mysterious foot injury and since then, Leetch has left it all out there on the ice short of any player on the team but Dunham. Sure, he still made a decent amount of defensive mistakes down the stretch. In fact, in the final crucial week of play Leetch made two or three completely boneheaded mistakes that led directly to goals, but, look, you're going to get that with Leetch. Always will. The problem in recent seasons was that's all you'd get from Leetch down the stretch, where this season he probably won half a dozen games singlehandedly with his inspiring late-game heroics. Here's a player I was growing more and more tired of with each passing season, and now I'd hate the thought of him finishing his career with another team. Like I said, what a difference a season makes. | |
| Tom Poti | 80 GP
11-37-48 -6 148 SOG 60 PIM 24:42 |
B
B+/B- |
Yeah, that's right, a "B" for Tom Poti. Got a problem with that, bub? I feel he is far and away the most unappreciated Ranger. Absolutely, sometimes you'd like to smack him in his milk jug-shaped head because he's wandering around out there like he was a fan who took a wrong turn on his way to the bathroom and ended up on the ice, but he's so much better defensively than most people give him credit for. Watch when Tom Poti gets the puck compared to anyone else on the team besides Leetch. Poti will move that puck, and move it quickly. You can't put enough value on that skill. Poti is also more physical than people give him credit for. No, he's no Charles Manson. Not even Dave Manson. He doesn't really hit. But he will and does play his man more physically people seem to think. Look, the guy had 48 points and finished tied for 7th among all NHL defensemen in points. More than Kaberle, Blake, Ozolinsh, Neidermeyer and so on. And he's not that bad defensively!! Stop picking on the guy already, you ignorant sluts. | |
| Vladimir Malakhov | 71 GP
3-14-17 -7 131 SOG 52 PIM 21:23 |
C-
C/C- |
I've officially had enough of Vladimir Malakhov, and based on the comments I've read, so have most fellow Ranger fans. The guy is just way too up and down, with more time spent in the latter than former. He could be an awesome defenseman if he wanted to be - big, strong as anyone, good skater, not afraid to hit, decent shot and passing skills - he is just hardly ever that guy. Usually he puts in a so-so B- to C+ performance, which is much less than he could or should be doing. I'm tired of waiting three seasons now for him to at least be a consistent 3rd or 4th defenseman, but unfortunately, he does have one season left. If the Rangers are able to upgrade Malakhov's spot and move him in the offseason, there shouldn't be any hesitation. | |
| Darius Kasparaitis | 80 GP
3-11-14 +5 84 SOG 85 PIM 18:53 |
C+
D+/B |
After a disastrous start to the season and a near league leading minus rating, over the second half of the season "Kaspar" slowly but surely built his +/- back up to the positive side of the ledger. Considering he was once on the negative side of the low-twenties or upper-teens, that's nothing to sneeze at. Still, it's hard to consider Kaspar's first season with the Rangers anything but a bit disappointing overall. He's made some decisions with the puck and in his own zone this season that I'm still scratching my head about months later. And, of course, when his basic defensive game is an issue everything else is going to be reeled in, so we didn't quite get the full-on, hard hitting ferocity that makes Darius one of the scarier defensemen in the league to play against. Oh, he laid out some jaw dropping hits for sure, but many nights the focus was more on Darius just not making any mistakes, never mind the hitting. I'm not really worried about him next season, believe it or not. With a decent partner (come back to us, Cory Cross!) and a more defined defensive system, Darius can and still will be an asset. | |
| Dale Purinton | 58 GP
3-9-12 -2 50 SOG 161 PIM 15:02 |
C-
B/D- |
About a month into the season people were calling him the most improved Ranger, if not one of the most improved players in the league. After his second half, not anymore. Horrendous. He's looked snail-like slow both of feet and mind over the final months. It seemed like half of his shifts he was racing to catch up to the play because he stood at the blueline too long watching things. And I can't tell you how frustrating it was seeing him constantly hold onto the puck too long while forecheckers closed in on him and took it away. There was a perfect example of how bad Purinton's second half was in the final home game of the season: Dale has the puck in his zone, about 10 feet from the blueline. PLENTY of space and time to softly bank the puck out of the zone and he also had NO WHERE ELSE to go with the puck. So, he banked it out, right? No. He held it, held it, held it, until a Devil was able to reach him, took the puck away and the resulting pressure turned into a Devils power play. Just unconscionably hockey-dumb sometimes, and I can't tell you how many times that happened to Purinton in the second half. When you don't have another option, and there's plenty of room to get the puck out, GET IT OUT!! In my eyes, he went from a solid and much improved 5th/6th defenseman earlier in the season, back to someone who only deserves the time if one of the regular six are injured. | |
| Boris Mironov | 36 GP
3-9-12 +3 56 SOG 34 PIM 20:34 |
B- | I like "Bobo". He has his bad moments, but on a team that's not very tough in front of it's own net, Mironov is one of the few who will slam a player to the ice, or put a stick into their ribs to get him away from the sacred area. He's a good 2nd pair defenseman, not great at one area but decent all around, and plays the game harder than many other of his teammates. He's probably not worth the $3.3m he made this season, but I'm not the Rangers' accountant. If Mironov can be taken back without too much hassle, I'm all for it. | |
| Sylvain Lefebvre | 35 GP
0-2-2 -7 14 SOG 10 PIM 15:17 |
C+
C+/C+ |
Barely played this season. First he was injured, then he was in the minors, then he was injured again. In the time has was with the team, though, 35 games worth, he was okay. Not great, not bad. The Rangers have a team option for Lefebvre at $3m for next season, but I'd rather see someone like Pisa or a rookie get the spot, while that 3 million could be much better utilized on the Rangers many restricted free agents. | |
| Ales Pisa | 3GP
0-0-0 +1 3 SOG 0 PIM 13:55 |
B- | Only so much you can tell from 3 games, and I wouldn't even have put him on the card if the Rangers didn't trade away so many other defensemen, leaving the defense section of this card a little light. | |
| Eric Lindros | 81 GP
19-34-53 +5 235 SOG 141 PIM |
B-
B/C |
"What?! How could you give him a B-, you ignorant donkey?!" I can hear the protestations now. And I'm not trying to say Lindros had anything but an "off season", but I don't think it was quite as bad as many, including the booing fans, thought. Sure, his goal total from last season to this one has dropped by just a shade under an entire 50%. And Eric's offensive instincts and play-making abilities seemed to have almost completely abandoned him this season. But, for what it's worth, he did try pretty hard. There are jinxes and funks and snake bites, and then there's been Lindros' season, one of the worst cases of "snake bite" I've ever seen in my life. Posts, bad hops, miracle saves, Lindros has had an entire season worth of these, and was also the target of many unfair calls in the new kinder, gentler NHL of 02-03. I'm not writing it all off to bad luck, but again, at least he tried on most nights. Tried hard. He threw more big hits than any forward short of Petrovicky, and his shots on goal are up by over 60 from last season. I'm hardly thrilled with his season, but I also don't think it comes anywhere close to the abomination many others seem to believe. And while we're on the topic; the people who targeted Lindros with boos at the end of the season are immature, ignorant jackasses. | |
| Pavel Bure | 39 GP
19-11-30 +4 136 SOG 16 PIM 18:56 |
B
B/B- |
My first inclination is to be down on Bure's season, but for all intents and purposes he scored 20 in 40 games. Even at less than half a season, he was tied for second in goals on the team! So how bad was it, really? It was probably more annoying as a Ranger fan than anything actually "bad", especially during the pre-Kovalev Winter months when the Rangers went months trying to squeeze offensive blood from stones named Matt Barnaby and Mikael Samuelsson, among others. And the end of Bure's season was just, well, weird. He came back from his injury, picked up a slightly-modest-for-him 5 goals in 12 games, but clearly didn't look himself toward the end of that stretch and his disappeared from the lineup for the rest of the campaign, and this during the Rangers most crucial stretch run in 6 seasons. Not only that, but there were open-ended comments from Sather that seemed to suggest Bure was being overly-protective of his injury, moreso than a $10 million player should be when his team was fighting to get into the playoffs. Yeah, I don't know what to think about that. It is curious, but to take a position on it would be foolish since no one besides Bure really knows how his knee was holding up. | |
| Matt Barnaby | 79 GP
14-22-36 +9 104 SOG 142 PIM 12:59 |
B
B/B |
The winner of the "Steven McDonald Extra Effort Award", and he wouldn't have been my first choice (Dunham), nor my second choice (Nedved), but I guess he was an okay third choice. He certainly had some impact games this season, but let's be honest, Matt Barnaby can dog it as well as anyone. Of course, no player gives it "100%" every single game, but if you're telling me that Barnaby gave it 100% more often than did any other Ranger this season, I'm going to need some serious convincing on that one. But, let's get away from the negatives on what has mostly been a positive season for Barnaby. His plus/minus rating is highest among players who finished the season the team (second highest when you include Cory Cross' +13, and by the way, come back to us, Cory!). All but two of Barnaby's points were at even strength, so there was no power play padding here. As usual, there was no one he wouldn't fight, and get his ass kicked by. And let's not forget his fantastic "double/double" on Long Island - two pre-game fight initiations followed by two goals. So it definitely was a good season overall, and there's not much more you could reasonably expect from a player of his talents. But there seems to be an idea among some Ranger fans that the guy is the very definition of "work-ethic", and, ah, no. | |
| Petr Nedved | 78 GP
27-31-58 -4 205 SOG 64 PIM 20:20 |
B
B/B |
Here's a funny one. Last season, Nedved was booed at and bitched about endlessly in a season where he put up 46 points. This season, he was commended and defended by most in a season where he put up 58 points. 12 points makes all the difference? He only scored 6 more goals in this, his "bounce back" season, after all, and his shots on goal are down by about 50! But the points really aren't the story, it's the way he got them. Last season Nedved was the poster boy of "playing scared". Skated into the zone, went to the wing, got rid of the puck when someone came near him. All season long. This time around, he didn't have that fear. Don't get me wrong, Nedved will be a good power forward about the same time soldiers in their tents overseas stay up late at night looking at centerfolds of Callista Flockhart, but there seemed to be little Nedved wouldn't do this season, and with his typically under appreciated team-first attitude. Played LW and C off and on. Killed penalties. Was saddled with the disaster that was the SIX goal Radek Dvorak most of the time (in fact, if it wasn't for Dvorak, Nedved probably would've had a 70+ point season). Took his hits, even tried to give some out. Did the best work cycling down low I've ever seen Petr Nedved do, or could imagine he was capable of doing. No argument here, it was a good (not great) season from Nedved. Yet, people are speculating what we could get for him in trade again, and I'm one of them. Good season or bad, there always seems to be that itch to upgrade on Nedved. | |
| Mark Messier | 78 GP
18-22-40 -2 117 SOG 30 PIM 18:37 |
C
C+/C- |
I will say this, 18 goals, 40 points and only a -2 is pretty damn good for a 42-year old. But, as usual, the problem with Messier isn't so much what the 42-year old can do anymore, it's what the coaches think the 42-year old can still do. And that's everything. Power play, penalty kill, 20 minutes a night; there's very little Ron Low, then Bryan Trottier, then Glen Sather thought Messier couldn't do. And that's a huge problem. The man is a terrible penalty killer at this stage of his career, yet he's always out there. He's okay positionally, but when the puck starts moving around on the PK, it's only a matter of time before Messier loses his check. And the power play, I guess he's not awful on it, but he's at best a "third string" option on it, a player who should only be on the unit when the first and second stringers are too tired. When used as a 4th line center for (small) stretches of the season, Messier was very effective. He had the jump in his skates until the end of games, and his 4th line was often the best one on the ice that night. Most insiders seem to point to Messier returning for yet another season, which is just too ugly to even think about. I would love to see him pass Howe's record, and it's not so much Messier himself that's the problem, it's his role on the team. At his age he should be little more than a novelty. Let him get his few points to pass Howe and then retire the novelty, either literally or by having him play no more than every other game, all of those on the 4th line, and without any time on the specialty teams. As well, start off the season with a new captain and a new direction. #11 will hang from the rafters someday, but the 2003-2004 season shouldn't be, better not be, a season-long tribute to it. | |
| Sandy McCarthy | 82 GP
6-9-15 -4 81 SOG 81 PIM 7:25 |
C
C-/C |
You always get the disclaimer with McCarthy. "Yeah, his numbers aren't very good, but he hardly gets any ice time". I can't argue with that, either. 6 goals in 82 games stinks no matter which way you cut it, but you also have to be honest about it. I don't believe McCarthy got off of that 4th line all season long. Sure, maybe a few shifts here and there, and I think there was a week or so he was on the (wow) 3rd line, but the guy is hardly ever in position to score goals. And then he gets that typical late season surge where he puts a good week or two together and you think, "wow, what if he got more ice time on a better line this season? Would things have been different?". The answer is no, and snap out of it. Sandy McCarthy on the 2nd line wouldn't have made the difference. He looked so noticeable towards the end of the season because, yes, despite the disclaimer ice time, he didn't do much of anything for most of the season before that. And another thing, is 81 penalty minutes a respectable number for a heavyweight?! | |
| Alexei Kovalev | 24 GP
10-3-13 +2 59 SOG 20 PIM 20:09 |
C | Oh boy. I, um... oh boy. Ahh, well, there was... hmm... ah... I... You know the thing about Kovalev is... um... hm... Yes, well, you see, it's like this: mmrrmhrrmerhmm. Ah! I got it! Wait, no I don't. Err... Kovalev. Kovalev, Kovalev, Kovalev. You see, I'm afraid to begin this column because I fear I will never stop. If there's any player in the NHL who defines the word "enigma" better than Kovalev in a Ranger sweater, I think you're lying. Brilliantly terrible. Terribly brilliant. Just forget it for now, I'll try again next year. | |
| Jamie Lundmark | 55 GP
8-11-20 -3 78 SOG 16 PIM 12:03 |
C | I don't have a definite opinion on Lundmark's season so let me try and form one now. Hmm... 8 goals in 55 games, not so hot. 20 points in 55 games, not bad. -3 is probably about team average. 78 shots is pretty good, so is only 16 PIM's when you're not out there to fight or be a physical force. 12:03 average ice time... I have to say that's more than enough time to score more than 8 goals in. 12 would've been a lot nicer. Yeah, pretty much what I thought it would be, a "C". Showed flashes of a potential impact player who sets himself up well for the pass and has a quick release, also showed flashes of a kid still too weak and and not "hockey smart" enough yet to really make any noise at this level. Let's see what getting that rookie season under his belt does for him next year. | |
| Anson Carter | 11 GP
1-4-5 even 17 SOG 6 PIM 17:48 |
D+ | Oof. Well, that didn't work out exactly as planned, did it? I wouldn't get too worked up about it, though. The Rangers at the end of the season were like three different teams - the old guys, the new guys, and the guys back from injury - and no one really meshed with anyone else. That said, though, Carter's lack of "mesh" was probably the worst on the entire team. One goal. One goal. It's not easy to explain that away. At first he looked okay, but as the season came to a close he appeared more and more lost to the point where a guy with mile-wide dredlocks sticking out of his helmet was barely even noticeable on the ice. What else to say? It stunk, but I'm still glad we have him, and expect him to be much better this upcoming season. | |
| Dan Lacouture | 24 GP
1-4-5 +4 17 SOG 0 PIM 10:17 |
B- | After the Rangers and Penguins
made the big Kovalev trade, I predicted that Dan Lacouture would probably
be the second best player involved in the deal. And I was right!
Rico Fata was the best one, Lacouture the second. Wah-wah-wahhhhh! But for more on that, see Kovalev's "column". As for Lacouture, he is 4th line personified. Gritty, hard working role player. Probably ain't gonna score, isn't a particularly ferocious hitter, either, but he's a solid, 4th line "energy type". If the Rangers were a good team, he'd be your Kris Draper, Turner Stevenson or Eric Messier. |
|
| Ted Donato | 49 GP
2-1-3 -1 30 SOG 6 PIM 8:33 |
C+ | Here's the real tough part in assessing Ted Donato's season, and/or him as a player in general. He's a pretty good defensive forward, a smart player, works reasonably hard, but he's of very limited use. He can't really score. Doesn't hit often. You can't assign him to check/shadow another player, he's too small. And while I say he's good defensively, he's no wizard at it. He's safe and smart, yet not exactly defensively jaw-dropping. So, what do you do? Do you give him a grade that says he's played well considering his limitations, or do you take the other end and say "little impact is little impact"? | |
| John Tripp | 9 GP
1-2-3 +1 16 SOG 2 PIM 8:43 |
C+ | He's alright. The fact that he's not afraid to be physical offensively is what has me giving him a "C+" over a "C", but there's nothing to run away with here, either. Should he perform well enough in camp to make the team that's fine by me, and should he not I won't be outside of the Garden with picket signs. | |
| Ronald Petrovicky | 66 GP
5-9-14 -12 65 SOG 77 PIM 12:25 |
C
B-/C |
When you think about it, it really makes NO sense why this guy was on the 2nd line for almost the entire season. He can't score for his life, nor is he particularly adept at setting up scoring chances. When they first picked him off waivers early in the season he had a good week or two on the 2nd line with Nedved and Dvorak, and due to a bunch of injuries and in desperate hopes they'd click again, that's pretty much where he stayed all season despite his anemic offensive output. The guy is 4TH LINE ALL THE WAY. And he'd be a good 4th liner, throwing his thundering checks out there for about 5-10 minutes per game, while his offensive ineptness and shaky defensive play sit for the other 50-55. | |
| Bobby Holik | 64 GP
16-19-35 -1 213 SOG 50 PIM 18:06 |
B-
C/B |
The nine million a season checking center got hurt in the second game of the season, played for a few weeks at half effectiveness, left the lineup for a little over a month, came back and mostly played well, but you won't hear it from me that the guy was one of the few doing everything he could down the stretch while everyone else was slacking off. Oh no. Bobby "The Mouth" had his fair share of off games during the final month or so, too. Part of that, though, is from game one onward, the guy just hasn't been used properly. He can score some goals, no question, but this first line center stuff with Lindros on his wing was just awkward. Holik seems to relish stopping other players from scoring more so than scoring himself, so let him do what he loves and what he does best. That said, when he is completely on his game, as he was probably about a dozen times this season, he's a sight to behold. Relentless, hard hitting, smart, mean, and something I particularly love - he'll throw the puck on net from just about any angle. When on his game, and used correctly, he's nothing but an asset, and will make this team 10 points better just by being there. So, I'm not down on him, but again, his season was hit or miss and he's at least partly to blame for it. | |
| Departed Players: | Joel Bouchard: B+
Cory Cross: A- Radek Dvorak: D Gordie Dwyer: B- Rico Fata: D+ Josh Green: inc. Richard Lintner: B- Rem Murray: C+ Kryztof Oliwa: C Mikael Samuelsson: C- Billy Tibbetts: B- |
|||
| COACHING
STAFF (under Trottier): |
D | Thankfully, no one (or very few, anyway) seems to be saying Trottier wasn't given a fair chance, or are making up stories about how we'd probably be a better team now if he was given more time. He wasn't good. Period. If you want to say it wasn't because he was a first time coach in a snake pit of a locker room, fine, but he just wasn't very good however it happened. He seemed to have some sort of plan to make the Rangers more defensively responsible, but whether it was his plan or the player's fault as to why that wasn't executed all that well, the result is the same. Holik was never used properly. Messier was given way too much responsibility. His line combinations often defied logic. He made a mistake by calling out Lindros and Bure to the press when both were giving it at least a reasonable-to-good effort. He made a mistake in calling out Dvorak to the press and then retracting it the next day. He would have success playing a four line game, then inexplicably go away from that the next game. And, word was after his firing that he was a terrible communicator and motivator in the locker room, often just sitting in his office instead of talking to the players. No, there's no two ways about it, Trottier just wasn't very good. Don't tell me about the injuries, either, because Trottier's record was no better before them than after them. | ||
| COACHING
STAFF (under Sather): |
B | Following along from the last sentence above, Sather's detractors want to take away points from him because he was "fortunate to get all those players back from injury when he took over as coach". Oh, really? Now, I'm not saying Sather didn't get a huge boost from Brian Leetch returning to the lineup, but who else? Holik was back in plenty of time for Trottier's slide to oblivion. Dunham was Trottier's goalie for 2 solid months. Bure was less of a help in his late-season comeback than he was before it. Kovalev may have one a game or two for Sather, but really, overall he wasn't that big a help at all. Anson Carter? Please. People who don't like him just don't want to admit he's a good coach. Oh, I'm not saying he's infallible, not even close. He over-relied on Messier just like the last two did. His line combos also seemed to defy logic at times. But coaching is a very bottom-line business, and Sather got results, even if he couldn't sustain them all the way to the end. Blame it on the moon, the wind and the stars, but results are results. Maybe, I don't know, gee whiz, maybe the fact that he's one of the most successful coaches in NHL history isn't so much of a fluke at all. Could you imagine? What a shock! Actually, to me it wouldn't be. I hope he's the coach next season. The guy's got the almost impossible combination of qualities to the players of fear and respect, yet they generally seem to like him and want to play for him. Why people want to throw that away and take a chance on someone else, for the life of me I don't know. | ||
| GENERAL
MANAGER: |
C | Sather's other hat, the
GM. Yeah, those two blockbuster trades looked great on paper, although
I'll be the first to admit they didn't work out near as well as I thought
they would. However, the earlier mini-blockbuster that was the Dunham trade
still looks magnificent from here. As far as the free agent signings went,
eh, tough call. Kasparaitis rebounded from his awful first half, and a
lot of Holik's lesser play earlier in the season can probably be written
off to injury.
Still, there were some things certainly not done well. First, was his selection of coach. A rookie coach to lead a gallery of been there, done that veterans is absolutely not the way I wanted to go, as I ranted about all last Summer. Also, despite the UFA signings, this roster was thin heading into the season. There was no reliable offense on the team past Lindros and Bure, as well as not a true 1st or even 2nd line LW in the entire bunch. The defense was kind of scatter-shot, and had too many lefties amongst them. But, switching back to positives for a second, if there's one trait that really bugged me with Neil Smith that Sather thankfully seems to lack is the flaw of holding onto your mistakes for too long. When something is broken, he generally doesn't take too long in trying to fix it. Bad coach? Gone. Blackburn not doing well? New goalie. Defense getting banged up? Bring a bunch of decent fill-in players aboard. You can't complain there. Overall, it's tough to say how he did as a GM this season. Not making the playoffs is a failure, but on the other hand, many of the reasons why the Rangers didn't make it were patched up somewhere between sufficiently and very well in the second half. You may rant and rave about the guy, but sorry, I think this team is on the verge of becoming something very good, (and believe me, I'm not usually an optimist) and Sather deserves another year to finally put it all together. His decisions this Summer will be very important. |
||
| OVERALL: | C- | Hmm. The classic dilemma.
The Rangers had serious injuries this season, but how much can you
write off because of them? Being without your starting goalie, top scoring
forward and top defenseman all at the same time for about two months is
NOT anything to sneeze at. Take Brodeur, Elias and Neidermeyer away
from the Devils. Take Cechmanek, Roenick and Desjardins away from the Flyers.
Roy, Sakic and Blake away from the Avs. Etc. These were extremely significant
injures.
On the other side of the coin, Richter was replaced by a more capable Dunham by mid-December, and while being without Leetch and Bure still hurt majorly, they still could have and should have found a way around it. But they didn't. Instead of reeling things in and going to a tight, defense-first system, the Rangers never really changed their game without Leetch and Bure in the lineup. On the whole, the team has played more responsible defense this season than they have in years (the numbers back that up), they just really didn't do it the right way. They kept playing a kind of "offense-first defense" when Leetch and Bure were out, instead of switching to the boring but necessary "defense-first defense". You know, dump it in, dump it out, wait for mistakes kind of thing, which would almost certainly taken some of the burden off the missing offensive production. They gave it a decent run at the end about a week or so after Sather took over. I didn't say a "great run" because a "great run" wouldn't include frustrating home losses to Florida and Pittsburgh, but down the stretch they were winning games at about a .650 clip, and remarkably the offense still wasn't going very well; they were winning a lot of 2-1 and 3-2 games and have left me, at least, with some positivity in looking towards next season. As far as what I think they should do in the off-season; very few things. Sign the RFA's, get Cory Cross back, maybe get Mironov back, too. A good defensive defenseman certainly wouldn't hurt, nor would a decent LW like UFA's Todd Marchant or Kris Draper. And the coach. Oh brother, the coach. The season probably hinges on it. I want to see Sather back most of all. After that, people like Larry Robinson, Mike Keenan and Jim Schoenfeld all reside in a puddle called, "I don't know". Might work, might not. |
||
| created by: | Pete Rocha, (c) 2003. procha@optonline.net | |||
| discuss | the card | by | clicking here. |
eMail this entry!
I'd give Nedved an A-; the guy did everything asked of him and then some.
Sather as GM: D-, borderline F. While I applaud some of his moves, others leave me with my mouth hanging open.
Poti is someone I'd rate C-. Overrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sure, he had up games, but he's a defensive liability. Not worth what we gave for him.
Leetch I'd stay the same, or maybe even upgrade to A-; I, too, had given up on him and felt he'd be best traded elsewhere to a cup contender. He proved me wrong.
I hope they make a bid for Cory Cross in the off-season.
Posted by: Scott on April 21, 2003 03:07 PMI'd give Nedved an A-; the guy did everything asked of him and then some.
Sather as GM: D-, borderline F. While I applaud some of his moves, others leave me with my mouth hanging open.
Poti is someone I'd rate C-. Overrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sure, he had up games, but he's a defensive liability. Not worth what we gave for him.
Leetch I'd stay the same, or maybe even upgrade to A-; I, too, had given up on him and felt he'd be best traded elsewhere to a cup contender. He proved me wrong.
I hope they make a bid for Cory Cross in the off-season.
Posted by: Scott on April 21, 2003 03:08 PMNedved deserves an A for even wanting to play in New York. He deserves an A for turning his year around - what's the motivation for any player to do well when they're met with this constant negativity?? Don't agree with most of the other observations either.
Posted by: Maggi on April 21, 2003 06:29 PMIf you think Nedved deserves an A for "turning his year around" into a good (not great) season, then I'm THRILLED you don't agree with much else. Also, Nedved's evaluation was negative?! I don't think I said a single negative thing about his season, just pointed out his limitations. These aren't greeting cards, they're evaluations on ALL the aspects of a player's season.
Posted by: Rocha on April 21, 2003 08:18 PMNedved's playmaking skills, his heart and his willingness to do whatever it took to bring the team up deserves the A-. He truly had a great year on a team of awe-inspiring underachievers.
Posted by: Scott on April 22, 2003 08:19 AMIs the Overall grade of "C" for the team's season or only for the coaching of Trottier/Sather combined?
If it is for the team's season, how can a team that misses the playoffs not get an "F"? Isn't that the final exam? Don't excuse this club's failure with injuries; look @ St. Louis.
Posted by: leetchienut on April 22, 2003 10:19 AMThe team got a C- in total, not a C. Just like there are degrees of success, there are degrees of failure, too. A team that had players like Barnaby, Messier, Dvorak, Bouchard and Samuelsson logging major minutes for much of the season wasn't that good of a team. Yes, they COULD have done better even with their weakened roster, but they could have done much worse than remain in the playoff hunt until game #81 as well.
I'm not about cliched ranting and simple conclusions, and neither are other writers here like Rodent, Leeds and Gabe. Go listen to WFAN or read other message boards for that.
Posted by: Rocha on April 22, 2003 12:56 PM1. Best card since february.....hands down.
2. How do I not get listed here as a writer who doesn't.....aw screw it.
----}-
Posted by: Bird on April 22, 2003 03:39 PMI was gonna include you, but then I thought you're more like the publisher or editor (who happens to write sometimes). The fact that Hockeybird.com reads a lot differently (and more smartly, in my pompous opinion) than any other Ranger fan site is a testament to your direction over it. If people want cliched ranting, go somewhere else. If they want more progressive thinking and humor, read here.
Posted by: Rocha on April 22, 2003 04:12 PMRocha, terrific as usual. You are the best! I agree with everything!!!!
Thanks for defending Lindros once again. I do think he played quite tentatively this past season, however, let's not forget that for a large part of the season, he was played out of position as a winger.
Obviously, he is not the superstar we always hoped he'd be, and I think he is still trying to reconcile his place in the NHL (as a less physically agressive center whist protecting his head from a career ending, possible life-threatening, concussion). With the correct choice of wingers and some time for them to jell, I think he can find his place and be able to utilize his talents.
Ultimately, I don't blame him for his less than stellar play, I blame poor coaching and terrible team management.
There's always next season, eh???
Little touchy, aren't you? Where did I rant? If anything, your telling me to go to the FAN or other message boards is ranting.
I simply inquired how a team that misses the playoffs can get above an "F"? I see that you really don't have an answer.
Go re-read Tina's post. Apparently, you need such stroking. & don"t worry, I won't bother posting on your site again.
Posted by: leetchienut on April 23, 2003 04:36 PMLittle touchy, aren't you? Where did I rant? If anything, your telling me to go to the FAN or other message boards is ranting.
I simply inquired how a team that misses the playoffs can get above an "F"? I see that you really don't have an answer.
Go re-read Tina's post. Apparently, you need such stroking. & don"t worry, I won't bother posting on your site again.
Posted by: leetchienut on April 23, 2003 04:36 PMWhat do you mean I didn't offer an answer? The entire first paragraph of my response was an answer to your question on why they didn't deserve an "F".
Also, I didn't say you were ranting. I said, and I quote, "If you want ranting...". Your reading comprehension is a little off there, pal. I assumed you want a more ranting-type take on the Rangers season based on the fact you think they deserve an "F".
Yet you come back and wrongly say I didn't answer you, wrongly accuse me of saying you were ranting, and also accuse me of wanting ego-strokery. ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ.
Thanks for wasting my time.
Posted by: Rocha on April 23, 2003 05:31 PMHey I ain't stroking anyone dude. But I do almost always agree with Rocha when it comes to Hockey. Also he is a terrific writer and funny as he11! Praising ain't stroking! so there.
Posted by: Tina on April 23, 2003 07:04 PMTina.....admit it.
You ARE secretly stroking Rocha....you may even be doing it RIGHT NOW !
;-)
----}-
Posted by: Bird on April 24, 2003 03:17 PMO-M-G!!
:-p
Not making the playoffs is one thing. Looking like either you do not care or are not prepared means either the players or the GM & coaches deserve a point deduction from their grades. There were some very important games against some less then talented teams and the Rangers embarrassed themselves in defeat.
Posted by: Chas on April 24, 2003 09:26 PMrangers suck
Posted by: bob on July 31, 2003 12:42 PM
|
Recent Articles
|
|
|