Hockeybird.com: Redefine 'Youth Movement'

Few fans are interested in seeing a team of 21-year olds take
the ice solely because they were born when Messier was 21.

Sather has already concluded how the roster should be, and
no on-ice play will sway him from those choices.

As a result, players are categorized into two groups:
1. The Roster
2. Injury Replacements/Fourth line depth

The reason youth tends to be a focus is because inevitably
they always land in group 2 with little chance to make
"the roster."

And if they are given a chance to "show something,"
inevitably they are set up to fail by a spot on the fourth
line where one mistake sends you to the bench.

Joel Bouchard. Outplayed many of his counterparts, including
Kaspar and Poti, yet was banished to the bench when Leetch
returned.

Dale Purinton. A steady d-man who plays a simple game and
protects his teammates. Kept away from waivers because
he'll be claimed, yet only sees the ice through injury.

Dominic Moore. Ties a Ranger record for points in his debut.
Back in Hartford a week later.

And let's not ignore the tradition of adding waiver pickups
without a clear idea of their role on the roster:

Sheldon Keefe. Never saw game ice in a Ranger uniform
before being exposed to waivers and re-claimed by Tampa Bay.

Michael Siklenka. Hulking forward with limited skills saw
the ice for a few shifts, and was then placed on waivers and
re-claimed by Philadelphia.

Ah, but I can hear you now, pointing that none of these
players are worth the concern. Well, I imagine you'd have said
the same thing last year about:

Marek Zidlicky. Defenseman. 12 points in 14 games. (Actually, he
added another goal tonight. 13 points in 15 games)

Cory Cross. 10 points in the 25 games since the trade to Edmonton,
(that's the same tally as Anson Carter, btw). And since
his departure Kasparaitis has regressed considerably.

Can you name one player over the past three years who surpassed
expectations and retained his spot in the lineup?

Two players that I recall having a surprising run, Cory Cross
and Mike York, were traded while their value was "high."

And if a veteran is jettisoned during the season (i.e. Ciger),
the spot is taken by an incoming vet (i.e. Barnaby) rather
than someone on the roster who has earned a longer look.

Remember when Pascal Rheaume was signed? Sather said it was
because Dominic Moore wasn't ready. Yet Moore played well in
his call-up a few games later.

When recently asked why he was placing Lindros on the wing,
Sather answered "you can put Eric in the middle, but that
ends up taking Dominic out of the middle."

The next night Lindros was still on the wing and Moore was
on his way back to Hartford.

Sather won't admit it, and will avoid the question with sly
retorts, but facts point to one answer: he wants the
lineup that he envisioned as a GM on the ice.

So when Sather bristled at the fans' chants for Keenan during
a game last week, he has only himself to blame.

After all, at every stop Keenan challenges players to be
more than expectations dictate.

He did it with Jokkinen, Thornton, Bertuzzi, Roenick, Leetch,
and the list goes on.

So far, Sather has simply taken top players from other teams
and hoped that they replicate that success here.

And if that means giving ice time to Lundmark, Moore,
Ortmeyer, and Bouchard at the expense of Nedved, Rucinsky,
Carter and Kasparaitis, then so be it.

Gabe -

Excellent piece, one that I agree with largely, but do have one clarification/note.

There is a difference, at least in my mind, between bringing up Pascal Rheamu and not bringing up Moore, and Sather's refusal to play Bouchard or Lundmark over underperforming vets. And in my mind, it's because Sather sees, at least in part, the problem you are pointing out.

Sather wants certain kids to join 'the roster'. Other he views as merely grist for the mill. So Lundmark and Moore are supposed to be pushing (even if it's hardly a fair competition) for jobs in the top nine, and he does not want them staying in New York and not playing, or playing a role that some expendable veteran with unshakeable confidence could be doing.

Pick-ups like Petro, Cross, Siklenka, Keefe, Rheamu . . . those signings are just there to keep the Rangers with a full roster, including reserves. They're there to fill out category two on your list. By using these guys it prevents a Manny Maholtra/Tomas Kloucek situation, i.e., a valuable prospect unable to play his way onto the roster, and having his confidence slowly crushed while sitting in the press box.

However, your argument that underperformers like Carter, Kaspar, Kovalev, Nedved, etc. should see their ice time (and in some cases their scratched time) increased is correct. Kovalev's got 2 goals, but he's leading the team in PP minutes. Yank him off the point, put Lundmark out there (who's got a wicked shot, and excelled at the point in Hartford). Or keep Bouchard active and let him soak up some of the AK27 minutes on the point, and let Kaspar stew a bit in the booth.

Certainly can't hurt . . .

Posted by: Kubera55 on November 14, 2003 10:49 AM

Bravo Gabe for an excellent call on the Ranger fake youth movement.

Impressive how you also worked in the failure to reward any player who worked hard (IE Bouchard is the best case in point) but instead their reward was a seat in the press box.

What makes everything so frustrating to watch is that you know that no matter how hard a kid like Lundmark, Moore or even now Ortmeyer do in a game the next game their ice time has to be reearned as if it was their very first game.

Kubera

I agree about taking Kovalev off the point but not about replacing him with Lundmark despite his shot. Slats would give him half a shift before yanking him if he even thinks something Lundmark might make a mistake.

Posted by: Jess on November 18, 2003 09:59 PM