Latest Missive from Larry Brooks

[SueNJ97]

You can read the whole article yourself by using the link (there is some other stuff in there) but I have put the relevant portion in here.

While it is the possibility of a Gratton signing that has apparently sent Brooks over the edge this time, he makes it clear that he would object to the signing of ANY veteran over the age of say, 25, at this point. That means I have to (and I hate to do it) defend Sather. Sather already plans to have 10-12 ROOKIES or guys who have less than a full year in the NHL out there. Does Brooks have any idea what that means??? And not only that, he has to field a team in Hartford as well, not just for the hell of it, but because it's part of developing players. He cannot take guys from the Canadien Jr. Leagues and play them in Hartford, so he has to have a plan for that.

If you are going to have 10-12 rookies on the team, you need to have some vets to play with them. Now, he signed a few guys specifically to play with Jagr, I understand that might not sit well with some people but it gives the Rangers a legitimate threat on the PP and something resembling a 1st line. They were also signed to 1-year contracts. Not to 5 year contracts.

The question really should be, if you are signing vets, is Gratton, a career under-achiever everywhere he has gone, the right choice to work with kids who you want to develop? If you are going to complain about ANYTHING, that's what should be brought out here. Brooks does mention that aspect, but keeps mentioning his AGE, as well as the ages of every other signing the Rangers have made, and mentions in passing that he is an under-achiever. He doesn't make it clear that his FAILINGS are what makes him less qualified to be in NY, not that fact that he just turned 30.

Here is Brooks' article:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/rangers/51679.htm

RANGERS EYE PACT AU GRATTON

By LARRY BROOKS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11, 2005 -- Chris Gratton, the center who became a free agent when the Avalanche declined to pick up his $1.9M option, turned 30 last month.

In the unique perception of Glen Sather, this qualifies the career underachiever to be part of a Ranger youth movement that so far this summer has featured the free agent signings of 34-year-old Martin Rucinsky, 33-year-old Martin Straka, 30-year-old Marik Malik; and the executive decision not to buy out the final three years of 33-year-old Darius Kasparaitis' contract.

Thus, The Post has learned, the Rangers have had ongoing discussions with Gratton directed at bringing him to Broadway. The 6-4, 225-pound Gratton, who has variously been used as top-two lines center and as a checking pivot throughout previous tours with Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Phoenix and Colorado, has also received interest from Toronto, but the Maple Leafs now appear to be zeroing in on signing Eric Lindros.

[Elias 2662]

If Gratton is a free agent then that means the Dives traded Drury for nothing. Lacroix sure is a smart one.

[coldply123]

If Gratton is a free agent then that means the Dives traded Drury for nothing.  Lacroix sure is a smart one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup.

[Triumph]

That's not true - the Avs have Ossi Vaananen, a very good young defenseman.

And if the Devils had not qualified Friesen or trade him in the coming weeks, the Devils will have traded Petr Sykora for nothing as well.

As for the article, Brooks is trying to run Sather out of town I think - probably a good move. So while he will write stories like this which are incredibly short-sighted and silly (i've covered this BS idea of 'rebuilding' in many other posts - it stinks and is a terrible way to build a team), he has a greater purpose in mind.

Edited August 12, 2005 by Triumph

[Derek21]

Brooks is a selfserving jerk. He thinks he's a GM. Sometimes, I wish he would just go away.

[RicPerrott]

And if the Devils had not qualified Friesen or trade him in the coming weeks, the Devils will have traded Petr Sykora for nothing as well.

Actually, I believe the Devils would have traded Petr Sykora for a Stanley Cup. Which, in my book, is always a good deal.

[bg.]

Sue has a point...you cannot have a team with that many rookies and first year players - you do need some vets in there. Certain guys are just not ready for 15-20 minutes a night in all situations. Your GM has said he likes things in thirds. 1/3 older guys, 1/3 guys in their primes, 1/3 young players who are up and coming. Also, as long as Sather keeps these guys to one-year deals, he is basically keeping money and roster spots open for anyone who comes along in future years. I (and everyone) know he overpaid for Rucinsky and Straka...thing is, I'd much rather 1 year for 3, than 2 for 4.

Right now the only legit NHL fowards the Rangers have are Jagr, Rucinsky, Straka, Nylander, and Nimmenen (sp) - and the degree of how legit he is is debatable. That is 5...you have to dress 12 - that is 7 spots up for grabs. On the blueline, there is Poti, Malik, and Kasparatis...possibly Tyutin. Again...2-3 other spots are open for grabs.

Then the Rangers have Weekes, and the back-up goalie will most likely be a young goaltender.

Also with all these one-year deals, come deadline time if Sather should decide to sell again, the Rangers are in an Excellent position. Heck if Jagr is a point-a-game plus guy, his cap number of 4-5 won't be out of the question either. If Rucinsky and Straka play 60 games with Jagr....they are going to have some numbers, and at the very least fetch a half-decent draft pick in return.

Although I'm sure many will take pleasure in the fact that "9 years, 8 seasons and no playoffs" missing the playoffs this year will have a different feel then in the past.

[Derek21]

bg, you make some decent points. The last one is right on. There are no expectations this time around.

The top two lines should be decent. They didn't sign Ward though to play in the minors.

Betts is signed now and so is Balej.