Just as we were going to get back to the prospect world and away from the news regarding the Rangers did 2 different people pull stunts that were totally uncalled for. It is funny too as both have Jagr involved with them even if both sides are polar opposites about what they said or wrote.
The biggest question we have for both people is what was the need for what you said? In the end both people make themselves look rather bad.
The only good thing that we see that is coming out of seeing what Avangard Omsk General Manager Anatoly Bardin said is that what we believed about Alexei Cherepanov's knowledge regarding attending Ranger camps is true; that Cherepanov had no idea that his General Manager said Cherepanov was going to come over to North America.
At the press conference talking about Jarmoir Jagr signing with the Omsk, Bardin boasted about adding Jagr without having to pay the Rangers with Cherepanov. What kind of garbage is this coming from Bardin?
First off it has been established that the Rangers were never going to be allowed to buy out Cherepanov's contract with the Omsk. Since the Russian Federation pulled out of the NHL/IIHF Player Transfer Agreement; the only way the Rangers could bring Cherepanov over to North America is when Cherepanov's contract with the Omsk expired.
Second as bad a relationship the Ranger ownership has right now with the Commissioner's office does anyone think for a second that if the Rangers were found to have broken NHL rules that Gary Bettman would have come down on the Rangers with the force of the nuclear bomb?
On one hand we can understand that signing a Jagr is a coup for Omsk since there is no other player even at Jagr's age with his skill level. Celebrate that signing and how it improves your team but acting as if you pulled the wool over the Ranger's eyes severely damages you as a credible person.
Acting like you screwed over the Rangers makes you look foolish because the rest of the hockey world knows that the main reason you wound up with Jagr is not because you were his first choice. It was because the Rangers and Jagr could not come to an agreement on a contract.
Jagr wanted 2 years, Sather was only willing to pay for 1 year so had one side or the other accepted what the other was offering then you do not sign Jagr. But there is a silver lining in all of this because now the rest of the hockey world can honestly say that Bardin has credibility issues that may or may not be trustworthy.
Oh well us in the USA have this saying about "What goes around will come around". Ask any Ranger fan who experienced the 7 years without playoffs and they will tell you that tossing money like water creates more problems than solves.
Mr. Bardin will eventually get his due and when he does then it will be well deserved.
The other person that we have an issue with is Stan Fischler and his blog regarding how Jagr was running the Rangers like it was his own "monarchy". There is something rotten going on here as how do we go from Ranger's official statements praising Jagr (and also Avery) for their contributions to the Rangers to making them the reasons why the Rangers struggled.
Please Stan get real as we understand that the Rangers pay your salary but there was no need to trash Jagr on his way out of town like you did. Want to say that there will be a new culture on the Rangers next season then by all means go for it.
Want to say that there will be new leadership next season no problem given the changes in the lineup. Say that the Rangers will have a new look, a new style or even new whatever then it can be done without the need to trash Jagr on his way out of town.
Did Jagr mishandle the Omsk situation during the season, oh very much so as did the Rangers themselves too. Jagr should have been more forceful about Bardin's visits just like Sather and the Rangers should have told Bardin to come back when the Rangers were finished for the season.
Fischler writes about revisionist history so can we not say that his blog entry is exactly that? Why is it that only now is Fischler calling the last 3 years as a Jagr led monarchy?
So if Jagr was the King then does it mean that all of Tom Renney's critics are correct that the Ranger coach is weak and not able to stand up to his players? That is one of the messages that one can interpret from what was said.
One has to wonder how King Jagr would want to play a defensive system like Tom Renney used and never once complained about it to the media. Would not a "King" want to play his style of game instead of what someone else wanted?
How come when the Rangers were struggling like they did on the power play that the "King" did not pick Prucha to play on his power play unit? After all both players had great success together 3 seasons ago but how many times did we see Prucha get power play time last season?
If Drury and Gomez deferred to Jagr like everyone else did then what does that say about their leadership skills? If Jagr was hurting the Rangers like Fischler claims he was doing then why didn't these Ranger leaders not do something about it.
Sorry but waiting until AFTER Jagr is gone to make it seem like Jagr hurt the Rangers over the last 3 years is hard to believe. Yes too often especially on the power play did Jagr's teammates defer to Jagr.
However is it not the coach's role to put an end to that? Are we to believe that the only way Tom Renney to take control of the Rangers was to get rid of Jagr? What in the world does that say about Tom Renney as a coach?
Here is another question that we want to see an answer to: How come nobody not John Dellapina, not Larry Brooks, not Sam Weinman, not Steve Zipay, not Dubi Silverstein or anyone else who covered the Rangers on a steady basis ever once wrote that Jagr ran the team like this.
Sorry but all of these folks (even Brooks) would have killed to have written such a story that Jagr was hurting the Rangers with his monarchy act. To even think that any of the beat reporters would not have reported this is an insult to each and every one of them.
In the same blog once again the Maven trashes Sean Avery and like with Jagr there is no need to do so. If Avery disappeared during the second round of the playoffs (and not one mention about the spleen injury of course) then where was Drury for half the season?
You wish to talk about playoff disappearing acts in the Ranger's second round can we ask where were the new Ranger leaders during the Pen's series? Both only had 1 goal against the Pens so why single out Avery since didn't Gomez and Drury get huge contracts because they are paid to score?
It is so hard to understand this need to trash now former players, we were never huge fans of Jagr let alone Avery but to ignore their contributions or even worse belittle them makes the Rangers as a franchise look very small and quite petty.
Why not just wish those two well, thank them for their contributions but find a more respectable way to justify the new players and the supposed new culture. If anything if the Rangers continue to have the kinds of issues that plagued the team last season then all Fischler has done is open a huge door for criticism for Renney.
The Rangers thanks to blog entries like Fischler has written now had best come out of the gate smoking hot. The new "culture" will not be given a fair grace period since after all the Rangers are now free of the 2 problem children.
If I was Tom Renney I would not at all be happy here as thanks to the Maven then there will not be a Jagr to blame next season. It will all be on the coach since King Jagr is gone so it just might off with the coaches head.
Tom Renney will have to thank Stan Fischler for that.
1 hour ago