HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Are the Rangers flopping or held to a differnt standard? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1025005)

Ribban 11-08-2011 02:50 PM

Are the Rangers flopping or held to a differnt standard?
 
I started this in a different thread but had a few users respond to me and encourage me to start a new thread, so here it is.

Fair or not fair statement (No trolling, just a statement to be taken objectively and answered accordingly):

"The Rangers have a hard time to put together a team of over achievers?"

What I mean is that it seems as if New York is a market were proven players and leaders go to make it even bigger in the biggest market in the U.S. However, somehow, it seems as if the New York teams (Hockey, Basketball, Soccer, etc.) disappoint more often than not. Is that fair/not fair to say? Why do they fail, or is it an illusion created by media? Perhaps other teams fail just the same with big names on the roster but without being under the national media's microscope given that other teams are in smaller markets?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and please understand, I'm not attempting to troll or create senseless arguments. I'm just curious as an "outsider" looking in to hear what local New Yorkers feel and think.

Nich 11-08-2011 03:02 PM

It is because playing in NY is extremely hard for some players. They see the money but don't realize all the media attention they will get.

Fitzy 11-08-2011 03:07 PM

I don't know if I agree.

The Metros have a very short history. We all expect that despite this year's struggles that with the financial backing of Salzburg they could become almost a super club in this league.

The Rangers are a (relatively) unsuccessful franchise, but when you consider the amount of success that other NY teams have had (The Yankees, Giants, ect) it evens out.

I wouldn't say that Chicago is a bad sports city just because the Cubs and Fire stink.

NYRKindms 11-08-2011 03:07 PM

Well considering the most storied franchise in sports history calls NYC home I am not sure what you mean.

The biggest issue in NY is that anything less than the championship is seen as a failure. There are multiple sports teams for each sport so someone is going to be the loser.

Essentially WIN NOW is the mentality in all of the NY sports. The WIN NOW mentality works better in some sports vs. others

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nich (Post 39139841)
It is because playing in NY is extremely hard for some players. They see the money but don't realize all the media attention they will get.

But wouldn't they make more money on another team?! I mean the salary cap is a reality for all teams, and I sometimes wonder if the players aren't taking a paycut to come to the NYR, so I do not question their motivation or intention at all... or are you referring to other types of income (promos)?

The only other market I can think of that could compare with N.Y. is Toronto, but the Leafs seem to have a problem attracting the right players in the first place, which is a somewhat puzzling question as well, but not one I'd raise here.

lebear 11-08-2011 03:13 PM

I don't think media attention is such a big problem for hockey players in NY. Compare that with some Canadian cities

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLU Hockey (Post 39140027)
I don't know if I agree.

The Metros have a very short history. We all expect that despite this year's struggles that with the financial backing of Salzburg they could become almost a super club in this league.

The Rangers are a (relatively) unsuccessful franchise, but when you consider the amount of success that other NY teams have had (The Yankees, Giants, ect) it evens out.

I wouldn't say that Chicago is a bad sports city just because the Cubs and Fire stink.

The Yankees I agree with... the Giants... I don't know. Never thought of them as a powerhouse in all honesty.

But, would are you saying the baseball is perhaps a bit more popular than other sports in New York (Does Baseball have the edge right now?)

NHRangerfan 11-08-2011 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39140165)
But wouldn't they make more money on another team?! I mean the salary cap is a reality for all teams, and I sometimes wonder if the players aren't taking a paycut to come to the NYR, so I do not question their motivation or intention at all... or are you referring to other types of income (promos)?

The only other market I can think of that could compare with N.Y. is Toronto, but the Leafs seem to have a problem attracting the right players in the first place, which is a somewhat puzzling question as well, but not one I'd raise here.

When it comes to other sports besides hockey the media scruting can be overwhelming for guys who are not prepared to deal with it...for a Ranger player not so much, the Rangers rarely get the back page. In Toronto the media scrutiny is akin to the Yankees in NY.

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRKindms (Post 39140039)
Well considering the most storied franchise in sports history calls NYC home I am not sure what you mean.

The biggest issue in NY is that anything less than the championship is seen as a failure. There are multiple sports teams for each sport so someone is going to be the loser.

Essentially WIN NOW is the mentality in all of the NY sports. The WIN NOW mentality works better in some sports vs. others

OK... But, it seems to me that New York teams get a ton of flack from not only people in New York, but from all over the nation?

NYRKindms 11-08-2011 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39140285)
The Yankees I agree with... the Giants... I don't know. Never thought of them as a powerhouse in all honesty.

But, would are you saying the baseball is perhaps a bit more popular than other sports in New York (Does Baseball have the edge right now?)

Hockey in NY for players is great. They don't get much attention at all from the media compared to Baseball, Football etc.

The NYC market has 2 baseball teams, 2 football teams 2 basketball teams and then there is hockey.

It is the complete opposite of Canadian cities. Hockey is the 4th sport here. Hell I have been noticing the box scores for hockey on radio stations that would NEVER mention hockey. That is only the result of no basketball at the moment

There is no paycut to play here unless you mean cost of living. I think a lot of wives etc think that is a decent tradeoff. The area has the best of everything especially if you have $$ like these guys do

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHRangerfan (Post 39140341)
When it comes to other sports besides hockey the media scruting can be overwhelming for guys who are not prepared to deal with it...for a Ranger player not so much, the Rangers rarely get the back page. In Toronto the media scrutiny is akin to the Yankees in NY.

So, baseball is sort of in its own class then? Understandable. What about basketball and the Knicks? I remember the hype during the Riley era, when they lost a heartbreaker vs. Houston... Starks had a wide open look in the end.... :( But ever since then, it seems rather quiet, despite New York having bigger and better high school ball than anywhere else in the world.

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRKindms (Post 39140463)
Hockey in NY for players is great. They don't get much attention at all from the media compared to Baseball, Football etc.

The NYC market has 2 baseball teams, 2 football teams 2 basketball teams and then there is hockey.

It is the complete opposite of Canadian cities. Hockey is the 4th sport here. Hell I have been noticing the box scores for hockey on radio stations that would NEVER mention hockey. That is only the result of no basketball at the moment

There is no paycut to play here unless you mean cost of living. I think a lot of wives etc think that is a decent tradeoff. The area has the best of everything especially if you have $$ like these guys do

But the hockey market is in reality three teams... The Rangers and two more.

NYRKindms 11-08-2011 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39140369)
OK... But, it seems to me that New York teams get a ton of flack from not only people in New York, but from all over the nation?

People love to HATE NY.

I'm originally from New England. Hating New York is a religion there.

It essentially comes down to the stereotype of loud mouth NY'er with the know-it-all attitude that people love to hate. Throw the Yankees in to the discussion and good god.

The Stereotype says everything is bigger, better in NY and everywhere else is small potatoes. That is why people love to hate NY.

GAGLine 11-08-2011 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39140285)
The Yankees I agree with... the Giants... I don't know. Never thought of them as a powerhouse in all honesty.

Giants have won 3 superbowls and gone to a 4th. Not may teams have won more. And that doesn't even count the championships prior to the superbowl.

Ribban 11-08-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRKindms (Post 39140597)
People love to HATE NY.

I'm originally from New England. Hating New York is a religion there.

It essentially comes down to the stereotype of loud mouth NY'er with the know-it-all attitude that people love to hate. Throw the Yankees in to the discussion and good god.

The Stereotype says everything is bigger, better in NY and everywhere else is small potatoes. That is why people love to hate NY.

ROFLMAO!!! Yeah... that's true! I always thought of that as more of a local baseball situation though. But in all honesty, the rest of your point seems like reasonable argument to my initial question.

skroob** 11-08-2011 03:40 PM

with all the teams in each sport now, you only have to win once every 30 years to 'break even' and be average.

Rangers, Devils, Yankees, Giants, Islanders, and Mets are all above that mark. Jets and Nets LOLWTFBBQ, but still, you see my point.

DrAStuart 11-08-2011 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lebear (Post 39140277)
I don't think media attention is such a big problem for hockey players in NY. Compare that with some Canadian cities

I don't live in NYC but from what I see the media attention is relatively minimal in comparison to what these guys would get in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or any of the Canadian cities. And the attention in NYC is pretty localized...the Canadian teams get national media attention (good and bad) pretty much the entire season. Right now the national sports media is all over the Jets because it is their 'return to Winnipeg' season...every game is covered and dissected in papers across the country and on TV. It must add a level of pressure on an already mediocre team that is pretty heavy...esp given they HAVE to make hockey in Winnipeg financially successful or lose it all again...
New Yorkers who don't like baseball could still probably name a lot of the Yankees...how many Rangers could non-hockey watching New Yorkers name? The only two who probably have any profile beyond hockey fans are Avery and Lundqvist...and lets face it, if you looked like Lundqvist you could be the janitor at MSG and still make Page Six of the Post.
If the Rangers have had a problem putting together a winning team I think it is because they haven't had a consistent strategy that they've stuck to for any length of time. If they're committed to the idea of 'build on youth' and 'homegrown talent' (something the Leafs might consider) then that means committing to that strategy for a number of years. You don't grow your own team in a year or two...
I think the Rangers (and the Leafs for that matter) have been under the impression that you can still "buy" a winning hockey team...but I don't think that's true anymore for reasons that go beyond just the salary cap.

NYRFAN218 11-08-2011 04:03 PM

I can't be the only one that opened this thread thinking it was gonna be about diving.

BlueshirtBlitz 11-08-2011 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 (Post 39141949)
I can't be the only one that opened this thread thinking it was gonna be about diving.

Me too.

Also, I don't know how you can say all New York teams "flop." The Yankees and Giants are very successful franchises. The Jets have been very successful under Rex Ryan. The Mets are rebuilding now but were not a horrible team through the first half of the 2000's.

The fact is New York has very passionate fan bases, even with all the bandwagoners, so they do hold their teams to different standards.

NYRFAN218 11-08-2011 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz (Post 39142125)
Me too.

Also, I don't know how you can say all New York teams "flop." The Yankees and Giants are very successful franchises. The Jets have been very successful under Rex Ryan. The Mets are rebuilding now but were not a horrible team through the first half of the 2000's.

The fact is New York has very passionate fan bases, even with all the bandwagoners, so they do hold their teams to different standards.

Mets were ****ing terrible from 2002-2004. Jets have been successful of late but the majority of their years they've underwhelmed too.

BlueshirtBlitz 11-08-2011 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 (Post 39142279)
Mets were ****ing terrible from 2002-2004. Jets have been successful of late but the majority of their years they've underwhelmed too.

In that span the Mets also made a World Series and an NLCS, too, though.

I agree about the Jets, but since Rex took over they've been very good.

Either way, good enough that I think I can say the idea of New York teams "flopping" is bunk.

egelband 11-08-2011 04:29 PM

as a jet, knick, ranger, met fan i agree with the statement that ny teams tend to underachieve. i supposeit's partly a perception thing though. ny has more teams in all the sports. i imagine ny has a statistically similar number of championships to other cities. we just expect more.

HockeyBasedNYC 11-08-2011 11:25 PM

One of the reasons New York teams always seem to underachieve is because New Yorkers always have lofty, sometimes unrealistic expectations of the team. NY is always in the spotlight, even if the team is terrible and expected to fail. This isnt Kansas City where people just accept the fact that the team is bad, and going to the game is just a "night out". Its an event, and more importantly a critiqued event on a social level.

With intense scrutiny in the media, high ticket prices, high demand for an entertaining product and the pressure to perform on a high level increases. There's no other sports town like NYC, and every big city is different. NYC in particular needs the name star to market themselves. Thats part of the game here. Its more of business here than anywhere else, and what goes on off the ice, field, diamond, etc is just as important as what happens on it. There are also more teams in the metro area, so therefore there is more failure than success, its simple mathematics there.

With the Rangers in particular - they havent been very successful for a number of reasons. But I dont think you can paint the entire town and all of its teams with the same brush. Other teams have been more fortunate and others have been less. But i tell you what, when you win here its like nothing else in the world.

Levitate 11-09-2011 08:41 AM

I feel like the "media" for hockey in NY is kinda weird. Overall, yes hockey is low on the list of sports media priorities in NY, and it's not like you'll have everyone talking about hockey all the time and putting the team under the same scrutiny that the Yankees get. But the people who are hockey fans and go to the games and the reporters who follow the team still all subscribe to the same kind of NY sports mentality, so they're all still very hard on the team and players.

It's not as big as other cities, especially Canadien ones obviously, but I still think some players come to NY and are blindsided by the somewhat intense pressure, even if it's just localized to the hockey community.

On top of that, NHL fans in general have built up NY as this tough place to play and I think that psyches some players out.

But I agree overall the issue seems to be that in NY sports, teams are expected to be winning all the time and to be making every effort to win all the time and if you're not winnign every year then the team is terrible

NYR Sting 11-09-2011 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39139411)
I started this in a different thread but had a few users respond to me and encourage me to start a new thread, so here it is.

Fair or not fair statement (No trolling, just a statement to be taken objectively and answered accordingly):

"The Rangers have a hard time to put together a team of over achievers?"

What I mean is that it seems as if New York is a market were proven players and leaders go to make it even bigger in the biggest market in the U.S. However, somehow, it seems as if the New York teams (Hockey, Basketball, Soccer, etc.) disappoint more often than not. Is that fair/not fair to say? Why do they fail, or is it an illusion created by media? Perhaps other teams fail just the same with big names on the roster but without being under the national media's microscope given that other teams are in smaller markets?


I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and please understand, I'm not attempting to troll or create senseless arguments. I'm just curious as an "outsider" looking in to hear what local New Yorkers feel and think.

The Yankees and some of the other teams have already been covered in this thread, but I think your post epitomizes an incredibly false misconception about the Rangers and why the Rangers have been a piece of **** team for many years. What is the quintessential derogatory remark made at the Rangers expense? "The Rangers buy all the big names but they never have a real team or a real chemistry so they suck. You can't buy winning!" We've all seen those statements over the years. Like you said above, "proven leaders and winners."

I say ********.

Let's examine the Sather era. What proven winners and leaders did the Rangers ever get under Sather? Who were the big names?

Eric Lindros was a walking concussion when he got here. He was a player who could have been one of the greatest of all-time, but he wasn't that by the time he came here. Big name? Proven winner? No. Experiment from the scrap heap. Theo Fleury? Very good player, but a mess and really at a bad time in his life when the Rangers got him. He was still good here, but it's a team sport, and he didn't have much help.

Bobby Holik? Great role player. One of the best ever. Terrific defensive centerman. But a big name? No way. Alexei Kovalev was an incredible talent but you already knew that he was a lazy and "enigmatic" guy from the first time he was on the Rangers. An MVP talent, but not a big name or a proven anything.

I hate Glen Sather with a passion, but even I'll give him credit for the Pavel Bure trade. That was a good deal, and if Bure hadn't been the victim of a dirty knee on knee hit from Curtis Brown, I believe the Rangers fortunes could have changed drastically. Still, you're talking about a guy past his prime with an injury history. A big name, but also a big risk.

Jagr? You got him in his mid 30s, and the rest of the team was horrible. Even if he was good, which he was, the team wasn't going to win anyway. Gomez? Drury? Redden? Not big names. Just big money.

The reason the Rangers suck is because, most of the time, they DON'T have any big names. They just pay people who aren't big names big money and then try to convince you that they were worth it, or they get the odd legitimate big name and stick him on a **** team with no chance of triumph. And this was all done in lieu of drafting and developing their own home grown big name players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ribban (Post 39140517)
So, baseball is sort of in its own class then? Understandable. What about basketball and the Knicks? I remember the hype during the Riley era, when they lost a heartbreaker vs. Houston... Starks had a wide open look in the end.... :( But ever since then, it seems rather quiet, despite New York having bigger and better high school ball than anywhere else in the world.

NY does not have the best high school ball in the world, first of all. That's a ridiculous myth. A handful of NBA players have come from NYC recently, but hardly any of them have been notable.

The reason the Knicks sucked is very similar to why the Rangers sucked. Allan Houston was not a superstar, but he was paid like one. Chris Dudley, Charlie Ward, Jerome James, Jarred Jeffries, Eddy Curry...these were all losers, but they all got paid big money by the Knicks. There were no big names. Latrell Sprewell was the closest thing to a big name, and he was a ****ing ******* and an incredibly stupid and selfish player.

Combine that with the fact that, for years, the Knicks drafted complete garbage, and it becomes very clear why they sucked.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.