View Single Post
06-28-2008, 10:31 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
1. iluvmarberrys used Cup contention as his reason. I replied to his post, and you responded to my rebuttal of him. It seems reasonable to assume you wer adopting his position.

2. There is no "chance" here. Either the team is a Cup contender or it's not.

And you're of the mind that Jagr IS someone around whom to build a team? As for Hossa, even if he were only that, I see that as no problem at all. An elite complementary player lined up next to Scott Gomez would, IMO, be just as effective as a declining Jagr, quite probably more so.

*chuckles* You're willing to count overtime and shootout wins as wins, but you're NOT willing to count overtime and shootout losses as losses.

Convenient indeed.

And what makes you think the Rangers can compete with Pittsburgh at present? Certainly not their playoff performance with Jagr in the line-up playing about as well as he can.

We'll keep doing the same dance on your first statement: whether or how much weaker the Rangers get depends entirely on what Sather does instead of signing Jagr. If you're of the mind that absolutely no combination of moves can possibly make up for the loss of Jagr, I can see you point. I am far from that mind. There was a time when Jagr was that good, but those days have passed him by.
You don't know what you're talking about

Jagr may not be as "good" as he was 2 years ago and whatnot, but he was the best player in the playoffs before the team exited. He was averaging 1.5 ppg!

As for Hossa, I don't consider him on the same level as Jagr, even when Jagr is not at his best he is still far more dominant imo. Even with his great numbers, I still consider Hossa somewhat of a complimentary player rather than an elite talent. He played with Crosby and Malkin during the playoffs, Jagr played with a rookie as his center and still outscored him. End of story

Secondly, stop exaggerating everything. That second round could have gotten either way had we gotten a little luckier. The officials clearly favored the Pens, we had two big injuries in Drury and Avery, and still most of the games were decided by a goal. It wasn't as one sided as you seem to insist. Yes the better team won, but just one goal could have turned that series around.

Also, the "your team is either a cup contender or not" is simple BS. We've seen tons of "Cup Contender" teams exit early in the last few years. A good team that's hot in my opinion has the same chance to win a Cup as a better team that's cold. Streaks like these just are as important as anything else. Had the Rangers won a game and gone 2-2 except lost and gone 3-2 (which could have easily happened), it might have been a different series altogether.

And by the way, you're on the RANGERS BOARD. Stop ridiculing posters with your stupid sarcasm.

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote