View Single Post
Old
09-26-2011, 09:57 AM
  #298
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
At this point, even with the expected growth of the kids you mentioned, I don't see us getting past the 2nd round.

Your comment "We could contend IF a bunch of stuff happened"

Really? REALLY?

IF the Queen had balls, she would be King. But she doesn't and she's not.
Your comment "We won't contend if a bunch of stuff doesn't happen."

Why do you need these things explained to you? It's very easy. Before a season fans, prognosticators, analysts, TV Shows, etc all look at the team as constructed for the year and make predictions about how the team is going to do IF a bunch of things happen. Why this comes as a shock to you i don't know. All I am doing is speculating on the chance of success while acknowledging a chance for failure definitely exists. Ironic because while I am estimating chance of failure IF a bunch of stuff happens (As millions of people around the world do before every season) you are estimating chances of failure IF a bunch of stuff doesn't happen. Yet in your self involved world it's ok for you to estimate failure but you act as if the notion of estimating success is some mythical beast.

I look at this team and I accept them for what they are. An incomplete team that is green and still very soft on defence highly deficient in the scoring department from the LW. Some of the scoring issues should be corrected with the addition of Richards, but expecting consistent production from guys that have not shown the ability to be consistent in the past is not something I am cofortable with.

Oh really you mean a team with holes that they could overcome or could fail to overcome? That's kinda what i'm talking about when I say "CHANCE" to contend and "CHANCE" to fail. There's a lot of good with this team and a lot of question marks and bad..

Finally, going back past 1999 makes no sense. Going back to 1999 makes perfect sense. Reason being is that going back to 1999 means we are speaking of one constant person at the leadership position. Sather.

So you see no difference then from 2000-2004 compared to 2005-2008 compared to 2009-now? You are totally blind then.

It's fair to discuss post lock out, but not pre lockout when the same guy was running things? It makse sense for you, but not for anyone else because a GM should be judged on his tenure at the helm. Not 2 parts of one tenure. That makes no sense.

I said you can discuss both but one would seem to make a little more sense. People do this thing called learning from mistakes. People do this thing called making improvements. My suggestion is that while I personally have not fully bought in it appears Sather is learning and improving from old mistakes. He can still screw up though. Ever hear the term what hagve you done for me lately? By your standard we should judge Messier's 2nd half with this team the same as his first half..legendary. Or take the common sense approach and look at each individual segment of his tenure by its own merit while also remaining aware of his whole tenure. Again though back to the what have you done for me lately I still say Sather has not done enarly enough for me lately. I just acknowledge he's done something which is better than the nothing he used to do.

You can think all you want that those brutal selections of Jessiman and Montoya are no longer in our rearview mirrior, you are entitled to think that. You couldn't be more wrong, but you seem to be OK with that as well.

Since no 1 team can succeed or fail based on one draft almost a decade later I think it's kinda reasonable to look at all of the moves made today and think that the impact of 1 draft 8 years ago is negated just a liiiittle bit.

We all want the same things, Rangers success, but I have not seen enough from Sather, his staff as a whole OR the on ice product in the last 7 years to be anything but skeptical.

Color me jaded.
Why would I color you anything you have a right to your own opinion. I've only said 10000 times I understand that not everyone will agree we have built a good team and that's fine. it's just my logical conclusion. Thinking we have too many holes is ALSO very logical though so i have nothing against your opinion. The problem is you fail miserably to entitle me to mine. It's your illogical dismissal of anything good because of what happenned in 2003 that bothers me.

I said it then, and I still believe it in my heart today that the Rangers made a major mistake in allowing Sather to head up the rebuilding efforts. He helped put us in the mess we were in pre lock out and had not earned the right to be the point person on the rebuilding effort.

It's because of Sather and his incompetent tenure here that I have no faith that we have the parts on the team and in the system that can carry this franchise to where is needs to and should be.
K and this last part is your logical opinion. But you should be gracious enough to figure out that others have a different logical viewpoint.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote