Perennial Roster Overhauls and Relationship to Postseason Success (Sting's Thread)
View Single Post
04-05-2013, 11:41 AM
Heart and Soul
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Originally Posted by
Not a great argument to make when the 6th seed just played the 8th seed and the 8th seed won the Cup.
Yes, let's use that one example as the barometer.
In the last 40 years, there have been TWO Stanley Cup champions that were seeded in the bottom half of their conference: the 1995 New Jersey Devils, and the 2012 Los Angeles Kings.
Is it impossible to win a championship as a low seed? No, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.
The lockout kind of screws that up. The Rangers went from being a Cup winner to being a losing team (despite making the playoffs) overnight. Also, please tell me a single GM that thinks "making the playoffs is not an accomplishment". That's a ridiculous statement.
Would just making the playoffs be considered a successful season for the teams that have consistently been among the better teams in the league over the last number of years? Is that good enough for the Red Wings, the Canucks, the Bruins, the Penguins, the Flyers, the Blackhawks, or the Sharks?
What those teams have done over the last number of years, or are in the middle of achieving right now (like the Bruins, who figure to be a contender frequently in the coming years), is sustained success. How many years is it going to take before this team is at that level? How many roster overhauls are needed?
Advantage might apply in the West. Not here. Not with Montreal, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc...
9 of the 10 lowest spending teams, as of this moment, are in the West. Sole exception is the NYI.
Why shouldn't it be an advantage? The two teams that have the biggest advantage in that regard along with the Rangers are the Leafs and Canadiens, and those teams have been poorly run, as well.
That should make it easier for the Rangers, but the Rangers operate in much the same way that those teams do, which is why none of them ever achieve sustained success.
And, again, making the playoffs every year and winning a round or more in 3 out 7 years is successful. Period. It's not as successful as we'd like, but you really can't make an effective argument when only 2 teams have been more successful than you at making the playoffs and NO ONE in the East has been more successful at it.
We have a fundamental difference on what we consider success. If you don't have a legit shot to win the Stanley Cup, which as I've already shown, low seeded teams do not, then you aren't achieving any legit success. Just making the playoffs is not success. At best, it says that you aren't awful. It is not an indicator of greatness. Consistent contendership is an indicator of success, AFAIC.
View Public Profile
NYR Sting's albums
Find More Posts by NYR Sting