View Single Post
04-05-2013, 02:26 PM
Richter Scale
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,306
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
This argument goes back to the gut vs. reason test again.

By no standard that can be measured have the Rangers been mediocre since the lockout, but some people just know in the bottom of their heart that they have been.

Rangers make them feel
I wouldn't say I'm old, but I've been a fan through the entire recent dark years and some just before that. So I probably do carry over at least some of those ill feelings and pessimism toward the organization from then. That said I think the Rangers are on the upswing, have a good core (something they haven't had in a while), and will continue to improve in the years to come as long as Sather doesn't **** it up.

But I don't see how one ECF appearance means that the years prior to that were anything but mediocre at best, pretty awful at worst. They have been a 6-8 bubble playoff team almost every year since the lockout. Mediocre doesn't mean the team is bad. It just means they are middle of the pack, and not really achieving what any of us would like them to. That seems to describe the 05-10 Rangers to a T.

Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Then this league is filled with mediocrity.
Yes. It is. Consistently solid teams are few and far between. They build up a very solid core and then tend to only tinker with the roster in the offseason, having pretty minor roster turnover by comparison. Boston. Pittsburgh. Washington. Detroit. Chicago. Anaheim. Vancouver. San Jose.

I have hope, since the Rangers have begun to actually try to build a young core, that they will be more than mediocre in the next few years. But prior to last year, they couldn't even be considered in the same league as those teams if we're just talking the past ~6 years.

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote