Perennial Roster Overhauls and Relationship to Postseason Success (Sting's Thread)
View Single Post
04-05-2013, 04:20 PM
Heart and Soul
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Originally Posted by
IDK, the Flyers haven't won anything and you can make the argument that they've been marginally better than the Rangers have been since the lockout, but I don't see the difference as being that pronounced. Whatever ails the Rangers, ails the Flyers in a different way. Flyers can't produce or buy a goalie to save their lives. Their top defenseman are all imported, not developed from within, and since they lost Pronger, they have been terrible. You can talk to me about Giroux, and I can tal to you about Stepan, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, Lundqvist, etc... I don't view the Flyers as being all that much better than the Rangers since the lockout - especially since we seem to beat their ***** every time we play them and have had more success than them recently.
You're really going to compare the Flyers to the Rangers? It seems like things are starting to fall apart a little bit for the Flyers now, but you're talking about a franchise that has missed the playoffs ONE TIME in the last 17 seasons. During that span, they have been to the Finals twice, 6 conference finals appearances, and won at least one series 10 different seasons since 1995. Since the '05 lockout alone, the Flyers have made the playoffs 6 times, and advanced past the first round 4 times. 2 trips to the conference finals, one appearance in the Finals.
The Flyers are one of the most successful organizations in the league. No one can stay a contender for ever. When Datsyuk retires, the Red Wings are finally going to drop a little too (they may already have dropped from perennial contender status).
Like the Sharks? The Caps? We've gone further than either.
I don't consider the Caps to be one of the best teams (although they should have been), but the Sharks have been to 2 conference finals in the last 3 years. In their 20 years in the league, the Sharks have missed the playoffs 5 times. 4 of those were in their first 6 seasons of existence.
Since the lockout, they've qualified for the playoffs every single season, and advanced past the first round 5 times. They've won their division 4 times, and never finished worse than 2nd in their division. No, they haven't won a Stanley Cup championship, and that must be frustrating for the Sharks fans. If that was my team, however, I would have no choice but to be satisfied. They put themselves in a position to have a realistic shot at a Stanley Cup every year. How can you possibly compare their results to the results of the Rangers? Year in, year out, one of the best-run franchises in the league.
IDK, the Penguins were benefactors of having either the 1st overall or 2nd overall pick for four years in a row. Hard to screw that up.
As far as Boston goes, if Bergeron is out for any length of time then that team is in serious, serious trouble this year - with or without Jagr.
Blackhawks, again, were blessed with 3, 7, 3, 1 overall in four consecutive years.
Blessed? There's a reason we have drafts in these sports: so that bad teams can get better. How do you compete with the best teams? You get players that can compete with the best players on those teams. How do you get those players? At the top of the draft, most likely.
Oh, please. Mogilny. Souray. Huet. Kotalik. Finger, etc...
And Drury was bought out because of an injury and he should've done right by the Rangers and retired first. If the Devils can afford to bury Mogilny while losing money, then I don't want to hear crying about the Rangers doing it to Redden. Furthermore, the player should have the right to void a contract. I'm sure Luongo would do it in a second.
First of all, how many of those guys were on the same team? And why are you bringing up other poorly run teams? What about the good teams? How many guys do they bury in the minors or buy out, and how often?
Right, Drury not retiring was the problem. Not the fact that the Rangers had absolutely no idea what they were doing when they signed a role player to a superstar contract as one of the roster overhauls that are now seemingly a team tradition.
If we're just talking the last season, as an example, I don't see what Glen and Co. could've done much differently. Prust - love the guy, but a.) he's always hurt and wears as the season progresses b.) 10 million? For 4 years? Most people were against signing him. Do I make that Nash trade? Hell, yes. Maybe I sign Feds. Mitchell? Who cares? I mean, I don't think anyone was crying over the loss of Mitchell in the off season. I remember a lot of Johnny Malkin posts, though. Christensen? Erixon? Scott?
See, the problem is you can't just look at last season, because this is all part of a larger scale fundamental issue. It's not about this one move, or that one move. It's about how each mistake ends up leading to another mistake, and how these mistakes seem to repeat themselves in a cycle.
If you're in the finals you have a chance. So, if a 6-8 seed has a 30% chance (and those numbers are higher recently) it's not nearly as hopeless as you were making it out to be.
Not a very good chance, since 6 out of 7 winners were not low seeds. So you have about a 15% chance if you make it, and you only have a 30% chance to make it at all. Hopeless? No, just not very good.
We're arguing about what "successful" is, not what your personal standards are. They have been successful if you're agreeing that they are top 10-12 best.
But aren't those your standards? How is that different than me having my standards? No, I don't think slightly above average is successful, and more importantly, I don't think consistently qualifying for the playoffs as a low seed and having a smaller chance to make it to the finals than at least 4 other teams in your conference is success.
The 2005-6 had 100 pts. and finished a single point behind the team that took them out in the first round when Jagr screwed up his shoulder. I'll give you that they weren't the most talented team that the Rangers have ever had, but to label that team as "awful" is simply dishonest - even when using your own regular season standards.
And what happened once Jagr screwed up his shoulder? The roster was a joke outside of Lundqvist and Jagr. The vast majority of the roster was border line NHLers, guys whose NHL careers lasted less than 5 years, or players that were at the very tailend of their careers. But, again, that isn't even the point here. If you look at the teams that make deep playoff runs all the time and finish well in the regular season, they have core players, and those core players tend to be their star offense players. The Rangers core is Lundqvist and a collection of excellent complimentary players. It isn't the same thing.
Meh. Lockout. Jury is out for me on this year. No training camp, no Sauer, Staal injury, etc... Staal is a lot more important to this team than he's given credit for.
That being said, I like the team's chances if they get in as a 6 or 7 seed. I'd love to play the SE "champion" first.
Every team battles injuries, and some of the teams that have consistently been better than the Rangers have suffered worse injuries than Staal (though he is very important to this team).
I like the team's chances until they play the Penguins or Bruins (assuming those clubs' best players are in the lineup), because the Eastern Conference isn't all that great outside of those two teams.
Last edited by NYR Sting: 04-05-2013 at
View Public Profile
NYR Sting's albums
Find More Posts by NYR Sting