View Single Post
02-10-2014, 03:24 PM
Registered User
chosen's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,434
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
Again - only 7 1/4 years as a Ranger. Not long enough, IMHO. Not really disputing that he was second best in the league for quite a few of those years, but there aren't enough years as a Ranger for my liking coupled with the fact that he played elsewhere, for a single team, longer.

The "argument" that you're making is not one that I've made. Messier was here for 10 and there for 12 and won Cups in both places. He was brought in to end the drought and he did. He deserves it in both places and Park deserves it in neither.

It's not really about stats now is it? Banners hang in the rafters because of what guys bring to the team and the franchise over the course of their career.

Was Terry O'Reilly a "top five player" at his position? How about Bernie Ferderko? Keith Magnuson? Etc... It's not always about stats and accolades it's also about heart, soul, and blood for the team. And Graves did have 17 points in the '93-'94 playoffs.
The Cup argument is beyond stupid. Should Hasek be retired in Buffalo? Bourque in Boston?

Graves was perhaps the 4th or 5th most important Ranger on a Cup team. If they lose game 7 to Vancouver, does that sway you away from Graves? That would mean a puck hitting a post instead of going in could determine who is worthy. And it was that close. If Park played 7 in N.Y. and only 3 In Boston, would that be a factor to you? If Orr got hurt in the finals against the Rangers and the Rangers won, would Park then deserve it. Some of you create rules out of thin air and then defend your stance as if it were somehow based in fact.

If 7 years is not enough and 10 is, where is your factual cutoff line?

Last edited by chosen: 02-10-2014 at 03:45 PM.
chosen is offline   Reply With Quote