Any move that results in winning the Cup is not a dumb move.
The Glen Anderson for Gartner trade wasn't good, in retrospect. Gartner was a great Ranger, and went on to play 4 more years, 2 of which he scored over 30 goals.
Losing Weight and Amonte was terrible, and I HATED it at the time, because Amonte was my favorite player... but obviously Matteau and Tikkanen were pretty valuable haha
The Glen Anderson for Gartner trade wasn't good, in retrospect. Gartner was a great Ranger, and went on to play 4 more years, 2 of which he scored over 30 goals.
Losing Weight and Amonte was terrible, and I HATED it at the time, because Amonte was my favorite player... but obviously Matteau and Tikkanen were pretty valuable haha
I think you can dislike a trade. But you can't argue with the end result.
I didn't see the need to swap Gartner for Anderson. Would have loved to see Gartner win a Cup here. I've always what could have been if they kept Amonte and Weight. Interesting that in hindsight they gave up a lot more for Matteau and Noonan and Tikkanen then they did for Messier.
It was a lot different for me at least. The Rangers had a great identity (a lot of which is hanging in the rafters now) and it gave you confidence & pride that they could compete night in & night out. The 91/92 and 93/94 seasons were amazing. The 94 Rangers/Devils series was still the best playoff series I have ever seen. Those who saw game six will never forget how surreal it was, like something torn from a movie script. I enjoyed watching Mess rack up 47 goals in 95/96 and the 97 run was a fun surprise. Also, the NHL overall was different then in regards to rules, playing style and especially rough-housing, and was IMO it was a lot more fun to watch.
The biggest difference I notice now is in how I approach upcoming games. In the old days before a game, I would be really pumped and think "ALL RIGHT!! LET'S GO KICK SOME ASS! LGR! POTVIN SUCKS!!!" It was a lot of fun. Whereas now too often I find myself thinking along the lines of "Well... let's see if they show up or not..."
Messier was behind a lot of moves and Anderson was one of his Edmonton boys but I think Messier liked Gartner as much. I believe they were part of the WHA movement and there was a friendship there but not sure. That always puzzled me as Messier would go to bat for his boys. Keenan had such a distaste for Gartner, if I recall correctly. Plus, Anderson had some scoring but was more physical. I think Gartner's playoff numbers at the time also came into play as I believe he had a reputation of underperforming.
I read the Dragon Slayer book by Carp and in the book, it claims Messier was really angry at the Nemchinov and Noonan deal that brought back Esa Tikkanen and Russ Courtnall. Again, I always thought Esa was a player Messier loved.
A side note on Gartner: I always thought it was class act. Mike Hartman and Eddie Olcyzk weren't going to get their names on the cup due to the lack of games played. (40 in the regular season or at least one game in the finals???) I think Neil Smith submitted their names to be engraved but Bettman (who was only a year into the position), wouldn't allow their names, initially. Gartner, was the president of the Players Association, was instrumental in getting Olcyzk and Hartman's names on the cup.
It must have been really hard for Gartner to be traded off the team at the deadline. Yet, he fought to have their names on the cup. He was always a class act.
You were so confident huh? Yeah they steamrolled the Isles and then Washington... then they were down 3-2 to the Devs and blew a 3-1 series lead to the Canucks. TOTALLY DOMINATING? Please. It was as close as we would come to dominating but it was far from it.
That Matteau goal was all that prevented us from being forced out of the play-offs for the second time in 3 years with the best team.
I guess I'll owe you an appology if you say that in game 6 against the Devs when we went down 1-0 you weren't besides yourself with anxiety and grief.
The point is, both NYR teams I mentioned were PT winners both years, which in my opinion is the closest you get to “dominating” the competition during any given season.
You would agree to that right?
Those two teams are the farthest back that i can remember during my 20+ yrs as a fan as being “What it was like to watch a ranger team that was actually good”. The 97’ team was also “good”.
Every great team that won the SC in recent years had tough series in route to their cups. The NYR of 94’ were no different.
The point is, both NYR teams I mentioned were PT winners both years, which in my opinion is the closest you get to “dominating” the competition during any given season.
You would agree to that right? YES
Those two teams are the farthest back that i can remember during my 20+ yrs as a fan as being “What it was like to watch a ranger team that was actually good”. The 97’ team was also “good”.
Every great team that won the SC in recent years had tough series in route to their cups. The NYR of 94’ were no different.
I guess my issue is with you saying my post describing my level of "nervousness" as being horse ****.
My contention was that winning that cup was NOT a foregone conclusion (especially given "the curse" and what happened just two years prior when we also won the PT but then lost in the DIV FINALS... not even the CONF or SC FINALS). You would agree to that right?
I guess my issue is with you saying my post describing my level of "nervousness" as being horse ****.
My contention was that winning that cup was NOT a foregone conclusion (especially given "the curse" and what happened just two years prior when we also won the PT but then lost in the DIV FINALS... not even the CONF or SC FINALS). You would agree to that right?
my statement wasn't really directed toward that, more so towards
skroob: Rangers got taken to a game 7 OT against a rookie goalie and won on a fluke goal.
I realize that's the case, but situations like that happen almost every post season at some point in different scenarios. Look at the Hawks going to game 6 with Lieghton!
to try to paint the 93-94' cup win as just another example of the ineptitude of current ranger squads have shown us is just not fair imo. Who knows if we'll ever see a team that good in ranger blue again.
I'm 18 and was to young to see 1994 and over most of my life following the rangers i've basically seen a very ****** product on the ice (not fun being a little kid living in NJ seeing your team not make the playoffs for 7 years in a row while the devils are winning stanley cups here and there). But I did some thinking and the best ranger's team i've ever seen was in the 05-06 season and best playoff run in 06-07 so frankly how'd it feel to watch a ranger's team who actually was competing for the top 4 spots of the playoffs and not always being a team barely making the playoffs, or not at all, a team were it was worth it to put all the time and emotion into rather then watching a team were a star goalie get's run over way to frequently and nobody even stands up for him. How it felt like to watch a team that actually had an identity.
One thing I was always proud of, which I haven't seen mentioned here, is that at a time when teams with less talent were starting to resort to the trap to scrape out wins (especially 96, 97, and on), the Rangers still played hockey as I believe it was meant to be played -- with a combination of power and skill. They could hit, and they could play defense, and they could even get a bit dirty, but in the end the team was built to win on talent.
They were fun to watch, no doubt. The chemistry between Messier-Leetch was something special. And the team was so talented that it could still win even on nights when it only brought its 'C' game. Mike Richter may have had his crazy adventures playing the puck outside the crease, or letting in atrocious goals on occasion (91-92 playoffs?), but man, when he got hot, he just won games on his own...for a month.
Last point -- I always liked that it seemed guys had clear roles. Beuke was there to make your life miserable, which he did as well as anyone in the league. Graves was the bulldog, always there to protect his own. Tik the agitator... I could go on, but let me stop before I get all teary eyed
Those early '90's teams that led to the Cup and a few seasons after that up to '97 when we made the Conf Finals, WERE in fact good teams, even when we missed the playoffs.
But: We have NEVER had a team where you could relax, or feel at ease about winning. For example, Yankee fans, for the most part, can relax about the regular season, and really only get anxious when the playoffs start. It's a matter of "will we win it again this year?", not "Jeez, are we even gonna MAKE the playoffs?"
The Detroit Red Wings, and yes The devils, have had teams where you could COUNT on them having a respectable Regular Season. We have never had that luxury.
I'm 18 and was to young to see 1994 and over most of my life following the rangers i've basically seen a very ****** product on the ice (not fun being a little kid living in NJ seeing your team not make the playoffs for 7 years in a row while the devils are winning stanley cups here and there). But I did some thinking and the best ranger's team i've ever seen was in the 05-06 season and best playoff run in 06-07 so frankly how'd it feel to watch a ranger's team who actually was competing for the top 4 spots of the playoffs and not always being a team barely making the playoffs, or not at all, a team were it was worth it to put all the time and emotion into rather then watching a team were a star goalie get's run over way to frequently and nobody even stands up for him. How it felt like to watch a team that actually had an identity.
Regular season-wise, the 1992 team was more talented and fun to watch than the 1994 team IMO.
The 1994 team had more of a Cup-feel to them. They started of really crappy and then had I think a month-long unbeaten streak.
Basically, the 1992 and 1994 Rangers were as dominant and exciting as any of the recent Detroit, Colorado and San Jose teams.
I mean, when you have three lines full of 40 and 30 goal scorers, and Mike Richter and Brian Leetch in their prime, you're going to enjoy every game.
To this day, those teams will always be the standard I hold every Rangers team to.
I think if you want to see good you need to check out the Herb Brooks years. Probably the 83 season was their finest as they had 8 guys with 20 or more goals, including Larouche with 48, Hedberg with 32 and Pavelich with 53 assists.
Or the Fred Shero run to the finals in 79
John Davidson was solid
Phil Esposito put the puck in the net with regularity
Duguay, Vickers and Greschner were outstanding that year in the playoffs, so was Don Murder Murdoch
Regular season-wise, the 1992 team was more talented and fun to watch than the 1994 team IMO.
I totally concur with Media Savvy here. That was a fun year in 1992. I hate the excuse used that the strike stopped the momentum. I don't think that. The Rangers were up 2-1 in the series. That flukey goal (was it Francis or Errey, I always forget) killed us.
How strange was 1992-93? Coming off the President's Trophy year. Adding Bourque and Peter Andersson to the roster. Kovalev, Zubov, the almost return of Dave Archibald. I wonder how much the failed Lindros trade and the constant lineup changes did for chemistry. Tie Domi, the year before was great to watch. He even lost some of his character. (I believe mandated by the club somewhat - i.e. riding the stick)
I actually enjoyed the 95-96 season. I thought both Messier and Verbeek were going to score 50 goals. (Messier had 47 goals and missed 8 games; Verbeek had 41 missing 13 games).
It was a fun year - It was our first meeting with the Canucks since the Cup as well as the return of Mike Keenan.
We traded our hero Matteau for a young project, Ian Laperriere. I couldn't believe Sergio Momesso would be a Ranger. (I hated him during the finals. Before game 7, I asked my father, could you imagine Momesso skating around with the cup in the Garden?)
I personally enjoyed Ray Ferraro as a Ranger as well. I thought the team was a contender. Then I went on Spring Break (internet wasn't common) to Cancun. I am watching SportsCenter and see Jari Kurri as a Ranger. Huh? (**Incidentally, Don Nelson was fired as Knicks coach and replaced with Van Gundy)
Even without knowing the particulars, I was disappointed because I thought the Rangers had a solid, balanced team. I think they played McSorley on left wing during the playoffs.
As fun as it was, it was the year Neil really set the franchise back in my opinion. The Zubov / Nedved trade (moreso because of Zubov - although it was mentioned he was almost moved for Selanne) and the Nordstrom, Laperriere, Ferraro, LaFayette.
I totally concur with Media Savvy here. That was a fun year in 1992. I hate the excuse used that the strike stopped the momentum. I don't think that. The Rangers were up 2-1 in the series. That flukey goal (was it Francis or Errey, I always forget) killed us.
How strange was 1992-93? Coming off the President's Trophy year. Adding Bourque and Peter Andersson to the roster. Kovalev, Zubov, the almost return of Dave Archibald. I wonder how much the failed Lindros trade and the constant lineup changes did for chemistry. Tie Domi, the year before was great to watch. He even lost some of his character. (I believe mandated by the club somewhat - i.e. riding the stick)
I actually enjoyed the 95-96 season. I thought both Messier and Verbeek were going to score 50 goals. (Messier had 47 goals and missed 8 games; Verbeek had 41 missing 13 games).
It was a fun year - It was our first meeting with the Canucks since the Cup as well as the return of Mike Keenan.
We traded our hero Matteau for a young project, Ian Laperriere. I couldn't believe Sergio Momesso would be a Ranger. (I hated him during the finals. Before game 7, I asked my father, could you imagine Momesso skating around with the cup in the Garden?)
I personally enjoyed Ray Ferraro as a Ranger as well. I thought the team was a contender. Then I went on Spring Break (internet wasn't common) to Cancun. I am watching SportsCenter and see Jari Kurri as a Ranger. Huh? (**Incidentally, Don Nelson was fired as Knicks coach and replaced with Van Gundy)
Even without knowing the particulars, I was disappointed because I thought the Rangers had a solid, balanced team. I think they played McSorley on left wing during the playoffs.
As fun as it was, it was the year Neil really set the franchise back in my opinion. The Zubov / Nedved trade (moreso because of Zubov - although it was mentioned he was almost moved for Selanne) and the Nordstrom, Laperriere, Ferraro, LaFayette.
LaFayette a Ranger as well - he, being the one who hit the post in 1994.
It was Francis. Friggin ridiculous. Rangers were in total command of that series, and Nielsen tried to goon it up. Messier's turnover in OT in Game was the coup de gras.
And I never understood the Ferraro trade. That second line of Robitaille-Ferraro-Kovalev was money, and the Graves-Messier-Verbeen line almost had two 50-goal scorers. That team was really good. Absolutely no reason to add dinosaurs like Kurri and McSoreley. The were old and slow, and it showed in the Pens series.
I'm 18 and was to young to see 1994 and over most of my life following the rangers i've basically seen a very ****** product on the ice (not fun being a little kid living in NJ seeing your team not make the playoffs for 7 years in a row while the devils are winning stanley cups here and there). But I did some thinking and the best ranger's team i've ever seen was in the 05-06 season and best playoff run in 06-07 so frankly how'd it feel to watch a ranger's team who actually was competing for the top 4 spots of the playoffs and not always being a team barely making the playoffs, or not at all, a team were it was worth it to put all the time and emotion into rather then watching a team were a star goalie get's run over way to frequently and nobody even stands up for him. How it felt like to watch a team that actually had an identity.
You might get to find out first-hand very soon, my friend
