To be fair, most of the teams between 1942 and 1967 really did suck. Gilbert and Raetelle really changed all of that. I mean, when you look at it purely from a standings point of view, in 25 years between those dates, the Rangers missed the playoffs 18 times. I know things were unfair then with the way teams acquired their players, but the point still stands. Now, between 1968 and 1997? In 29 years the Rangers missed the playoffs only 4 times, which is pretty outstanding. In the 70s, they were division finals or better 5 times in 10 years (70s divisions were more like modern day conferences). Could you imagine what it would be like now if we made it to the ECF or SCF 5 times in a decade? They made it to the conference finals twice in the 80s and the 2nd round (divisional finals) 3 more times. In the 90s, conference finals or better twice, 2nd round 4 more times. Of course, the 90s is the only one of those three decades that the Rangers won a Cup.
VERY competitive teams for nearly 3 decades in a row. People wonder why we've never been able to draft a league leading point man or goal scorer. Similar to now, it's because our teams have typically been very competitive since the late 60s.
I'd be relatively happy to see the Rangers make the 2nd round or better for 60% of this decade. Obviously, not extremely happy unless they have at least one SCF appearance in there and not truly happy unless there's a Cup win.
Not very fair the way they drafted years ago where you had to get players from your area. How many people played hockey in this area compared to Canadian Cities.