I'd give up almost any player besides Lundqvist and McDonagh for a guaranteed Cup win.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
As I know you're being sarcastic, I agree with you here. Who the **** gives a **** about asset management if it wins you a Cup?
It wouldn't happen, but let's say we traded Kreider for a depth d man and ended up winning the Cup that year. Some of you would actually be upset? Pathetic.
I'd be very upset. You trade a player who goes on to become a star for a depth player on one playoff run. If it was say an Iginla, I wouldn't regret it.
I'd give up almost any player besides Lundqvist and McDonagh for a guaranteed Cup win.
I'd give up both for back-to-back Cups. Ignoring the fact that a guaranteed Cup would be no fun. It would be like watching a movie when you know the ending. Or the final couple seasons of Friends.
Yup. Like I said, I'm glad that the Rangers won the cup in 1994, but I just question "What could've been" if we kept those prospects (Weight, Amonte).
Who cares? We won the Cup.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
I'd give up both for back-to-back Cups. Ignoring the fact that a guaranteed Cup would be no fun. It would be like watching a movie when you know the ending. Or the final couple seasons of Friends.
I didn't mean it like that. In the end, if we win the Cup, then I don't care.
We won the cup for one season and the team became mediocre in the long run, while Weight/Amonte enjoyed many all star seasons. I prefer contender for many yrs over 1 and done type season.
We won the cup for one season and the team became mediocre in the long run, while Weight/Amonte enjoyed many all star seasons. I prefer contender for many yrs over 1 and done type season.
Sooo you would rather be a contender instead of a champion?
In a way I understand what you are trying to say but there is no way to guarantee that being a yearly 'contender' would result in one or multiple cups. As much as many of us are tired of hearing about it as often as we do, 94 will forever remain one of the greatest moments for any ranger fan. You haven't heard a "1940"chant since
We won the cup for one season and the team became mediocre in the long run, while Weight/Amonte enjoyed many all star seasons. I prefer contender for many yrs over 1 and done type season.
trading weight/amonte was only part of the long run of being mediocre...past 94 we traded zubov, kovalev, norstrom, savard, etc. then richter and leetch got hurt and weren't the same after...
but the biggest thing is look at how AWFUL our drafts were...i don't think we picked a player in the 1st round worth a damn between kovalev in 91 and staal in 2005
a team can afford to trade away 2 good young players to put them over IF they then draft well and restock the system. they can't trade away the few young players they have and then draft terrible for 15 years
Sooo you would rather be a contender instead of a champion?
In a way I understand what you are trying to say but there is no way to guarantee that being a yearly 'contender' would result in one or multiple cups. As much as many of us are tired of hearing about it as often as we do, 94 will forever remain one of the greatest moments for any ranger fan. You haven't heard a "1940"chant since
Being a contender puts you in contention for being a champion every season, so yes, I'd love to be a contender.
Being a contender puts you in contention for being a champion every season, so yes, I'd love to be a contender.
Yes it puts you in CONTENTION....There is no guarantee about anything. I'll take the championship. I guess my perspective might be a little skewed since when I saw the rangers win in 94 I was only 8 years old, I watched the entire playoffs with my father who is a diehard rangers fan and was born in 1954, so 94 was the only cup he has ever seen them win and when they won the cup he was so overcome with emotion that he couldn't control his tears..... one of only two times I've ever seen him cry. There were plenty of years between his birth and 94 and the rangers were "contenders" and I'm sure he wouldn't trade it for anything in the world to see them crowned Champions.
trading weight/amonte was only part of the long run of being mediocre...past 94 we traded zubov, kovalev, norstrom, savard, etc. then richter and leetch got hurt and weren't the same after...
but the biggest thing is look at how AWFUL our drafts were...i don't think we picked a player in the 1st round worth a damn between kovalev in 91 and staal in 2005
a team can afford to trade away 2 good young players to put them over IF they then draft well and restock the system. they can't trade away the few young players they have and then draft terrible for 15 years
Yup, trading Zubov and Savard are prime examples of trying to win, but failing. Both awful trades.
If we didn't win the cup in 94, the Weight and Amonte trades will have more exposure as some of the worst blunders of all time.
you never know what would have happened if they both stayed rangers, but just to put it into perspective, if amonte and weight had played their whole careers as rangers and had the same career stats they end up having these would have been their ranks on the alltime rangers list
so if we had kept them they might have gone down as the top 2 players in franchise history atleast statistically...kind of crazy to think of it that way
you never know what would have happened if they both stayed rangers, but just to put it into perspective, if amonte and weight had played their whole careers as rangers and had the same career stats they end up having these would have been their ranks on the alltime rangers list
so if we had kept them they might have gone down as the top 2 players in franchise history atleast statistically...kind of crazy to think of it that way
Both would be up on the rafters.
So you essentially traded 2 franchise players for marginal players that played a minimal role on a 1 yr championship.
I'd be fine if it was for 1 yr of Gretzky, but I just shake my head to think we traded two franchise guys for 'depth' players.
Yup, trading Zubov and Savard are prime examples of trying to win, but failing. Both awful trades.
If we didn't win the cup in 94, the Weight and Amonte trades will have more exposure as some of the worst blunders of all time.
That's sorta the point I'm trying to make.
zubov yes, savard.... ummm what? savard was a mediocre player with below average skating that was traded to move up in the draft to grab a highly touted lundmark. that does not classify at all w the zubov trade. everyone realizes what a mess that deal was and all the behind the scenes crap that contributed to it. in retrospect the savard deal bit us bc he really developed after moving on eventually to atlanta, but its a stretch to bring it up in context with the other moves...
you never know what would have happened if they both stayed rangers, but just to put it into perspective, if amonte and weight had played their whole careers as rangers and had the same career stats they end up having these would have been their ranks on the alltime rangers list
so if we had kept them they might have gone down as the top 2 players in franchise history atleast statistically...kind of crazy to think of it that way
Yup.
There is no way to know if they still would have won, but you have to look at what the long-term core would have been.
Its certainly possible they could have won and done more than one.
After they traded Amonte, Weight, Zubov, Kovalev, Savard, it was a struggle to compensate by continually hiring mercinaries rather than develop more players to add longevity.
They made a run in 97 but after that it was painful.
Its just the way this sport works. You have to grow a core and suppliment with external pieces after. Like the Rangers are doing now. A homegrown core. And high level players brought in via trade and free agency. But they havent dismantled the core to do so.
Its certainly possible they could have won and done more than one.
After they traded Amonte, Weight, Zubov, Kovalev, Savard, it was a struggle to compensate by continually hiring mercinaries rather than develop more players to add longevity.
They made a run in 97 but after that it was painful.
Its just the way this sport works. You have to grow a core and suppliment with external pieces after. Like the Rangers are doing now. A homegrown core. And high level players brought in via trade and free agency. But they havent dismantled the core to do so.
It's also possible that those guys never would've developed as Rangers or would've suffered career ending injuries.
We won the cup for one season and the team became mediocre in the long run, while Weight/Amonte enjoyed many all star seasons. I prefer contender for many yrs over 1 and done type season.
I dont think you understand how difficult it is to win a Stanley Cup.
Sounds like you'd be a wonderful fan of the 80's/90's St. Louis Blues, however.
Yup, trading Zubov and Savard are prime examples of trying to win, but failing. Both awful trades.
If we didn't win the cup in 94, the Weight and Amonte trades will have more exposure as some of the worst blunders of all time.
That's sorta the point I'm trying to make.
Cup or no cup, the Weight and Amonte Trades ARE two of the worst deals the Rangers have ever made.
While it would be nice to win a cup, I would rather take 15-20 good swift kicks at the can than one significant kick and then wait 10+ years before we get another legit shot.
I want to be competitive and in contention EVERY YEAR similar to the wya the Devils and Red Wings are/were and have been the since the early 90's.
One cup in 18 years while being a laughing stock for 7 years if not the ideal way to run an organization.
screw that.
Give me a shot at the cup every year than one cup every 50+ years
