actually every ranger fan i know was ridiculous cocky going into that series, and i also thought it was going to be an easy series rangers win, everyone pretty much thought the devils didn't stand a chance
From what I remember, pretty much every knowledgeable Ranger fan was aware of the fact that the Devils were well rested after dominating the Flyers while the Rangers were exhausted from that series with that horrible obstructionist team (I still can't believe Carlson got away with covering the puck with his hand twice .) If the Rangers faced the Devils in the first round I really think they could have won, I really do.
From what I remember, pretty much every knowledgeable Ranger fan was aware of the fact that the Devils were well rested after dominating the Flyers while the Rangers were exhausted from that series with that horrible obstructionist team (I still can't believe Carlson got away with covering the puck with his hand twice .) If the Rangers faced the Devils in the first round I really think they could have won, I really do.
The RANGERS screwed up not aganst Washington but against Ottawa. If they would have held on to the leads in games 2 and 4. They sweep Ottawa and beat Washington in 7. Which means they would have been rested and could have beat the Devils in 5 games I think.
The Blues have yet to put their future star forward (Tarasenko) on the ice, and he should be a significant boost to their offense.
Whoever says the Blues don't have offense needs to realize that teams that don't have offensive super stars can still have offense by DIVERSIFYING their forwards. Instead of having 3 Players who can put up 80 points, the Blues management has explicitly stated that they prefer 6-7 guys who can put up in between 50-70 points.
The Blues have yet to put their future star forward (Tarasenko) on the ice, and he should be a significant boost to their offense.
Whoever says the Blues don't have offense needs to realize that teams that don't have offensive super stars can still have offense by DIVERSIFYING their forwards. Instead of having 3 Players who can put up 80 points, the Blues management has explicitly stated that they prefer 6-7 guys who can put up in between 50-70 points.
Then it seems odd that their leading scorer last season had 54 points, and they only had three players in your specified range.
The Blues are one of the most offensively challenged teams to have made the playoffs last year - the stats prove it.
I'm just saying it's waaaaay premature to assume the Blues will make the Cup finals. This entire thread is stupid.
It's a hypothetical, dude. Chill out. If you don't like this thread, then leave. Plenty of other people enjoy it, and that's the point of hfboards, so stop calling threads that people actually like "stupid" because the thread itself is working.
Tarasenko, in my opinion, is more offensively gifted than any of those players, and after at least one season, should be in the 50-70 range.
Chris Stewart had an awful year, but the previous year he had 64 points, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. That was my rationalization. Take it or leave it lol.
The Blues have yet to put their future star forward (Tarasenko) on the ice, and he should be a significant boost to their offense.
Whoever says the Blues don't have offense needs to realize that teams that don't have offensive super stars can still have offense by DIVERSIFYING their forwards. Instead of having 3 Players who can put up 80 points, the Blues management has explicitly stated that they prefer 6-7 guys who can put up in between 50-70 points.
Depth scoring can get you to the playoffs.
Once you're there and things tighten up you need big scorers that are gonna step up, or you're gonna have a hard time getting where you need to go.
Just ask the Rangers. They put up very good offensive numbers in the regular season--at least at even strength anyway. Once they got to the playoffs they were dismal offensively because there wasn't enough star power. Gaborik had one arm and Richards was PPG. That's pretty much it.
Now the Kings really only had one guy doing it too, Kopitar. But they had Dustin Brown step up and become that guy in the playoffs. Now I'm not saying there isn't a guy on the Blues who will step up, but you're not gonna get away with spreading the wealth for about the neighborhood of 23-27 playoff games.
Once you're there and things tighten up you need big scorers that are gonna step up, or you're gonna have a hard time getting where you need to go.
Just ask the Rangers. They put up very good offensive numbers in the regular season--at least at even strength anyway. Once they got to the playoffs they were dismal offensively because there wasn't enough star power. Gaborik had one arm and Richards was PPG. That's pretty much it.
Now the Kings really only had one guy doing it too, Kopitar. But they had Dustin Brown step up and become that guy in the playoffs. Now I'm not saying there isn't a guy on the Blues who will step up, but you're not gonna get away with spreading the wealth for about the neighborhood of 23-27 playoff games.
I guess the Boston Bruins never won a stanley cup a couple years back because their offensive structure is nearly identical to the Blues…not 1 single Star Forward (they barely played seguin that year in the playoffs, and bergeron is more known for his 2 way play like Backes)
As I said already the Blues need Halak. For EVERY game in this series. NO MORE Elliott in the playoffs from here on out unless Halak is not available like what happened last year. Or unless Halak uncharacteristically falls apart for some reason. I think Halak gives them a better chance, and while Elliott is good I still think Halak is much better, and much more clutch. I'm still not sure if Hitch planned to use both goalies in the playoffs had Halak not gone down so early.
I'd lean toward the Rangers winning, but I think it would be a 7 game series, and with Halak it could go either way. Especially with the Rangers having Nash now, and the Blues possibly getting Tarasenko in the NHL.
I guess the Boston Bruins never won a stanley cup a couple years back because their offensive structure is nearly identical to the Blues…not 1 single Star Forward (they barely played seguin that year in the playoffs, and bergeron is more known for his 2 way play like Backes)
David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron were almost PPG in the playoffs. Somebody has to come up big.
Like I said, I'm not saying it can't happen, all I'm saying is the usual spread around 50 points strategy isn't gonna work.
Once you're there and things tighten up you need big scorers that are gonna step up, or you're gonna have a hard time getting where you need to go.
Just ask the Rangers. They put up very good offensive numbers in the regular season--at least at even strength anyway. Once they got to the playoffs they were dismal offensively because there wasn't enough star power. Gaborik had one arm and Richards was PPG. That's pretty much it.
Now the Kings really only had one guy doing it too, Kopitar. But they had Dustin Brown step up and become that guy in the playoffs. Now I'm not saying there isn't a guy on the Blues who will step up, but you're not gonna get away with spreading the wealth for about the neighborhood of 23-27 playoff games.
As I said already the Blues need Halak. For EVERY game in this series. NO MORE Elliott in the playoffs from here on out unless Halak is not available like what happened last year. Or unless Halak uncharacteristically falls apart for some reason. I think Halak gives them a better chance, and while Elliott is good I still think Halak is much better, and much more clutch. I'm still not sure if Hitch planned to use both goalies in the playoffs had Halak not gone down so early.
I'd lean toward the Rangers winning, but I think it would be a 7 game series, and with Halak it could go either way. Especially with the Rangers having Nash now, and the Blues possibly getting Tarasenko in the NHL.
100% agree with you,Halak is the wild card...he can steal you games just by himself. He stole a couple for St-Louis last year, he always outperform his opponent in a big match situation.
I guess the Boston Bruins never won a stanley cup a couple years back because their offensive structure is nearly identical to the Blues…not 1 single Star Forward (they barely played seguin that year in the playoffs, and bergeron is more known for his 2 way play like Backes)
I would say that all of lucic krejci and bergeron and horton and possibly even seguin have a better offensive game than any blue, and ryder is a superior goal scorer to any of them. The blues have a lot of depth but this isnt 2007 mcdonald is not an acceptable best offensive player
100% agree with you,Halak is the wild card...he can steal you games just by himself. He stole a couple for St-Louis last year, he always outperform his opponent in a big match situation.
Yeah, and I don't think Elliott is anywhere near as good as he was last year where on paper he outplayed Halak. Even Blues fans have said the same thing. I never thought much of Elliott, but he's good I guess. I would say Halak is a top 10 goalie for sure. His performance for the Canadiens in the 2010 playoffs was huge.
Once you're there and things tighten up you need big scorers that are gonna step up, or you're gonna have a hard time getting where you need to go.
Just ask the Rangers. They put up very good offensive numbers in the regular season--at least at even strength anyway. Once they got to the playoffs they were dismal offensively because there wasn't enough star power. Gaborik had one arm and Richards was PPG. That's pretty much it.
Now the Kings really only had one guy doing it too, Kopitar. But they had Dustin Brown step up and become that guy in the playoffs. Now I'm not saying there isn't a guy on the Blues who will step up, but you're not gonna get away with spreading the wealth for about the neighborhood of 23-27 playoff games.
While I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point, 23-27 games is too long of a stretch to put all of your eggs into one basket up-front. Even the Rangers don't do that.
Unfortunately the Blues don't have the financial wherewithall to afford multiple gamebreaking forwards upfront. The Rangers had Gaborik, added Richards. Still not enough? They went out and added Nash. The Blues simply can't afford to do that.
For the price the Rangers were going to pay Marion Gaborik, Brad Richards, and Rick Nash for the 2012-13 season, the Blues could afford to pay Andy McDonald, David Backes, T.J. Oshie, David Perron, Alex Steen, Chris Stewart, Patrik Berglund, Matt D'Agostini, Vladimir Sobotka, and Scott Nichol. (That's 10 of the 14 possible forwards. Only missing are Jamie Langenbrunner, Chris Porter, Ryan Reaves, and Vladimir Tarasenko. Combined those forwards would cost the Blues $3.4M before bonuses. Throw in New York's fourth highest paid forward, Ryan Callahan, and the top four forwards on the Rangers make more than the entire Blues forward corps.)
Do the Blues need more forwards who are closer to the 70 point mark than they currently have? Yes. The Blues need an upgrade at forward, preferably center. Many people think that Tarasenko can be that guy after a year or two of adjustment. I hope he can be.
The fact of the matter is the Blues are going to need a couple of players upfront to get hot and carry the load in the playoffs if they are going to win the Cup. The Blues have a few players that tend to get points in bunches, so it is certainly possible. Likely? No. Is it ideal? No, far from it. But it is what the Blues can afford. On their budget, it seems the best way to go.
Last edited by bluemandan: 12-18-2012 at 09:13 PM.
While I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point, 23-27 games is too long of a stretch to put all of your eggs into one basket up-front. Even the Rangers don't do that.
Unfortunately the Blues don't have the financial wherewithall to afford multiple gamebreaking forwards upfront. The Rangers had Gaborik, added Richards. Still not enough? They went out and added Nash. The Blues simply can't afford to do that.
For the price the Rangers were going to pay Marion Gaborik, Brad Richards, and Rick Nash for the 2012-13 season, the Blues could afford to pay Andy McDonald, David Backes, T.J. Oshie, David Perron, Alex Steen, Chris Stewart, Patrik Berglund, Matt D'Agostini, Vladimir Sobotka, and Scott Nichol. (That's 10 of the 14 possible forwards. Only missing are Jamie Langenbrunner, Chris Porter, Ryan Reaves, and Vladimir Tarasenko. Combined those forwards would cost the Blues $3.4M before bonuses. Throw in New York's fourth highest paid forward, Ryan Callahan, and the top four forwards on the Rangers make more than the entire Blues forward corps.)
Do the Blues need more forwards who are closer to the 70 point mark than they currently have? Yes. The Blues need an upgrade at forward, preferably center. Many people think that Tarasenko can be that guy after a year or two of adjustment. I hope he can be.
The fact of the matter is the Blues are going to need a couple of players upfront to get hot and carry the load in the playoffs if they are going to win the Cup. The Blues have a few players that tend to get points in bunches, so it is certainly possible. Likely? No. Is it ideal? No, far from it. But it is what the Blues can afford. On their budget, it seems the best way to go.
I don't see the logic here. It's not like the blues don't have money. Their player are making more money in a few years, so there has to be money somwhere. The rangers on the other hand will pay 11 million less for Richards in a few years.
The is a reason the salary cap uses average salary, not yearly salary, and cap wise, the Rangers are paying a whooping 1 million more than the blues
__________________ "With the amount of complaining about officiating, from fans of every team after basically every game, you would think people would eventually realize that the only thing consistent about officiating in the NHL is inconsistency." - ThirdManIn
While I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a point, 23-27 games is too long of a stretch to put all of your eggs into one basket up-front. Even the Rangers don't do that.
Unfortunately the Blues don't have the financial wherewithall to afford multiple gamebreaking forwards upfront. The Rangers had Gaborik, added Richards. Still not enough? They went out and added Nash. The Blues simply can't afford to do that.
For the price the Rangers were going to pay Marion Gaborik, Brad Richards, and Rick Nash for the 2012-13 season, the Blues could afford to pay Andy McDonald, David Backes, T.J. Oshie, David Perron, Alex Steen, Chris Stewart, Patrik Berglund, Matt D'Agostini, Vladimir Sobotka, and Scott Nichol. (That's 10 of the 14 possible forwards. Only missing are Jamie Langenbrunner, Chris Porter, Ryan Reaves, and Vladimir Tarasenko. Combined those forwards would cost the Blues $3.4M before bonuses. Throw in New York's fourth highest paid forward, Ryan Callahan, and the top four forwards on the Rangers make more than the entire Blues forward corps.)
Do the Blues need more forwards who are closer to the 70 point mark than they currently have? Yes. The Blues need an upgrade at forward, preferably center. Many people think that Tarasenko can be that guy after a year or two of adjustment. I hope he can be.
The fact of the matter is the Blues are going to need a couple of players upfront to get hot and carry the load in the playoffs if they are going to win the Cup. The Blues have a few players that tend to get points in bunches, so it is certainly possible. Likely? No. Is it ideal? No, far from it. But it is what the Blues can afford. On their budget, it seems the best way to go.
A guy like Gaborik or Nash sure would have come in handy against Quick. Scoring by committee is nice, but you need elite scorers to beat elite goalies. Also, it's not fair to use Tarasenko. He'll be making a lot if he turns out to be what he's been hyped to. Kreider and Stepan don't make a lot either.
I don't see the logic here. It's not like the blues don't have money. Their player are making more money in a few years, so there has to be money somwhere. The rangers on the other hand will pay 11 million less for Richards in a few years.
The is a reason the salary cap uses average salary, not yearly salary, and cap wise, the Rangers are paying a whooping 1 million more than the blues
That's actually exactly what is happening. The Blues absolutely have to go deep in the playoffs soon or else they won't have the money to sign their big guys. They've lost money for a long time and need to have wildly successful years if they're going to establish themselves as a club that can financially compete with the big dogs. At the moment, the money just isn't there.
I don't see the logic here. It's not like the blues don't have money. Their player are making more money in a few years, so there has to be money somwhere. The rangers on the other hand will pay 11 million less for Richards in a few years.
The is a reason the salary cap uses average salary, not yearly salary, and cap wise, the Rangers are paying a whooping 1 million more than the blues
Checks are made for real dollars, not cap hits.
The reason the cap uses average and not actual is owners of the rich teams insisted it be that way so they could still flex their financial muscles.
Yet the fact is St. Louis doesn't have enough corporate sponsors, nor can they sustain that attendance at significantly higher ticket prices like those in New York.
The Blues, despite ranking 9th in attendance last season, with 18,000+ per game, lost ~$20 million last season.
Ask Blues fans, most of us don't expect the Blues to be able to keep all of our young players. We have a little bit of time, but a few years down the road are going to be painful as our young homegrown talent reaches UFA.
I don't know that I can help you if you honestly think that St. Louis has money that they chose not to spend. That simply isn't the case at all.
Last edited by bluemandan: 12-18-2012 at 11:25 PM.
A guy like Gaborik or Nash sure would have come in handy against Quick. Scoring by committee is nice, but you need elite scorers to beat elite goalies. Also, it's not fair to use Tarasenko. He'll be making a lot if he turns out to be what he's been hyped to. Kreider and Stepan don't make a lot either.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't be nice.
I'm saying the Blues can't afford them.
I was only talking about the 2012-13 season. What Kreider, Stepan, and Tarasenko will make in the future is irrelevant. Also, I didn't use Tarasenko because, you are correct, it wouldn't be fair. He was one of the four forwards the Blues couldn't afford for the salaries of Gaborik, Nash, and Richards.
The fact is New York would have cut checks for more money for their top four forwards than St. Louis would have for their entire forwards corps this season if it wasn't for the lock-out. And that is a luxury that the Blues can't afford.
It is so shocking to me that some people just don't understand that not every team in the NHL has unlimited funds like the Maple Leafs or the Rangers. The Blues could never afford to bury Wade Redden in the minors. Heck, they couldn't afford to sign him to that contract in the first place.
Also, the Rangers are going with scoring by committee. That is why they added Richards to Gaborik. Because one elite forward isn't enough. Then they decided that Richards and Gaborik weren't enough and added Nash. The Ranger's committee is a step up from the Blues committee, but they still use multiple scorers to prevent the opposition from keying in on and shutting down one player.
As a franchise that could only afford one such player, and would have to sacrifice in other areas to do so, the Blues decided to spread the wealth around a bit instead of putting all of their eggs into one basket. Tying all your hopes to one players doesn't make sense when that player can get injured, go into a slump, etc.
In short, the Rangers are a have team, and the Blues are a have-not team. If the Blues had the finances the Rangers did they would add elite level forwards to their roster. Both teams have a balanced roster, as balanced rosters are better than top-heavy or otherwise unbalanced rosters. The extra money the Rangers can afford to spend allow them to have a balanced roster AND elite level forwards. This is something that the Blues won't be able to afford to do baring major changes to the financial structure of the league.
Simply put the Blues had to make a choice due to their limited finances: scoring by committee or single superstar upfront. Judging by the success that Nashville and Phoenix have had the past five years, and the lack of success Columbus and Atlanta had the past five seaons, it is pretty clear which way wins more games in the NHL. Gotta make the playoffs before you can win them.
Last edited by bluemandan: 12-18-2012 at 11:21 PM.
I would say that all of lucic krejci and bergeron and horton and possibly even seguin have a better offensive game than any blue, and ryder is a superior goal scorer to any of them. The blues have a lot of depth but this isnt 2007 mcdonald is not an acceptable best offensive player
Uhh what? Backes is a two time 30 goal scorer and not one of those players has put up two 30 goal seasons. I would also say David Perron has a better offensive game than every one of those forwards besides Seguin.
.) If the Rangers faced the Devils in the first round I really think they could have won, I really do.
