HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Perennial Roster Overhauls and Relationship to Postseason Success (Sting's Thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-05-2013, 12:17 PM
  #76
Jabroni
Moderator
The Corporate Mod
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Then this league is filled with mediocrity.
That's the Bell Curve for you.

The extremes are either very good or very bad, but many are in the middle.

__________________
Jabroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:23 PM
  #77
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Yes, let's use that one example as the barometer.

In the last 40 years, there have been TWO Stanley Cup champions that were seeded in the bottom half of their conference: the 1995 New Jersey Devils, and the 2012 Los Angeles Kings.

Is it impossible to win a championship as a low seed? No, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.
Sorry, but once you go past the lockout, you're going past what is the new NHL. Parity, salary caps, restricted player movement. What happened pre-lockout doesn't apply anymore. The 8th seed has made the finals twice since the lockout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Would just making the playoffs be considered a successful season for the teams that have consistently been among the better teams in the league over the last number of years? Is that good enough for the Red Wings, the Canucks, the Bruins, the Penguins, the Flyers, the Blackhawks, or the Sharks?
Flyers? When was the last time they've won anything? Or the Sharks? The Canucks? Your measure of success here are two teams that haven't won **** since their inception and a third that hasn't won a Cup since the 70's? What are we talking about here? Regular season success? The joy of being a #1 or 2 seed and not getting it done? We even did THAT. Last year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
What those teams have done over the last number of years, or are in the middle of achieving right now (like the Bruins, who figure to be a contender frequently in the coming years), is sustained success. How many years is it going to take before this team is at that level? How many roster overhauls are needed?
The Bruins have won a Cup, I'll give you that. How'd they do last year in the playoffs? 1st round and out. Sound familiar? How about you're highly touted Penguins? Bounced the first round each of the last two years despite having arguably the two best players on the planet on their teams. It seems you place a lot of emphasis on the regular season.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Why shouldn't it be an advantage? The two teams that have the biggest advantage in that regard along with the Rangers are the Leafs and Canadiens, and those teams have been poorly run, as well.

That should make it easier for the Rangers, but the Rangers operate in much the same way that those teams do, which is why none of them ever achieve sustained success.
Completely, completely disagree. Every team that I mentioned, and then some, has ZERO difficulty competing with the Rangers in a cap world and most spend every penny that the Rangers do. You think players don't like playing for the Penguins, Flyers, Habs, Boston, etc... just as much as the Rangers? Where'd Iginla want to play? How about Morrow? Jagr? I call BS on this age old thing that might've applied before the lockout. It doesn't now.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
We have a fundamental difference on what we consider success. If you don't have a legit shot to win the Stanley Cup, which as I've already shown, low seeded teams do not, then you aren't achieving any legit success. Just making the playoffs is not success. At best, it says that you aren't awful. It is not an indicator of greatness. Consistent contendership is an indicator of success, AFAIC.
We were a #1 seed last year, as I've shown, which shows your argument to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're applying different standards to teams that you're using for comparison than you are when you're evaluating your own team. A #8 seed (Edmonton, LAK) has made the finals twice since the lockout. So has a #6 (Devils). So has a #7 (Flyers). So, out of the past 14 teams to make it to the Finals, 4 of them have been a #6 or lower seed. That's roughly 30%. The argument your making held water before the lockout. It simply isn't true in the new parity driven NHL.

Bottom line: you're looking at the NYR through the eyes of a fan that's passionate about his team. I'm passionate as well, but if you're reluctant to say that they've been one of the 10 or 12 best teams, all things considered, then you simply aren't being honest with yourself.

The team last year had a chance and almost made it to the finals if Gaborik's shoulder wasn't separated, a goal here or there would've made the difference. If Jagr didn't blow up his shoulder in the playoffs, I think we win that series, too. If Drury's knees didn't give out maybe he would've been the player he was supposed to be. This team has been competitive every year, has gotten to the second round or later 3 out of 7 playoff years, and had the most points in the East last year.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:23 PM
  #78
tjs252
Registered User
 
tjs252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Once we purge Del Zotto and Zuccarello we'll be built perfectly for Torts' jam-a-lamma system.

Problem is, there's overwhelming evidence it doesn't work in the new NHL, as no Cup team since the lockout save Boston has gotten there by winning "ugly."

Bigger problem is, all we'll likely end up doing is take a big step sideways and have given up a ton of picks in the process.

tjs252 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:25 PM
  #79
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,606
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjs252 View Post
Once we purge Del Zotto and Zuccarello we'll be built perfectly for Torts' jam-a-lamma system.

Problem is, there's overwhelming evidence it doesn't work in the new NHL, as no Cup team since the lockout save Boston has gotten there by winning "ugly."

Bigger problem is, all we'll likely end up doing is take a big step sideways and have given up a ton of picks in the process.
Anaheim is the other.

Though, they both got their because of their skill and not because of fisticuffs.

__________________
Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:33 PM
  #80
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
What a bunch of crap. Go whine to fans of Toronto, Columbus, Winnipeg, NYI, Florida, etc... how only two teams in the entire NHL have been more successful than our NYR in making the playoffs nearly every year, getting to the ECF's, having everyone want to play for you, etc... and that equates to not being successful.

There are tons of franchises that would love to be as "unsuccessful" as we are.

Ridiculous.
The team since the lockout measures up pretty well with the arc of Ranger success since the 1940's -- a middle of the pack bunch, with a couple of magical seasons sprinkled in.

They've won 1 Stanley Cup in the last 73 years.

A whole litany if players, coaches, and management that were as complacent as you is a big reason why.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:38 PM
  #81
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,025
vCash: 500
The problem with the Rangers is the lack of consistency. Not just in their play, but in the overall direction of the franchise. The guys we are building the team around are constantly changing. Just going back to the lockout, it was Jagr. And then we added Drury and Gomez and we were cup favorites! Then Jagr was too old/slow and wanted too much money. Let him go and make it Drury and Gomez's team. That didn't work, so we got rid of Gomez and got Gaborik. Then Drury fell apart and retired, so we got Richards.

Then we added Nash and we were cup favorites! That didn't work so we got rid of Gaborik and Richards has 1 foot out the door.

It's a revolving door. We have stability on the back end and in net, but we are constantly looking outside the organization for solutions to our scoring problems.

You can go back even further and look at guys like Lindros and Bure. At some point we need to develop our own elite offensive talent rather than picking up guys who have been in the league 7+ years and may not have that many good years left in them.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:42 PM
  #82
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The team since the lockout measures up pretty well with the arc of Ranger success since the 1940's -- a middle of the pack bunch, with a couple of magical seasons sprinkled in.

They've one 1 Stanley Cup in the last 73 years.

A whole litany if players, coaches, and management that were as complacent as you is a big reason why.
Let's not get personal here, you don't know a thing about me. I'm not satisfied with their track record over the past 73 years, either.

That doesn't change the fact that the NHL is parity driven enterprise at this point and it's hard to dominate in that environment. Want to throw Cups at me? Some of these "elite" "successful" franchises that other people are naming haven't accomplished jack **** as far as Cups go (Flyers, Sharks, Canucks, Capitals, Predators, Canadiens, Devils, etc...) since the first lockout was a reality. How many cups have the touted Blackhawks won since 1961? One. Just like us.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:46 PM
  #83
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,606
vCash: 659
This argument goes back to the gut vs. reason test again.

By no standard that can be measured have the Rangers been mediocre since the lockout, but some people just know in the bottom of their heart that they have been.

Rangers make them feel

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:47 PM
  #84
tjs252
Registered User
 
tjs252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The problem with the Rangers is the lack of consistency. Not just in their play, but in the overall direction of the franchise. The guys we are building the team around are constantly changing. Just going back to the lockout, it was Jagr. And then we added Drury and Gomez and we were cup favorites! Then Jagr was too old/slow and wanted too much money. Let him go and make it Drury and Gomez's team. That didn't work, so we got rid of Gomez and got Gaborik. Then Drury fell apart and retired, so we got Richards.

Then we added Nash and we were cup favorites! That didn't work so we got rid of Gaborik and Richards has 1 foot out the door.

It's a revolving door. We have stability on the back end and in net, but we are constantly looking outside the organization for solutions to our scoring problems.

You can go back even further and look at guys like Lindros and Bure. At some point we need to develop our own elite offensive talent rather than picking up guys who have been in the league 7+ years and may not have that many good years left in them.
To be fair, we've always been built around Lundqvist since he established himself and we've pretty much run a philosophy of building from the blue-line out. The problem there is we've kind of stopped at the blue-line and for multiple reasons been unable to develop our own forwards at a rate necessary to get the depth we need in a hard-capped league.

The other thing to consider is, we were kind of built to tank the lockout season. It was Jagr and the nobodies. While we ended up with Staal, we really were positioned for Crosby/Ryan. That changes a whole lot.

Not to be forgotten either is that with Jagr's resurgence and Lundqvist's quick dominance we sort of sped through the early stages of the rebuild (that Sather was willing to, uncharacteristically, go through). So that absolutely messed with the level of talent in the organization, too.

For the sake of argument, let's say that at the '04 deadline someone ponies up for Jagr, so he's shipped out with Kovalev, Leetch, etc. Or let's say that the '04-'05 season happens and we get a top-3 pick as the Jagr/Dunham disaster likely would have. Ryan or Crosby with Lundqvist is a dream core.

I know every team can play the what if game, but the lockout kind of killed our rebuild. That one extra bad year before Henrik would have come over is the "star" homegrown player we'd have been looking for. Well, Cherepanov too, but that's out of our hands, and Torts would have run him out of town.

I realize that was a stream of consciousness ramble, but I think the point comes across. We've been built around Lundqvist since the '04 deadline sell off and, because of an odd bit of circumstances, that's been both a blessing and a (figuratively) disadvantage. We're one bad year of sucking (be it '04-'05 or '05-'06) from being a powerhouse, and we were positioned to do just that, but Jagr's all-time great season and Henrik got in the way.

EDIT: To clarify, I say "built around Lundqvist since the '04 deadline sell off because Sather not only dangled Jagr but was willing to deal him as well. It was never Jagr's team, he just kind of made it his.


Last edited by tjs252: 04-05-2013 at 12:53 PM.
tjs252 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:55 PM
  #85
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
This argument goes back to the gut vs. reason test again.

By no standard that can be measured have the Rangers been mediocre since the lockout, but some people just know in the bottom of their heart that they have been.

Rangers make them feel
I fully disagree that the lockout has ushered in some revolutionary era of hockey that cannot in any way be measured to years past.

If you want to make an argument that theres some angst amongst older fans that are projecting the last several decades of mediocrity into this argument, then I fully agree.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:02 PM
  #86
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Since the lockout, and even more recently this team has been building through a process of the draft, trades, and free agency. If youíre a ranger fan for the past 10yrs at least you should know this, and embrace the fact that this is the philosophy of the team you follow. Stop fighting against it! If you really canít stomach it, find another franchise to invest your time and money into.

This franchise will not perennially tank, like your beloved Penguins, Oilers, Islanders, Blackhawks and Caps teams. And aside from the penguins how often is this method successful? And as great as the Sharks have been in the regular season these past 10 years, theyíve failed to make it to the big dance! Thatís not success to me if the Cup is supposed to be your goal.

I agree that we have to keep roster turnover to a minimum, but I feel people are exploiting this yearís struggles due the bottom six turnover in a lockout shortened year. We have an All World goalie entering his prime and good chance to be contenders for the next 3-5 years if we continue to develop youth and integrate players that fit our system and style of play.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:04 PM
  #87
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,347
vCash: 500
I don't think the issue is whether the team is mediocre or successful. The underlying issue here is the lack of progression year in and year out. The expectation isn't to simply make the playoffs, or at least it shouldn't be. The expectation should be to compete for a Cup or be building a cup contender. Nobody wants to build a team that's just good enough to be bounced out of the first round in the playoffs, and unfortunately that's what we seem to be doing.

The real problem, at least in my eyes, is that this team seems to be unable to address the problems we have with the roster in a measured and calculated way. We need toughness, so the team spends the highest pick it's had in 8 years on a kid who is tough as nails, but is at least 3-4 years away from having an impact on the team. We need scoring, so we trade pieces of our depth for another scorer, but fail to address the holes we created. We need to get tougher, so we use up some high draft picks in order to acquire a power-forward who has some major question marks about his health and ability to regain form.

I don't mind building a team and getting knocked out early in the playoffs, but there has to be some sort of plan in place. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not throwing **** at the wall and hoping something sticks, but it sure as hell isn't too far off. Each year it's an off-season "retool" and by Feburary it's "we need to add a PPQB and a center". Then we get ousted in the playoffs and then it's "Let's add <free agent here> and let the kids fill in the holes." Fall rolls around and those kids don't fill the holes, and we're right back to square one.

We're teetering on Einsteins definition of insanity here. 9 months ago we were running away with the Cup on paper, and here we are two days removed from adding 4 new pieces to our roster with two weeks left in the season desperately clinging to a playoff spot.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:06 PM
  #88
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Since the lockout, and even more recently this team has been building through a process of the draft, trades, and free agency. If youíre a ranger fan for the past 10yrs at least you should know this, and embrace the fact that this is the philosophy of the team you follow. Stop fighting against it! If you really canít stomach it, find another franchise to invest your time and money into.
.
What in the hell? What franchises dont build through those 3 avenues?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:09 PM
  #89
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,606
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
What in the hell? What franchises dont build through those 3 avenues?
Islanders build through waivers.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:15 PM
  #90
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
What in the hell? What franchises dont build through those 3 avenues?
it's been insinuated throughout this thread, that all the rangers do is overhaul their rosters and there is no real plan in place. It's been asked how many years this "flawed" process will take before we realize it isn't successful. You've agreed basically to these sentiments. I'm merely pointing out that a plan is in place and it has been followed for the most part since lockout, and especially these past 3 years.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:18 PM
  #91
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Islanders build through waivers.
exactly. some of the great "models of success" that are being heralded here had the luxury of the best players in the game falling from heaven right into their franchises. It takes a lot of skill to step up to a podium once a year and announce: "We select Sidney Crosby, Evengi Malkin, Patrick Kane, John Tavares, etc...

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:22 PM
  #92
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 45,645
vCash: 50
Judging by the research some of you have put into this thread, I'd say that Parity seems to be working rather well!

Unless, you're Toronto of course.

__________________
"New day, new hope. Richards Buyout 2014". -Ail
Bob Richards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:23 PM
  #93
shinchanyo
Registered User
 
shinchanyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
In regards to the success arguement I don't think anyone is being fair. The truth is that a measure of a teams success is based upon the individual fan who is determining what success is. For me I have enjoyed this team enough and consider them a success post lockout. I do crave success at the level where my team is habitually making ECF and SCF and regularly winning and competing for the top 3 seeds. We have NOT had that. Literally for me personally this team has been at the absolute borderline of what i consider successful. I do not begrudge anyone who is embittered by the lack of greater success though

shinchanyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:26 PM
  #94
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
This argument goes back to the gut vs. reason test again.

By no standard that can be measured have the Rangers been mediocre since the lockout, but some people just know in the bottom of their heart that they have been.

Rangers make them feel
I wouldn't say I'm old, but I've been a fan through the entire recent dark years and some just before that. So I probably do carry over at least some of those ill feelings and pessimism toward the organization from then. That said I think the Rangers are on the upswing, have a good core (something they haven't had in a while), and will continue to improve in the years to come as long as Sather doesn't **** it up.

But I don't see how one ECF appearance means that the years prior to that were anything but mediocre at best, pretty awful at worst. They have been a 6-8 bubble playoff team almost every year since the lockout. Mediocre doesn't mean the team is bad. It just means they are middle of the pack, and not really achieving what any of us would like them to. That seems to describe the 05-10 Rangers to a T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Then this league is filled with mediocrity.
Yes. It is. Consistently solid teams are few and far between. They build up a very solid core and then tend to only tinker with the roster in the offseason, having pretty minor roster turnover by comparison. Boston. Pittsburgh. Washington. Detroit. Chicago. Anaheim. Vancouver. San Jose.

I have hope, since the Rangers have begun to actually try to build a young core, that they will be more than mediocre in the next few years. But prior to last year, they couldn't even be considered in the same league as those teams if we're just talking the past ~6 years.

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:30 PM
  #95
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
Sorry, but once you go past the lockout, you're going past what is the new NHL. Parity, salary caps, restricted player movement. What happened pre-lockout doesn't apply anymore. The 8th seed has made the finals twice since the lockout.
6 of the 7 Cup winners since the lockout were seeded in the top half of their conference.

Quote:
Flyers? When was the last time they've won anything? Or the Sharks? The Canucks? Your measure of success here are two teams that haven't won **** since their inception and a third that hasn't won a Cup since the 70's? What are we talking about here? Regular season success? The joy of being a #1 or 2 seed and not getting it done? We even did THAT. Last year.
Once again, I'm not saying you have to win the Cup every year. But you have to put yourself in position where you have a realistic shot of doing so. Teams like the Flyers, Sharks, and Canucks haven't gotten the job done, but they have routinely fielded good teams that finished in the top half of their conference and made deep playoff runs. That's all you can ask for, and those results are satisfactory. The Flyers aren't perfect, but they've been to the Finals and have won 7 playoff series since the end of the lockout. They've also drafted and developed an elite first line center, the single most important piece of the puzzle. You think I like giving my least favorite team in the league credit? No, but they've earned it. They've been a more successful team. The Rangers have been in the top half of the seeding once, last season, and rather than sustain that, dropped right back to being a bubble team.

Quote:
The Bruins have won a Cup, I'll give you that. How'd they do last year in the playoffs? 1st round and out. Sound familiar? How about you're highly touted Penguins? Bounced the first round each of the last two years despite having arguably the two best players on the planet on their teams. It seems you place a lot of emphasis on the regular season.
Why wouldn't I? The regular season obviously is a pretty decent barometer for the playoffs. The best regular season teams tend to consistently go the farthest in the playoffs.

The Penguins won a Stanley Cup and went to a Stanley Cup Final, and probably would have accomplished both again if not for Crosby's injuries. Yes, the Bruins were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs last year. Call me crazy, but I think in the next 3-4 years, they will get out of the first round of the playoffs, and more than once. The Blackhawks were eliminated twice. But in five years, when we look back at this generation of the Blackhawks, don't you think it's reasonable to predict that they will achieve several more deep playoff runs?

Quote:
Completely, completely disagree. Every team that I mentioned, and then some, has ZERO difficulty competing with the Rangers in a cap world and most spend every penny that the Rangers do. You think players don't like playing for the Penguins, Flyers, Habs, Boston, etc... just as much as the Rangers? Where'd Iginla want to play? How about Morrow? Jagr? I call BS on this age old thing that might've applied before the lockout. It doesn't now.
But the point is HOW do these teams spend it? The Rangers use their financial advantages to keep Wade Redden in the minors. To buy out Chris Drury. Plenty of teams have made mistakes like this, but how many of them have made as many as the Rangers, and mistakes as egregious?

How many of these teams routinely feature significant roster overhauls as often as the Rangers do? Of the teams that have stood out as the most consistently successful in recent years, only the Flyers undergo radical roster changes relatively frequently.


Quote:
We were a #1 seed last year, as I've shown, which shows your argument to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're applying different standards to teams that you're using for comparison than you are when you're evaluating your own team. A #8 seed (Edmonton, LAK) has made the finals twice since the lockout. So has a #6 (Devils). So has a #7 (Flyers). So, out of the past 14 teams to make it to the Finals, 4 of them have been a #6 or lower seed. That's roughly 30%. The argument your making held water before the lockout. It simply isn't true in the new parity driven NHL.
Maybe it isn't as large a difference, but last time I checked, 70% was still a lot better than 30%. And, again, 6 of the 7 Cup WINNERS were seeded #1-4.

Quote:
Bottom line: you're looking at the NYR through the eyes of a fan that's passionate about his team. I'm passionate as well, but if you're reluctant to say that they've been one of the 10 or 12 best teams, all things considered, then you simply aren't being honest with yourself.
One of the 10 or 12 best? Fine, I agree with that. But what sort of miserable standards are those? When do we get to be one of the 5-6 best? Isn't that what the goal should be? How long is that going to take? How many years? This is year EIGHT.

This all started with this point: major roster overhauls every 2-3 years are a sign that there is no stability of success. The top 5-8 teams in the league don't alter their rosters this drastically this often. It is a symptom of the fundamental problem at the root of this franchise's inability to be elite. The reason the roster has to be changed so much so often is because it is never assembled correctly in the first place. It is an endless and frustrating cycle that doesn't seem to have any end in sight. You can say that the end is near, and I'll give you this: the odds that it is are higher than it has ever been before. Yet, we heard that the end of this "process" was near before. It wasn't.

Quote:
The team last year had a chance and almost made it to the finals if Gaborik's shoulder wasn't separated, a goal here or there would've made the difference. If Jagr didn't blow up his shoulder in the playoffs, I think we win that series, too. If Drury's knees didn't give out maybe he would've been the player he was supposed to be. This team has been competitive every year, has gotten to the second round or later 3 out of 7 playoff years, and had the most points in the East last year.
Yeah, those Jagr playoff teams were awful. The blueline was a joke. The bottom six was a joke, and the team was carried by 2 or 3 players every year. Those teams were full of borderline NHLers, and more importantly, players that had no future with the franchise. So it isn't as if we built on what moderate success we had, because hardly any players from those teams remain. I think they got very lucky that year they played the Thrashers, who didn't deserve to be in the playoffs, and I think they got beaten by better, deeper teams.

Last year was nice, but it was the only year where the numbers say we had a major chance to win. One season later, the team has been drastically altered again, and we are right back to where we were 2 years ago in the standings: fighting just to be average or slightly above it.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:36 PM
  #96
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Chreider View Post
I wish we had Sauer back. We could at least trade him for something. This team has ZERO snipers after Nash. I want a Setoguchi type guy this offseason.
Lmao. We just traded away one in Gaborik.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:40 PM
  #97
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
it's been insinuated throughout this thread, that all the rangers do is overhaul their rosters and there is no real plan in place. It's been asked how many years this "flawed" process will take before we realize it isn't successful. You've agreed basically to these sentiments. I'm merely pointing out that a plan is in place and it has been followed for the most part since lockout, and especially these past 3 years.
Insinuated?

If the playoffs are the barometer, let me ask you a question. Have we made the playoffs 7 out of 8 years because of Sather's master plan or because of Henrik Lundqvist?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:42 PM
  #98
shinchanyo
Registered User
 
shinchanyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Making the playoffs is equivalent to competing for the Cup?
You want more from a sports team than I do but no matter what sports are just entertainment same as any tv show or whatever. If I am entertained it is a success. To entertain me and qualify as competing for the cup making the playoffs is the bare minimum. However this year was a rare exception because the quality of play was so low that I was miserable in a PO spot. So year to year, individual to individual the definition of success and what qualifies as "competing for the cup" differs. The only way to be fair here is to recognize this.

I don't think it's right or fair to insinuate that someone is wrong or a bad fan (not that you did but I've seen that done before) just because they don't demand more from a sports team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Making the playoffs doesn't mean very much when all but one postseason appearance is as a low seed. Why? Because low seeds almost never win Stanley Cups!

A low seeded playoff team is an average team. More teams make the playoffs than don't. Making the playoffs is not an accomplishment.

And it is amazing to me how people try to hold this team to the same standards as every other team.
It doesn't mean much to you as an individual fan but it does mean a lot to others. The quality of play throughout the year determines whether I am satisfied with just squeaking in. The quality of this years teams play was so horrendous that a ouster in round 1 would have pissed me the hell off. Hell regardless of the PO's this reg season has been horrendous one of the least enjoyable ever for me in watching or participating in any sport

I feel for fans who are starved for a championship because I used to be like that (I just naturally don't feel that way anymore). Especially if you spend a good chunk of money. So your personal expectations and evaluations of success are correct as it pertains to you but clearly others have differing expectations. it's an interesting thought to me at least who is to say what's a right or wrong expectation since we do absolutely nothing to influence the outcome?

You also bring up a good point in the unquoted giant post above.

If we have made the PO's as much as we have are we better than a team that has made the ECF 3 times and the SCF once? Again i guess it's up to the individual to decide. like you mentioned how being one of the 10 or 12 best is a miserable standard but again I believe it's a miserable standard to you personally (and likely many fans) but that doesn't mean it's a miserable standard, period b/c it's based on how an individual fan feels.

One of my favorite shows is Ninja Warrior (sounds goofy but it's phenomenal TV) The whole premise is failure and progression. Failure in stage 1 for one guy is a horrible letdown meanwhile just beating a single obstacle is seen as reason to cheer greatly with another guy.

I guess it's all about context and when a team has the advanatges we have had I understand fans being bitter with anything less than a cup.


Last edited by shinchanyo: 04-05-2013 at 01:54 PM.
shinchanyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:42 PM
  #99
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,606
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Insinuated?

If the playoffs are the barometer, let me ask you a question. Have we made the playoffs 7 out of 8 years because of Sather's master plan or because of Henrik Lundqvist?
Because the good GMs win the Cup year after year with two backup goalies.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:44 PM
  #100
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post

If the playoffs are the barometer, let me ask you a question. Have we made the playoffs 7 out of 8 years because of Sather's master plan or because of Henrik Lundqvist?
Post lockout was largely Lundqvist and Jagr and CO. more recently its Lundqvist with a strong defensive system in front him...

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.