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, 01:56 PM
  #101
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,274
vCash: 500
Bored at work, put together a nice little excel model to crunch numbers on this.

I'll post findings when I get home.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:01 PM
  #102
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Bored at work, put together a nice little excel model to crunch numbers on this.

I'll post findings when I get home.
What a tease you are.

__________________
Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:09 PM
  #103
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post

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.
IDK, the Flyers haven't won anything and you can make the argument that they've been marginally better than the Rangers have been since the lockout, but I don't see the difference as being that pronounced. Whatever ails the Rangers, ails the Flyers in a different way. Flyers can't produce or buy a goalie to save their lives. Their top defenseman are all imported, not developed from within, and since they lost Pronger, they have been terrible. You can talk to me about Giroux, and I can tal to you about Stepan, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, Lundqvist, etc... I don't view the Flyers as being all that much better than the Rangers since the lockout - especially since we seem to beat their ***** every time we play them and have had more success than them recently.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
Like the Sharks? The Caps? We've gone further than either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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?
IDK, the Penguins were benefactors of having either the 1st overall or 2nd overall pick for four years in a row. Hard to screw that up.

As far as Boston goes, if Bergeron is out for any length of time then that team is in serious, serious trouble this year - with or without Jagr.

Blackhawks, again, were blessed with 3, 7, 3, 1 overall in four consecutive years.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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?.
Oh, please. Mogilny. Souray. Huet. Kotalik. Finger, etc...

And Drury was bought out because of an injury and he should've done right by the Rangers and retired first. If the Devils can afford to bury Mogilny while losing money, then I don't want to hear crying about the Rangers doing it to Redden. Furthermore, the player should have the right to void a contract. I'm sure Luongo would do it in a second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
If we're just talking the last season, as an example, I don't see what Glen and Co. could've done much differently. Prust - love the guy, but a.) he's always hurt and wears as the season progresses b.) 10 million? For 4 years? Most people were against signing him. Do I make that Nash trade? Hell, yes. Maybe I sign Feds. Mitchell? Who cares? I mean, I don't think anyone was crying over the loss of Mitchell in the off season. I remember a lot of Johnny Malkin posts, though. Christensen? Erixon? Scott?




Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
If you're in the finals you have a chance. So, if a 6-8 seed has a 30% chance (and those numbers are higher recently) it's not nearly as hopeless as you were making it out to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
We're arguing about what "successful" is, not what your personal standards are. They have been successful if you're agreeing that they are top 10-12 best.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
The 2005-6 had 100 pts. and finished a single point behind the team that took them out in the first round when Jagr screwed up his shoulder. I'll give you that they weren't the most talented team that the Rangers have ever had, but to label that team as "awful" is simply dishonest - even when using your own regular season standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
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.
Meh. Lockout. Jury is out for me on this year. No training camp, no Sauer, Staal injury, etc... Staal is a lot more important to this team than he's given credit for.

That being said, I like the team's chances if they get in as a 6 or 7 seed. I'd love to play the SE "champion" first.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:23 PM
  #104
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
Mediocre teams don't make it to the ECF's.

They do if we are talking about doing it just once in the last 15 playoff rounds or even once in the last 8 years since the Dark Ages ended. Sneaking into the ELF once is nothing special. If we do it fairly consistently or make the Finals, then it's a different issue.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:25 PM
  #105
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
If we do it fairly consistently or make the Finals, then it's a different issue.
It's been shown that no team has done that, though.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:32 PM
  #106
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,598
vCash: 300
I hope the current core put together stays put.

Stepan/Hagelin/Nash/Callahan/Clowe (if he re-signs)/McDonagh/Staal/Del Zotto/Girardi/Lundqvist. In the future Miller/Kreider/McIlrath.

I like that core a lot. It just needs the right complimentary pieces - hopefully Moore/Brassard/Dorsett can become some of those complimentary pieces. Hopefully Zuccs can cement himself in a spot as well.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard

Last edited by JeffMangum: 04-05-2013 at 05:18 PM. Reason: Forgot Callahan :facepalm:
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:34 PM
  #107
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,141
vCash: 500
I've read through the thread and done some thinking about the Gabby trade since it happened and here's where I come out:

To begin with, I think that they decided to pursue a full-on rebuild just prior to the previous lockout and that plan was "derailed" by Jagr's unexpected success and Lundqvist's unexpected development. They tried to catch that lightning in a bottle and jump the process with ill-advised FA signings. It bit them in the ass.

During that same time, however, they also started to draft better (due in no small part to Gorton and Clark) and developed a pipeline of kids that started to grow and grow to become one of the more successful in the league in terms of forward depth and defense. So, when they didn't bring Jagr back and cut ties with Gomez and Drury, they finally started to head in the right direction, building off of that pipeline.

Since then, it's all been about rational disposition of assets. Unfortunately, there's been some atrocious luck (Cherepanov, Sauer), their own egos got in the way multiple times (not drafting Tarasenko, letting Zherdev walk for nothing) and in a couple of cases things just haven't worked out (Gabby's decline, Richards’ mysterious suckage), but for the most part it's been about maximizing assets to steadily build towards a more complete, well structured team that is well positioned under the cap.

My response to the Clowe trade was that we had paid too much. For a healthy, in-his-prime Clowe the price would have been a steal. For a guy who's injured, potentially bolting after 12 games, and perhaps starting to decline, it seemed like an overpayment. That first game certainly seemed to show a guy who's got a lot left in the tank - whether he can maintain it, they sign him and the deal makes sense is still up in the air.

My response to the Gabby trade was... that I didn't know how to react. Normally, I don't like trading the best player in the deal, but by the same token, I recognize that he was not working here this year and he was out after next anyway. So, my hesitancy was around the return. I have always liked Brassard, but I didn't know enough about Moore or Dorsett to judge. I was floored we didn't get a first in the package. Again, I was obviously pleased with the first game, but again time will tell.

What I can say, however, is that in the context of the trend towards attempting to maximize assets and build a more complete, well structured team (that is well positioned under the cap), this makes a lot of sense. You've gone from a team that had a variety of holes and a number of imbalances to the most coherent roster I can recall since the 90s - and it's young and well-positioned under the cap to boot. We have four well-balanced lines with players all playing in their proper positions. We have a full D-corps (especially when Staal gets back), with only one guy playing on his off side. We have the world's best goalie. If things go right, this is a well-built team with a solid farm system that is positioned to compete for years to come.

Of course, that is still subject to "if things go right". That first game could very easily have been an anomaly. We could still have overpaid for Clowe and undersold Gabby. Clowe could be on the downswing; he could leave this summer for nothing. Brassard might not be the player I think he is. Moore might never fully develop. We may be looking for scoring again this time next year. But I do see a plan here since Gorton entered the picture and this seems to fit it.

Given the trend, I would expect Richards to go either this summer or next. On his contract, under the current rules and given his production, he is not a rationally disposed asset. To a certain extent, the timing will depend on the development of Brassard, Lindberg and Miller.

Likewise, I expect one or more of our Dmen to be flipped this summer or next year to recoup the hole we'll likely be creating in the pipeline with the loss of picks in the Nash and Clowe trades. Staal, McD, MDZ, Moore with Skjei coming all on the left are not rationally disposed assets, even if Moore can play the right side. To a certain extent, the timing will depend on the development of McIlrath and what other RH Dmen they can acquire.

I don't like all the decisions they’ve made over the last five years – BUT, I do see a plan here. I don’t like Torts personally and I’m not sure that his tactics are the right ones, but at the very least management and the coach seem to be on the same page in terms of building a complete, cup-contending team.

I agree that continual roster turnover in and of itself is not a good thing – BUT, I don’t think you avoid it just to avoid it either; if the team isn’t performing and/or you have the holes and imbalances I mentioned above, you’d be silly not to address them in the name of stability.

I have my reservations, but I’m excited by the direction overall.

Then again, I also recognize that it’s in the nature of a fan to take a positive view.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:39 PM
  #108
nyranger61494
YNWA
 
nyranger61494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
They do if we are talking about doing it just once in the last 15 playoff rounds or even once in the last 8 years since the Dark Ages ended. Sneaking into the ELF once is nothing special. If we do it fairly consistently or make the Finals, then it's a different issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
It's been shown that no team has done that, though.
Exactly. I think Rangers are above average within confines of the current NHL landscape. Does that make us great? Don't think so, but consider 31's numbers:

Conference Finalists
1. Detroit - 3
T2. Carolina - 2
T2. Buffalo - 2
T2. Anaheim - 2
T2. Pittsburgh - 2
T2. Philadelphia - 2
T2. Chicago - 2
T2. San Jose - 2

Those are all higher than the Rangers. Is Buffalo a better franchise? Carolina? Philly?

I think it's a lot of different factors that have to be considered beyond just that.

nyranger61494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:43 PM
  #109
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,137
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.

The reason for it is that we never finished rebuilding because the fans were saying that we need to make the playoffs every year because if we make the playoffs, then we have the chance to win the Cup, a preposterous argument for anyone who's taken even elementary school level statistics.

If we had more quality young players, we wouldn't need to do all of this. Look up front: how much movement do you see among Staal-McD-Girardi-MDZ? Not much because they are quality players who are in our long-term plans. Same for the goalie situation with Lundqvist.

If we had another Stepan, we'd never have signed Richards to a massive contract. If we had a 65 point scoring young winger developed in our own farm, we would've never signed Gabby. But that didn't happen because the management was never allowed to trade away all the vets for picks and prospects, while allowing the team to finish low and pick early.

Finishing in the 7-10 spot is literally the worst outcome for a team. Either finish top 5 and compete for the Cup or finish bottom 5 and get a good young player.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:49 PM
  #110
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
The reason for it is that we never finished rebuilding because the fans were saying that we need to make the playoffs every year because if we make the playoffs, then we have the chance to win the Cup, a preposterous argument for anyone who's taken even elementary school level statistics.
1. Could you explain how statistics dispels that?
2. Did your elementary school really teach statistics?

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:51 PM
  #111
nyranger61494
YNWA
 
nyranger61494's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
The reason for it is that we never finished rebuilding because the fans were saying that we need to make the playoffs every year because if we make the playoffs, then we have the chance to win the Cup, a preposterous argument for anyone who's taken even elementary school level statistics.

If we had more quality young players, we wouldn't need to do all of this. Look up front: how much movement do you see among Staal-McD-Girardi-MDZ? Not much because they are quality players who are in our long-term plans. Same for the goalie situation with Lundqvist.

If we had another Stepan, we'd never have signed Richards to a massive contract. If we had a 65 point scoring young winger developed in our own farm, we would've never signed Gabby. But that didn't happen because the management was never allowed to trade away all the vets for picks and prospects, while allowing the team to finish low and pick early.

Finishing in the 7-10 spot is literally the worst outcome for a team. Either finish top 5 and compete for the Cup or finish bottom 5 and get a good young player.
I disagree with your sentiment that fans couldn't deal with a rebuild. The fans were ready heading into that lockout. There was a huge firesale. We signed stop gaps. Jagr and Co. achieved unexpected success. I think ownership has always been concerned about selling the expensive seats and filling the luxury boxes/suites.

I do agree with your thoughts about not having enough top end talent. I know a few people on here continually talk about the 2003 draft but that was one that really hurt. Obviously, we had a late pick and Hugh Jessiman was looked at as a potential player by other teams, but when you look at that talent in the first round, could have changed alot. Also, if you rewind further to 1999 draft, when we tried an accelerated rebuild and acquired two top 10 picks that busted...

nyranger61494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:53 PM
  #112
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
I hate how this team blows up its roster every other season. And to do it after an ECF run without even managing to address the many needs of this team just made no sense to me. The team needed more depth on both offense and defense and more mobility, and instead they lost depth and got slower while losing their identity in the process.

The recent moves at the deadline were made to correct the problems the organization made for themselves, so instead of trying to build upon last year's success, they are trying to get back to where they were last season. One step forward, two steps back.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the Rangers have been unable to draft top line talent, forcing them to go outside the organization and spend tons of money of free agent forwards who usually underperform and rarely remain here for the duration of their contract. And then the vicious cycle rears its ugly head again - dump Gomez and it clears money for Gaborik. Dump Gaborik and it clears money for whatever free agent they will chase next.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:56 PM
  #113
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
The current era Rangers are pretty much equivalent to the 2006-2013 Calgary Flames. Playoff contenders, but going nowehere deep. Building team around a winger and an elite goalie, but weak at C and a revolving door of depth players. The similarities between the two is quite shocking.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:59 PM
  #114
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
The current era Rangers are pretty much equivalent to the 2006-2013 Calgary Flames. Playoff contenders, but going nowehere deep. Building team around a winger and an elite goalie, but weak at C and a revolving door of depth players. The similarities between the two is quite shocking.
I guess the only big difference is that Calgary is about to miss the playoffs for the 4th straight season while the Rangers have made it 6/7 years.

They remind me a lot more of the 1999-2004 Rangers.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:04 PM
  #115
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
The reason for it is that we never finished rebuilding because the fans were saying that we need to make the playoffs every year because if we make the playoffs, then we have the chance to win the Cup, a preposterous argument for anyone who's taken even elementary school level statistics.
Please don't bring out the media's tired excuse of "the fans won't tolerate a rebuild". The fans tolerated 7 years of suckage between 1998 and 2004, but our management did everything in its power to ensure that we didn't suck enough to get a high draft pick (except for 99, which with our typical luck was one of the worst drafts in recent memory).

Fans of any team want to feel like the team is moving in a positive direction, whether they are last in the league or first.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:15 PM
  #116
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I guess the only big difference is that Calgary is about to miss the playoffs for the 4th straight season while the Rangers have made it 6/7 years.

They remind me a lot more of the 1999-2004 Rangers.
Calgary was a 9th-10th place team the past 3 yrs, going all in praying and hoping Kipprusoff carried the team on his back.

The 2012 Rangers and 2004 Flames are similar - two runs that gave both organizations a shaded view on 'only being one piece away' from winning it all. For many years, various centers Langkow, Conroy, Jokinen and Lombardi were tried to find Iginla the elusive #1 center and when they did make the playoffs, they played an extremely safe system to help out their goaltender and pray to grind out wins with bounces and PP goals.

The Flames at one point had 'the best defense in the league', which was crowned to the Rangers during the offseason. Except Phaneuf and Bouwmeester were far more highly touted than any Ranger defenseman.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:22 PM
  #117
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,718
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
The Flames at one point had 'the best defense in the league',
What, 8 years ago?

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess that the teams' average age/core age are not comparable, either.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:28 PM
  #118
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
What, 8 years ago?

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess that the teams' average age/core age are not comparable, either.
3 seasons ago.

3 Flames defensemen were locks to make Team Canada during their summer camp by the media. Their 'big three', Regehr (29), Phaneuf (24), Bouwmeester (25) along with good #4 guys in Sarich (31) and Giordano (25) rounded out an elite defense corps on paper.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:37 PM
  #119
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Please don't bring out the media's tired excuse of "the fans won't tolerate a rebuild". The fans tolerated 7 years of suckage between 1998 and 2004, but our management did everything in its power to ensure that we didn't suck enough to get a high draft pick (except for 99, which with our typical luck was one of the worst drafts in recent memory).

Fans of any team want to feel like the team is moving in a positive direction, whether they are last in the league or first.
+1

Great post...the 2 biggest myths about hockey in NY...spotlight/pressure and can't rebuild.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:08 PM
  #120
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Anaheim is the other.

Though, they both got their because of their skill and not because of fisticuffs.
Missed this on first read. Not necessarily true that they didn't rely on their grit... They had a ton of skill, yes. But they relied heavily on their hard-hitting play (bordering on extremely dirty), grit, and size. You don't have to have fights to take advantage of what those types of players bring - and they did just that in the western conference playoff series they had that year.

The team that they had the most trouble with that year in the playoffs was the #1 seed Red Wings, who arguably had a ton more skill on their team than the Ducks. The Ducks won by completely dominating them physically throughout the series - but especially after going down 2-1 in the series (Pronger/Neidermayer elbow sandwich to Holmstrom's head being one of the dirtier hits I've ever seen; pathetic that it only got a game for Pronger, but it was a different time I guess). They literally just pushed the Red Wings around. That series is a big part of why the Wings went out the very next season and picked up Brad Stuart for their blueline, picked up an aging Dallas Drake, and brought back Darren McCarty for the playoffs. And guess who won the Stanley Cup that year?

Those kind of players help in the regular season, but they are absolutely huge (pun intended) come playoffs.

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:20 PM
  #121
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
IDK, the Flyers haven't won anything and you can make the argument that they've been marginally better than the Rangers have been since the lockout, but I don't see the difference as being that pronounced. Whatever ails the Rangers, ails the Flyers in a different way. Flyers can't produce or buy a goalie to save their lives. Their top defenseman are all imported, not developed from within, and since they lost Pronger, they have been terrible. You can talk to me about Giroux, and I can tal to you about Stepan, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, Lundqvist, etc... I don't view the Flyers as being all that much better than the Rangers since the lockout - especially since we seem to beat their ***** every time we play them and have had more success than them recently.
You're really going to compare the Flyers to the Rangers? It seems like things are starting to fall apart a little bit for the Flyers now, but you're talking about a franchise that has missed the playoffs ONE TIME in the last 17 seasons. During that span, they have been to the Finals twice, 6 conference finals appearances, and won at least one series 10 different seasons since 1995. Since the '05 lockout alone, the Flyers have made the playoffs 6 times, and advanced past the first round 4 times. 2 trips to the conference finals, one appearance in the Finals.

The Flyers are one of the most successful organizations in the league. No one can stay a contender for ever. When Datsyuk retires, the Red Wings are finally going to drop a little too (they may already have dropped from perennial contender status).

Quote:
Like the Sharks? The Caps? We've gone further than either.
I don't consider the Caps to be one of the best teams (although they should have been), but the Sharks have been to 2 conference finals in the last 3 years. In their 20 years in the league, the Sharks have missed the playoffs 5 times. 4 of those were in their first 6 seasons of existence.

Since the lockout, they've qualified for the playoffs every single season, and advanced past the first round 5 times. They've won their division 4 times, and never finished worse than 2nd in their division. No, they haven't won a Stanley Cup championship, and that must be frustrating for the Sharks fans. If that was my team, however, I would have no choice but to be satisfied. They put themselves in a position to have a realistic shot at a Stanley Cup every year. How can you possibly compare their results to the results of the Rangers? Year in, year out, one of the best-run franchises in the league.

Quote:
IDK, the Penguins were benefactors of having either the 1st overall or 2nd overall pick for four years in a row. Hard to screw that up.

As far as Boston goes, if Bergeron is out for any length of time then that team is in serious, serious trouble this year - with or without Jagr.

Blackhawks, again, were blessed with 3, 7, 3, 1 overall in four consecutive years.
Blessed? There's a reason we have drafts in these sports: so that bad teams can get better. How do you compete with the best teams? You get players that can compete with the best players on those teams. How do you get those players? At the top of the draft, most likely.

Quote:
Oh, please. Mogilny. Souray. Huet. Kotalik. Finger, etc...

And Drury was bought out because of an injury and he should've done right by the Rangers and retired first. If the Devils can afford to bury Mogilny while losing money, then I don't want to hear crying about the Rangers doing it to Redden. Furthermore, the player should have the right to void a contract. I'm sure Luongo would do it in a second.
First of all, how many of those guys were on the same team? And why are you bringing up other poorly run teams? What about the good teams? How many guys do they bury in the minors or buy out, and how often?

Right, Drury not retiring was the problem. Not the fact that the Rangers had absolutely no idea what they were doing when they signed a role player to a superstar contract as one of the roster overhauls that are now seemingly a team tradition.

Quote:
If we're just talking the last season, as an example, I don't see what Glen and Co. could've done much differently. Prust - love the guy, but a.) he's always hurt and wears as the season progresses b.) 10 million? For 4 years? Most people were against signing him. Do I make that Nash trade? Hell, yes. Maybe I sign Feds. Mitchell? Who cares? I mean, I don't think anyone was crying over the loss of Mitchell in the off season. I remember a lot of Johnny Malkin posts, though. Christensen? Erixon? Scott?
See, the problem is you can't just look at last season, because this is all part of a larger scale fundamental issue. It's not about this one move, or that one move. It's about how each mistake ends up leading to another mistake, and how these mistakes seem to repeat themselves in a cycle.

Quote:
If you're in the finals you have a chance. So, if a 6-8 seed has a 30% chance (and those numbers are higher recently) it's not nearly as hopeless as you were making it out to be.
Not a very good chance, since 6 out of 7 winners were not low seeds. So you have about a 15% chance if you make it, and you only have a 30% chance to make it at all. Hopeless? No, just not very good.

Quote:
We're arguing about what "successful" is, not what your personal standards are. They have been successful if you're agreeing that they are top 10-12 best.
But aren't those your standards? How is that different than me having my standards? No, I don't think slightly above average is successful, and more importantly, I don't think consistently qualifying for the playoffs as a low seed and having a smaller chance to make it to the finals than at least 4 other teams in your conference is success.

Quote:
The 2005-6 had 100 pts. and finished a single point behind the team that took them out in the first round when Jagr screwed up his shoulder. I'll give you that they weren't the most talented team that the Rangers have ever had, but to label that team as "awful" is simply dishonest - even when using your own regular season standards.
And what happened once Jagr screwed up his shoulder? The roster was a joke outside of Lundqvist and Jagr. The vast majority of the roster was border line NHLers, guys whose NHL careers lasted less than 5 years, or players that were at the very tailend of their careers. But, again, that isn't even the point here. If you look at the teams that make deep playoff runs all the time and finish well in the regular season, they have core players, and those core players tend to be their star offense players. The Rangers core is Lundqvist and a collection of excellent complimentary players. It isn't the same thing.

Quote:
Meh. Lockout. Jury is out for me on this year. No training camp, no Sauer, Staal injury, etc... Staal is a lot more important to this team than he's given credit for.

That being said, I like the team's chances if they get in as a 6 or 7 seed. I'd love to play the SE "champion" first.
Every team battles injuries, and some of the teams that have consistently been better than the Rangers have suffered worse injuries than Staal (though he is very important to this team).

I like the team's chances until they play the Penguins or Bruins (assuming those clubs' best players are in the lineup), because the Eastern Conference isn't all that great outside of those two teams.


Last edited by NYR Sting: 04-05-2013 at 04:32 PM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:22 PM
  #122
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinchanyo View Post
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
I get what you're saying... but I feel like that is just the attitude of a fanbase that hasn't ever known anything different; so they settle in as a defense mechanism. To me, that's not good enough, and we should be demanding more.

Once you've tasted what its like to be a perennial contender, you won't want anything else.

My father turned me on to the Red Wings (he's from Detroit) when I was younger as a way to help the sting of what I saw to be a brutal Rangers playoff series loss. This was right as they were turning their team around and building a dynasty - and they've been my #2 team since. And, even in their off years, it is an absolute breath of fresh air to watch them when I have the chance - because they are almost always in contention to win it all and competing for the top 4 spots in the conference.

Actually not too happy about the Wings coming to the East next year (even though it makes sense), because it means they'll be playing the Rangers a ton more; and while of course, I'll side with the Rangers, its just easier to not have to pick sides.

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:49 PM
  #123
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
You're really going to compare the Flyers to the Rangers? It seems like things are starting to fall apart a little bit for the Flyers now, but you're talking about a franchise that has missed the playoffs ONE TIME in the last 17 seasons. During that span, they have been to the Finals twice, 6 conference finals appearances, and won at least one series 10 different seasons since 1995. Since the '05 lockout alone, the Flyers have made the playoffs 6 times, and advanced past the first round 4 times. 2 trips to the conference finals, one appearance in the Finals.

The Flyers are one of the most successful organizations in the league. No one can stay a contender for ever. When Datsyuk retires, the Red Wings are finally going to drop a little too (they may already have dropped from perennial contender status).
Once again, you're expanding the argument to a place where there isn't one. I've been discussing post-lockout and post-lockout only. Quit dragging me down a road that I'm not traveling on. Furthermore, the Flyers haven't won a Cup in nearly 40 years and that's your shining example of success? Failing to win the cup? And only winning it twice in nearly 45 years? That's a record comparable to the Rangers 4 Cups in 87 years, no? And how is making the playoffs 16 years in 17 relevant and important, yet the Rangers 7 out of the last 8 isn't? But, I digress, I don't want to get in arguments about an NHL that simply does not exist anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
I don't consider the Caps to be one of the best teams (although they should have been), but the Sharks have been to 2 conference finals in the last 3 years. In their 20 years in the league, the Sharks have missed the playoffs 5 times. 4 of those were in their first 6 seasons of existence.

Since the lockout, they've qualified for the playoffs every single season, and advanced past the first round 5 times. They've won their division 4 times, and never finished worse than 2nd in their division. No, they haven't won a Stanley Cup championship, and that must be frustrating for the Sharks fans. If that was my team, however, I would have no choice but to be satisfied. They put themselves in a position to have a realistic shot at a Stanley Cup every year. How can you possibly compare their results to the results of the Rangers? Year in, year out, one of the best-run franchises in the league.
All I've said is they've gone as far in the playoffs as we have and, by your measure, are successful. I'd like to point out that I think that if the Rangers had the same record as the Sharks, you'd still consider them unsuccessful. I just don't get why you think the Sharks' record is that much better than the Rangers. 5 times in 2nd round vs. 3 times in 2nd round. "Division" wins? Who cares about that? Semi-finals: Sharks twice, Rangers once. And the Sharks had MUCH higher expectations. If you're going to view the Rangers as disappointing I can't see how you can't view the Sharks as disappointing. It's inconsistent. For the record, I did put the Sharks ahead of the Rangers, solely on playoff qualifications (along with Detroit). I just don't get why YOU put them ahead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Blessed? There's a reason we have drafts in these sports: so that bad teams can get better. How do you compete with the best teams? You get players that can compete with the best players on those teams. How do you get those players? At the top of the draft, most likely.
It's easy to find quality players at #1 and #2. It's much more difficult with lower draft choices, and unlike you, I appreciate a team that does everything it can to make the playoffs every year (esp. at Rangers ticket prices) instead of tanking to get a 1st overall. I like competitive.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
First of all, how many of those guys were on the same team? And why are you bringing up other poorly run teams? What about the good teams? How many guys do they bury in the minors or buy out, and how often?
The point was that even teams like the Devils, who are bleeding money, buried players they didn't want and suffered through the same crap that the high and mighty Rangers did. Were the Redden, Gomez and Drury contracts awful? Hell, yes. But, there are TONS of those toxic contracts out there and it's not limited to the mighty NYR. Kovalchuk, Luongo, DiPietro, etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Right, Drury not retiring was the problem. Not the fact that the Rangers had absolutely no idea what they were doing when they signed a role player to a superstar contract as one of the roster overhauls that are now seemingly a team tradition.
Can't argue with that at all. I'd submit, though, that every team in the league has issued contracts they regret, from the bottom of the league to the top of the league even on some of your successful teams (Bryzgalov, anyone? Anyone?)



Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
See, the problem is you can't just look at last season, because this is all part of a larger scale fundamental issue. It's not about this one move, or that one move. It's about how each mistake ends up leading to another mistake, and how these mistakes seem to repeat themselves in a cycle.
I take each year as it comes and, like I said, in retrospect I don't think there's much I would've done differently. And, I think these recent moves are good moves and if I go up and down the roster I think this team compares favorably to last years ECF team. That might just be me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Not a very good chance, since 6 out of 7 winners were not low seeds. So you have about a 15% chance if you make it, and you only have a 30% chance to make it at all. Hopeless? No, just not very good.
We're beating this one to death. All I'm saying is that if you finish 6-8 you still have a decent chance at doing well in the playoffs. I'm sure those numbers are far better if we're talking conference finals as a measure of success. In any event, the league is definitely shifting towards parity and every team fighting til the end for the playoffs. That's Bettman's model.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
But aren't those your standards? How is that different than me having my standards? No, I don't think slightly above average is successful, and more importantly, I don't think consistently qualifying for the playoffs as a low seed and having a smaller chance to make it to the finals than at least 4 other teams in your conference is success.
That would be fine if it were true. Last year is the abberation, though and if it didn't exist I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But, it did, and it does. And it's hard to judge this team in this monstrosity that is another lockout FUBAR'd season.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 05:14 PM
  #124
Brady Skjei
Registered User
 
Brady Skjei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith View Post
I hope the current core put together stays put.

Stepan/Hagelin/Nash/Clowe (if he re-signs)/McDonagh/Staal/Del Zotto/Girardi/Lundqvist. In the future Miller/Kreider/McIlrath.

I like that core a lot. It just needs the right complimentary pieces - hopefully Moore/Brassard/Dorsett can become some of those complimentary pieces. Hopefully Zuccs can cement himself in a spot as well.
What about Callahan? Is Girardi more of an important piece to the core than he is or was it just an accidental omission? Just curious

Brady Skjei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 05:17 PM
  #125
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,598
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by letsgorangers19 View Post
What about Callahan? Is Girardi more of an important piece to the core than he is or was it just an accidental omission? Just curious
Accidental omission.

I knew I was forgetting a forward.

Girardi is actually the least "integral" core piece - at least in my mind. I'd honestly try and move him for a physical scoring forward at the draft.

JeffMangum 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 12:54 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.