The way he left was absolutely terrible. However, for me at least, after 18 years, the good memories of that season far outweigh the bad ones.
He was a good coach and knows the game, even if he's awkward on camera. His best insights, though, come when he's talking about Tortorella. They don't have similar personalities overall, but their coaching personas are very close.
Never liked him, almost imploded the whole 94 experience for his own greed, forgive him maybe, but never forget what a dbag move he made at our most critical time.
SBOB, it comes down to 'who else in Ranger history is available?' Especially coaches, so many brutal ones that no one would care to watch.
Never liked him, almost imploded the whole 94 experience for his own greed, forgive him maybe, but never forget what a dbag move he made at our most critical time.
SBOB, it comes down to 'who else in Ranger history is available?' Especially coaches, so many brutal ones that no one would care to watch.
Well I don't think it HAS to be someone from Rangers history. And it certainly doesn't HAVE to be a former coach.
? I didn't say he didn't. I just said that it was terrible and that it's long enough ago that I don't really care that much anymore.
Fair enough.
As much as I hate constantly being bombarbded by 1994 every summer, I don't want to have Keenan trotted out when it was clear that once he wasn't going to get Smith fired, he was looking for his next opportunity elsewhere.
The way he left was ginned up by himself and his arch-nemisis Neil Smith to look like the Rangers had breached his contract. Sleazy on both their parts. I have more affection for Neil--like most others here but the truth is the truth.
What worked for that year though--worked. It was a magical season. There were loads of Rangers fans who had grown up--lived rather full lives and died between 1940 and 1994--not ever seeing their team win a cup. It is my best hockey memory--better than the 1980 USA Olympic gold medal. I feel fortunate for that event in my life. I'd like to see it happen again though because one just isn't enough.
As a kid growing up in Europe during the 90's all the NHL action I got was a monthly magazine that always portrayed Kennan as a psycho who hated European players. But once I saw him in an interview he came across as a very nice guy. I don't see anything wrong in celebrating the past, then again, I don't get to see pre or post game shows on GameCenter.
SBOB, it comes down to 'who else in Ranger history is available?' Especially coaches, so many brutal ones that no one would care to watch.
Do we really need more alumni?
Maloney does a good job, Duguay is decent, Leetch is passable. We don't need to hire the entire alumni corps. We have two regulars who do a decent job, and Leetch does his thing every once in a while.
We need more guys like Pidto and Hradek. I know EJ doesn't do a ton for MSG, but I do like that we picked him up even if its only every now and then.
Also, what exactly did he do in '94 that people are mad about? I mean I was almost 3, I remember winning the Cup but I wouldn't remember or understand any kind of controversy.
It will last a lifetime. If those of you that want to 'let go of '94 a bit' had lived through it, along with the failure and heartbreak experienced by true fans for decades, you would get it.
My reason for letting go of '94 a bit is this: it seems like (before this season of course) this organization was just content with 7 years of no playoffs and 6 straight years of not making it past the first/second round of the playoffs, and then in the off-season they would blast you with highlights from '94.
It was almost as if they were saying "yeah we have been average to below average for almost two decades, BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE '94!" Like the fans would just forget this team hasn't done **** in 17 years when we watch game 7.
That is just my impression. I have the utmost respect for the history of this team.
Well, just like the Rangers bring Leetch in. He's been getting more comfortable recently, but anyone who says that at the beginning he did well as an analyst is kidding themselves.
Leech actually analyzes the games. If you take the time to listen to what he's saying you'll learn a lot.
I have a lot of time for Keenan. He is a coach's coach. A guy who has coached from high school to the NHL. He gets hockey - he's well worth listening to.
I don't get it. Yes he won the Cup. I get that. But the divisiveness and behind the scenes power grab he attempted during that Cup run almost ruined the season.
He's on Si.com picking the Pens to win the Cup.
This guy does not deserve to have anything to do with the Rangers.
I ask myself this everytime he comes on the screen. The guy is a rat, pure and simple. He acted like a rat throughout the entire '94 run, and he even looks like one. He shouldnt be some beloved figure from that team. In fact, that team may have even won in spite of him.
Whats worse is that hes absolutely horrendous on television, so hes not around for that talent. Hes around because MSG think this fanbase will love and respect all things 1994. And while thats true to some degree, its not really the case with Mike Keenan.
I don't get it. Yes he won the Cup. I get that. But the divisiveness and behind the scenes power grab he attempted during that Cup run almost ruined the season.
He's on Si.com picking the Pens to win the Cup.
This guy does not deserve to have anything to do with the Rangers.
It's odd that a man who barely spent 12 months at the helm, and has burned bridges his entire career with multiple organizations is working in vicinity of the Rangers.
Keenan is ice cold, but he has lightened up a bit since he left New York. He stopped being "Iron Mike" a long time ago. You can't discount the messy divorce and playing a role in what a jerk he was.
He was extremely pleasant towards the media in Boston. I was shocked that "Iron Mike" was more approachable than guys like Bob Hartley.
Still, I think Neil Smith should have been allowed back into the Organization from an analyst standpoint. I think he's great on the NHL network, and he's got 10 times the personality Keenan has.
I dont know why Neil was never given a real chance to start over again as a GM or assistant GM. The guy was a tremendous talent evaluator in Detroit, and was fine as a GM here up until June 16th, 1994.
You know what I love about this guy???? He totally F 'D up and....he admits it. Like all the time. Always gonna have a bit a soft spot in my heart for him.
Winning a Stanley Cup for the New York Rangers goes a long, long way fellas. Especially that Cup, with those players, with our front office.
I'm glad we don't dismiss important legacy people....like some other organizations. Loyalty is still important....even if it ain't cool.
Loyalty is important, that's why it stings for me to see Keenan being so closely associated with the New York Rangers. He deserves credit for 1994, but when I look at the guy, I see a guy who coached most of his career in Chicago and Philadelphia -- I do not see a Ranger. He won the Cup, and the Rangers would not have won it without him, but this is not Emile Francis, or for that matter, John Tortorella (assistant for a time, always had great things to say about the organisation, treated his hiring as a head coach like a homecoming).
Purely from a standpoint of having a Rangers figure associated with 1994, I'd even rather have Neil Smith up there giving his opinions -- he was with this team for a long time and helped them win the Cup. He was a big part of the disasters that followed, but the bulk of his career as a GM was as a Ranger.
I don't hate Mike Keenan, nor do I have any hard feelings against the guy. I certainly don't want to take anything away from his legacy. It's just having him so closely associated with the Rangers in 2012 is inventing a rose-tinted myth.
Lol, I picked the Penguins too. It's probably the safest pick. It would've worked both ways for him, don't pick Rangers and Rangers fans call you a traitor, pick the Rangers and the rest of the hockey world calls you a homer.
