(This is tangental from the "have the Rangers improved" thread, so I thought I'd start a new thread, rather than clutter up the older one).
Some posters on the board chime in every so often that it would be better if the Rangers suck for the rest of the season so that they can get a higher draft pick and maybe into the lottery.
I can't disagree more. The Rangers need to foster a winning attitude from top to bottom in the organization and that they can't do that if it's acceptable to lose late in the season.
I think Detroit and New Jersey are two great examples of teams who are able to maintain a high level of success year after year, despite not having high draft picks to work with. The main way they do this is by good drafting, but even more, by making it clear that losing is never acceptable. They expect to win every game.
(from the other thread) Detroit was horrendous until they sucked enough to draft Yzerman and Federov. Credit their scouts and gm for Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterburg but they benefited from the draft lottery as much as anyone.
You got me on Jersey, though. They have a plan, a mission statement and the guts to see it through. They understand the importance of buying into the team concept while maintaining a winning and constructive atmosphere. Cancers are cut away. Losers are jettisoned. Of course, it's not hard to stick to the plan when you have a good GM.
You're right that Detroit used to suck, but it was almost 20 years ago that they sucked, well before the draft lottery. Yzerman was picked at #4, when they were REALLY bad and played for several years before they became good. Federov was a 4th-round pick. Things really picked up for them around the same time Yzerman discovered himself as a leader.
The last time the Devils were really bad was essentially in the '80s, and they had several years of being a 1st, 2nd-round playoff team before they took the Rangers to 7 games in '94 and they haven't looked back since, though several coaches and lots of different lineups.
Of course, you're absolutely right about the GM...
It's hard to maintain a winning attitude if you're not good enough to be a winning team.
The Rangers aren't talented/well constructed enough to hold high expectations and they all know it.
Hence the cycle of mediocre effort.
It's hard to maintain a winning attitude if you're not good enough to be a winning team.
The Rangers aren't talented/well constructed enough to hold high expectations and they all know it.
Hence the cycle of mediocre effort.
So what, you give in to it? All that does is ruin the young players you're hoping to rebuild with. The idea is not that you win every game, it's that you go in to every game going 100% to win it and never accept a loss. I think it goes beyond the coaches and through to every member of the organization. This gets into the players and eventually you reach a point where a team can become more than the sum of its parts.
It's hard to maintain a winning attitude if you're not good enough to be a winning team. The Rangers aren't talented/well constructed enough to hold high expectations and they all know it.
Hence the cycle of mediocre effort.
Yup, Lundqvist recognizes this:
Quote:
"We are what we are - we're not a top team," the goaltender said. "We are in the pack there, we're right in the middle and we're going to fight for the last couple spots in the playoffs. I know I have to play my best hockey right now for this team to have a chance."
They are better off admitting that they are not that good instead of deluding themselves into thinking that they are a great, winning team. The players shouldn't be satisfied by merely making it to the playoffs-- the goal is to win the Cup.
(This is tangental from the "have the Rangers improved" thread, so I thought I'd start a new thread, rather than clutter up the older one).
Some posters on the board chime in every so often that it would be better if the Rangers suck for the rest of the season so that they can get a higher draft pick and maybe into the lottery.
I can't disagree more. The Rangers need to foster a winning attitude from top to bottom in the organization and that they can't do that if it's acceptable to lose late in the season.
I think Detroit and New Jersey are two great examples of teams who are able to maintain a high level of success year after year, despite not having high draft picks to work with. The main way they do this is by good drafting, but even more, by making it clear that losing is never acceptable. They expect to win every game.
Agree 100%. We already have a bunch guys up that should be a part of the team for the foreseeable future and we're going to need them to be winners. People complain about the team seeming soft and not competitive, well then saying it's okay to tank is just going to make the next group like that too.
Pittsburgh tanked to get Mario Lemieux (and it's part of the reason I don't like that team too much), who is a once-in-a-generation talent. Sure it worked for them, but it still took them several years.
I guess with Chicago the jury's still out (in that they're good this year, but have yet to win a Cup). I did think that their contract screw-ups last offseason were a bit of poetic justice!
In addition, I think the Rangers are further along the path than either of these teams were when they were really bad. The emergence of Lundqvist, Staal and Del Zotto plus guys like McDonough, Bobby Sangs and maybe Heikkinen and Sauer soon ready to step in on the blueline gives a good base for the defensive side of the game.
A lot depends on the Rangers recent drafting of forwards. If Stepan and Krieder work out and guys like Horak and Hagelin can fill in on the 3rd or 4th lines, they could join a still in his prime Gaborik, Dubinsky and Callahan to form a pretty solid core.
The Rangers would still need to add some scoring talent, but it wouldn't do them much good to make these players believe that they don't want to win.
So what, you give in to it? All that does is ruin the young players you're hoping to rebuild with. The idea is not that you win every game, it's that you go in to every game going 100% to win it and never accept a loss. I think it goes beyond the coaches and through to every member of the organization. This gets into the players and eventually you reach a point where a team can become more than the sum of its parts.
It sounds simple in theory but considering how they've been struggling this year, plus whatever "outside negativity" that Torts and several players have mentioned, team morale must be pretty low at this point.
We forget that these guys are human just like we are, they're very self-aware and not immune to all of the criticism surrounding them.
I would speculate that everyone in that locker room understands that they're a poorly constructed team that would be unable to do much in the playoffs this year.
When you have a group of players who are mentally not the toughest bunch to begin with, that can really take it's toll and show it's effects on the ice.
Agree 100%. We already have a bunch guys up that should be a part of the team for the foreseeable future and we're going to need them to be winners. People complain about the team seeming soft and not competitive, well then saying it's okay to tank is just going to make the next group like that too.
What a comment.
You know who the winners tend to be? The best players. The players we have? Most of them aren't the best. Continuing to play mediocre hockey will not only continue to produce more mediocre results, but more mediocre hockey players.
And the next group wouldn't have anything to do with this group. This group would be doing the "tanking." By and large, this group blows, and most of them need to go anyway. As does the guy who brought them here.
They are better off admitting that they are not that good instead of deluding themselves into thinking that they are a great, winning team. The players shouldn't be satisfied by merely making it to the playoffs-- the goal is to win the Cup.
Yep. Notice you never hear in camp or pre-season from management and players how they want to be the last team standing? Or anything that suggest be a champion?
Now listen to winning organizations(Yankees, Devils etc...) talk. It's totally different.
You know who the winners tend to be? The best players. The players we have? Most of them aren't the best. Continuing to play mediocre hockey will not only continue to produce more mediocre results, but more mediocre hockey players.
And the next group wouldn't have anything to do with this group. This group would be doing the "tanking." By and large, this group blows, and most of them need to go anyway. As does the guy who brought them here.
So Lundqvist, Staal, Gilroy, MDZ, Gaborik, Dubinsky, Callahan, Anisimov aren't part of your long term plans?
How many years are we "tanking" for under your plan?
Won't it be easier to convince him to come here if we're coming off a playoff birth rather than a lotto pick? The guy will have just left the thrashers I think he will want to go to a winner.
So Lundqvist, Staal, Gilroy, MDZ, Gaborik, Dubinsky, Callahan, Anisimov aren't part of your long term plans?
How many years are we "tanking" for under your plan?
That's not even half a team. Sure, they're part of my plan, but when you don't even have 10 guys that you're going forward with, it's a signal that there's still a long way to go. Especially when just one of them is a top line forward.
Another first round exit isn't going to do much to turn them into winners. Take a look at how much last year is helping this year. Real winning attitude, right?
And we don't need to "tank" for very long. Just long enough to get a legitimate offensive weapon or two. Without one, we're going nowhere.
