1994-95 Rangers

[markymarc1215]

Despite running back the same core, there was a massive drop off in the play of the 94 and 95 Rangers. The 94 Rangers won the Preaidents Trophy and of course the Stanley Cup. However, they traded a lot of scoring depth in Gartner and Amonte at the 94 deadline. I feel like the 95 Rangers were the result of both trades. They were 22-23-3 and made the playoffs by one point. However, they did upset the #1 Nordiques in 6 games before getting swept by the Flyers.

However, this team still had a prime Messier, Leetch, Graves, Zubov, and Richter. That alone should have propelled them to a better record.

So aside from the 94 deadline fallout, was there anything else that lead to such a rapid demise? Or was it just a fluke 48 game season with a Stanley Cup/Mike Keenan drama hangover?

 

[The Panther]

In addition to the long layover from one season to the next (work-stoppage... the moment the NHL blew its chance to compete with MLB) and the general challenges of a coaching change, I think there were a few things going on with the '95 Rangers:
-- Colin Campbell (new coach) was not only a former teammate, but a former roommate, of Mark Messier's. That is, he was a "player friendly" coach who was in with the team's captain.
-- Messier always wanted the Rangers to play an attacking style. It worked vs. Jersey in '94 (barely), but generally I think the Rangers offensive talent needed to be balanced by a better defensive system (such as Neilson and Keenan had supplied), and I'm not sure Campbell was the guy who could bring that.
-- As for Messier himself, he was seriously pissed with the Rangers' front-office from summer '94 onward after they lowballed him with his new contract after they won the Cup. (He says in his book that he never really got over this slight, even to the end of his career.)

The Rangers had a very mediocre-to-poor regular season, then eliminated Quebec (in it's final-ever NHL games), but got their asses handed to them by the Lindros-Flyers. In the four-game sweep, each of Messier, Graves, and Verbeek went -7, so that line got destroyed.

I'm not sure how much the points I mentioned, above, were factors. Maybe it was just a case of Cup-hangover plus adjustment to new coach. The Rangers did have a very good 1995-96 season... for 61 games, and then they crapped out.

 

[markymarc1215]

In addition to the long layover from one season to the next (work-stoppage... the moment the NHL blew its chance to compete with MLB) and the general challenges of a coaching change, I think there were a few things going on with the '95 Rangers:
-- Colin Campbell (new coach) was not only a former teammate, but a former roommate, of Mark Messier's. That is, he was a "player friendly" coach who was in with the team's captain.
-- Messier always wanted the Rangers to play an attacking style. It worked vs. Jersey in '94 (barely), but generally I think the Rangers offensive talent needed to be balanced by a better defensive system (such as Neilson and Keenan had supplied), and I'm not sure Campbell was the guy who could bring that.
-- As for Messier himself, he was seriously pissed with the Rangers' front-office from summer '94 onward after they lowballed him with his new contract after they won the Cup. (He says in his book that he never really got over this slight, even to the end of his career.)

The Rangers had a very mediocre-to-poor regular season, then eliminated Quebec (in it's final-ever NHL games), but got their asses handed to them by the Lindros-Flyers. In the four-game sweep, each of Messier, Graves, and Verbeek went -7, so that line got destroyed.

I'm not sure how much the points I mentioned, above, were factors. Maybe it was just a case of Cup-hangover plus adjustment to new coach. The Rangers did have a very good 1995-96 season... for 61 games, and then they crapped out.

These are all great points. Truth is, the Rangers probably should have lost to the Devils in 6 games in 94. Richter played the 1st and 2nd periods of his life to keep it 2-0. In reality they should have gotten blown out. Then it takes 7 games to defeat a .500 club in the Canucks to win it all. Maybe Neil Smith gets fired if they lose to the Devils and Keenan stays. We will never know. I heard Messier was behind the Zubov Nedved trade, and blamed them for the teams poor performance vs the Flyers, but don't know that for sure.

The 95-96 team was great until they traded Ferraro. Until then, they finally had a truly legit 2nd line in Ferraro-Robitaille-Kovalev. With the Kurri acquisition, that 2nd line fell apart. McSorley played maybe 4-5 regular season games, and of course we know Norstrom ended up being a good defenseman for a decade.

Messier had arguably his best regular season as a Ranger, and Verbeek was the perfect RW for that line. But like you said, the last 20 games were like watching a last-place team. Montreal stunk and even then, it took 6 games to knock them out. The Pens made quick work of them behind Zubov and Nedved haunting us.

 

[The Panther]

The 95-96 team was great until they traded Ferraro. Until then, they finally had a truly legit 2nd line in Ferraro-Robitaille-Kovalev. With the Kurri acquisition, that 2nd line fell apart. McSorley played maybe 4-5 regular season games, and of course we know Norstrom ended up being a good defenseman for a decade.

I guess we're off-topic with 1995-96, but what was the thinking behind that trade for Kurri / McSorley? That was bizarre to me. Ferraro was doing about as well as he ever did (was pacing for 30+ goals and 65-70 points), and Verbeek and Messier was lighting it up. The club was close to the top of the NHL standings (except for Detroit).

They then trade for Kurri, who was 4-5 years older than Ferraro and clearly well past his prime, and the defensively unreliable McSorley, who was also a couple years past it. After this trade, Robitaille slumped to 4 goals in 14 games, and the team was in the crapper. I just didn't get it. (I guess Kurri did all right statistically in the playoffs.)

 

[MadLuke]

Graves, Leetch, Messier, Nedved, Larmer, Zubov, Kovalev, Verbeek (for only 18 games but still, only 48 games seasons), Lowe, Richter/Healy

Dept piece like Matteau, Beukeboom, they were stacked.

Still good enough to exit the Nordiques and MTL the year after, they won playoff rounds every year up to 1997, not bad all (i.e. could be a fluke the short regular season, around 5-6 in regualr season win and playoff win for 95-96-97).

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

There was always the mentality that if it went the full 82 they would have finished higher. That month of March really did them in. The biggest issue was post 94 is they needed another game breaker up top and it just never happened till they got Gretzky which by then was too late.

 

[Crosby2010]

I think there are those teams where you see them win the Cup and you figure that might be enough for them. I never thought the 2006 Hurricanes would repeat. Just for different reasons though. They never seemed like a team that would have a long sustained greatness. As brilliant of a roster as the 1994 Rangers had I think it is easy to see that this team sold the farm to get that Cup that year. It worked, but the fallout was going to be ugly. They declined as the years went on and by the late 1990s it showed. But they traded some good young players to get some veteran players and that isn't always going to be a long term solution.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

I think there are those teams where you see them win the Cup and you figure that might be enough for them. I never thought the 2006 Hurricanes would repeat. Just for different reasons though. They never seemed like a team that would have a long sustained greatness. As brilliant of a roster as the 1994 Rangers had I think it is easy to see that this team sold the farm to get that Cup that year. It worked, but the fallout was going to be ugly. They declined as the years went on and by the late 1990s it showed. But they traded some good young players to get some veteran players and that isn't always going to be a long term solution.

Which is very true and it was also a direct result of not winning in 92 and flaming out in 93. Ive always said that if they dont blow it vs Pitt in game 4 in 92 they win the cup and at least 1 more down the line maybe 2. The real issue especially in and after 94 was the depth behind Messier. By 95 Larmer was done and Kovalev didnt build on the prior year. They tried to bring in guys to add to the depth in Ferraro and Robitaille but in reality they probably could have gotten Tkachuk and Shanahan who i feel would have thrived. The other issue was the lack of another elite center. Nedved had the potenial but couldn't get it done, apparently Ferraro wasnt liked in the locker room and Sergei Nemchinov never lived up to his rookie season. There were rumours about Joe Nieuwndyk but thats all they were and tbh this is where losing Doug Weight really hurt. Obviously the issue was somewhat solved with Gretzky in 97 but by that point fs 5 -12 were questionable

 

[Crosby2010]

Which is very true and it was also a direct result of not winning in 92 and flaming out in 93. Ive always said that if they dont blow it vs Pitt in game 4 in 92 they win the cup and at least 1 more down the line maybe 2. The real issue especially in and after 94 was the depth behind Messier. By 95 Larmer was done and Kovalev didnt build on the prior year. They tried to bring in guys to add to the depth in Ferraro and Robitaille but in reality they probably could have gotten Tkachuk and Shanahan who i feel would have thrived. The other issue was the lack of another elite center. Nedved had the potenial but couldn't get it done, apparently Ferraro wasnt liked in the locker room and Sergei Nemchinov never lived up to his rookie season. There were rumours about Joe Nieuwndyk but thats all they were and tbh this is where losing Doug Weight really hurt. Obviously the issue was somewhat solved with Gretzky in 97 but by that point fs 5 -12 were questionable

Weight would have been a huge piece of the puzzle if he hung around. Amonte too on the wing. I've never been convinced that the Rangers still don't win in 1994 without these guys. Gartner too over Anderson. Because all of them, even Gartner, would have been around longer than the pieces they were traded for. Amonte and Weight were so young.

 

[FerrisRox]

I guess we're off-topic with 1995-96, but what was the thinking behind that trade for Kurri / McSorley? That was bizarre to me. Ferraro was doing about as well as he ever did (was pacing for 30+ goals and 65-70 points), and Verbeek and Messier was lighting it up.

They gave up Norstrom in that trade, too. Essentially, the Rangers gave up the two best players (Norstrom and Ferraro) in the deal. It was really odd.

 

[FerrisRox]

Weight would have been a huge piece of the puzzle if he hung around. Amonte too on the wing. I've never been convinced that the Rangers still don't win in 1994 without these guys. Gartner too over Anderson. Because all of them, even Gartner, would have been around longer than the pieces they were traded for. Amonte and Weight were so young.

I think you are really under-estimating what Stephane Matteau and Brian Noonan added to that roster in 1994.

Maybe they win without doing the Weight for Tikkanen trade, but I have my doubts they win in 1994 even if they didn't swap Amonte for Noonan and Matteau.

Noonan had 11 points in the playoffs and Matteau had 9. It's worth pointing out that Amonte, in his entire 16-season career never had that many points in a playoff. His career best was 8 points, in the 2004 playoffs, in 18-games with the Philadelphia Flyers.

 

[markymarc1215]

They lost a lot of speed and firepower without Amonte and Gartner. Todd Marchant was also traded for Craig MacTavish. There just wasnt any depth in 95 beyond Mess and Graves and eventually Verbeek. Strangely, the one player that I felt overachieved in 94-95 was Brian Noonan.

 

[MS]

1. Bad head coach.
2. The league changed and the shift to more defensive hockey started.
3. Cup hangover they didn't have a chance to pull out of with the shortened season.
4. Old team/old players got older.
5. Virtually zero bottom-6 scoring*.
6. Bad year for the streaky Richter.

*This has to be one of the worst seasons for a team in NHL history in this regard. Verbeek was added late but for most of the year the top 6 was some combination of Messier/Graves/Larmer/Kovalev/Noonan/Nedved, who all produced ok. Past that, the 3C in Nemchinov had 7 goals, and no other player had more than 3. The entire pre-deadline bottom 6 that year scored 18 goals in 48 games.

 

[FerrisRox]

*This has to be one of the worst seasons for a team in NHL history in this regard. Verbeek was added late but for most of the year the top 6 was some combination of Messier/Graves/Larmer/Kovalev/Noonan/Nedved, who all produced ok. Past that, the 3C in Nemchinov had 7 goals, and no other player had more than 3. The entire pre-deadline bottom 6 that year scored 18 goals in 48 games.

And they traded Ed Olczyk away at the deadline.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Not making excuses, but the 1995 team was incredibly stymied. It always seemed like the other goalie was playing out of his mind — certainly more clutch than Richter, who was terrible that season when it came to needing a big stop. I don’t know the stats off hand, but I’ll bet they were one of the league’s worst 3rd pd teams, or at least below average. Every game felt like a nail-biter and there was always a post or or shin pad stopping them from winning or pulling away. This was IMO the immediate impact of losing Amonte and Gartner (and Tikkanen and Anderson, to an extent) and undoubtedly drove the Verbeek trade and the subsequent Robitaille acquisition. Team couldn’t finish or close in the clutch.

Also didn’t help losing McTavish, who was their late/close stopper, and that Keenan was no longer there to scare the daylights out of them whenever there was a drop in play.

On paper it was a Cup-caliber team and the Quebec series was proof of that, Kovalev antics notwithstanding.

 

[FerrisRox]

This was IMO the immediate impact of losing Amonte and Gartner (and Tikkanen and Anderson, to an extent) and undoubtedly drove the Verbeek trade and the subsequent Robitaille acquisition. Team couldn’t finish or close in the clutch.

But in losing Tikkanen, they added Petr Nedved which should have upgraded their offence.

Nedved put up 20 points in 19-games in 1993-94 with the Blues, but the next year, in New York, he manages just 23 points in 46-games. The following season he is in Pittsburgh and posts 99 points.

 

[markymarc1215]

I guess we're off-topic with 1995-96, but what was the thinking behind that trade for Kurri / McSorley? That was bizarre to me. Ferraro was doing about as well as he ever did (was pacing for 30+ goals and 65-70 points), and Verbeek and Messier was lighting it up. The club was close to the top of the NHL standings (except for Detroit).

They then trade for Kurri, who was 4-5 years older than Ferraro and clearly well past his prime, and the defensively unreliable McSorley, who was also a couple years past it. After this trade, Robitaille slumped to 4 goals in 14 games, and the team was in the crapper. I just didn't get it. (I guess Kurri did all right statistically in the playoffs.)

Supposedly there were issues with other teammates and Ferraro. But I think this point is absurb because its the NHL and the guy was producing above expectations. Kurri and McSorley were more of the Goold Ole boys from the Oilers dynasty. Kurri was decent in the playoffs, and surprisingly Churla was as well, but McSorley was injured most of the time and was trash on the ice.

I believe the new 2nd line was Robitaille-Kovalev-Kurri. It just didn't work out at all. The team was pretty rudderless and then Messier got hurt with a few games left in the season.

Ultimately, it was their defense that did them in. Bruce Driver stunk. Lowe was at the end. Beukeboom and Samuelsson were slowing down. That left Leetch and an improving Karpovtsev.

 

[markymarc1215]

But in losing Tikkanen, they added Petr Nedved which should have upgraded their offence.

Nedved put up 20 points in 19-games in 1993-94 with the Blues, but the next year, in New York, he manages just 23 points in 46-games. The following season he is in Pittsburgh and posts 99 points.

Nedved Part 1 was a square peg in a round hole. He just never found the linemates or comfort level to prosper in that first run.