Amusing. None of this is even remotely accurate.
- "Offense matters more than defense" isn't my argument. I never said that.
- When I said not in my opinion, I was referring to the quality of being entertained, not that one matters more than the other. How could you possibly not pick up on that?
- If you'd rather watch defensive hockey, that's fine. Personally, I think that's absurd and shows a terrible under appreciation for the beauty of the sport, but hey, to each their own. Regardless, that opinion would put you in the minority, but then again, I don't believe that this opinion is even true to begin with.
- It most certainly is a legitimate point of criticism, because the argument that I actually made, rather than the one you (as always) erroneously attributed to me, was that it is virtually impossible to win a championship if you don't have a tremendous offense; that a strong defense alone gets you hardly anywhere, the Rangers being clear proof of that. I provided the proper evidence to back that statement up.
Ah, so now it is the system. Another excuse. Brilliant. So what system would you propose? Should the best teams in the league draft the best players? Or maybe the system, the same one that is used in every sport, be designed to benefit only Glen Sather, where mediocre teams that strive to be just good enough for the fans to not boo routinely, get rewarded. Maybe we should go back to the old days, where rights are territorial. That will bode well for this team, huh? The entire point of the draft is to make sure that sports has a cyclical nature, to try and give every team the opportunity to go through ups and downs.
The Rangers limit themselves by refusing to take part in this natural cycle, and in the process, greatly lower their chances of acquiring the world's best players. As a result, they greatly diminish their ability to compete at the highest level. As I said before, if the Rangers choose to limit themselves in this fashion (despite the fact that this is the most idiotic course to take), then they should find someone who is able to navigate a different strategy that leads to accomplishing the goal of winning. Glen Sather has failed, and failed miserably, at this task.
And by the way, the Penguins made the playoffs for 11 consecutive seasons, a span during which they won more championships than the Rangers have in the last 70 years. This streak of great success, by the way, began with them drafting Mario Lemieux 1st overall, and Jaromir Jagr 5th overall. In addition to two Cups, they also made the conference finals two other times. Then, with Lemieux's future uncertain thanks to his health, and no longer able to afford some of their players (in part thanks to Lemieux's enormous salary), they traded Jagr, one of the best players of all-time, and rebuilt for three years. Maybe getting Crosby was a conspiracy, maybe it wasn't, but they did nothing out of the ordinary. They did what any reasonable team would and should do: they enjoyed a peak period, realized that they needed to start over, and sacrificed a few years in order to give themselves a chance to compete and give their fans a chance to enjoy something worth paying for.
Even the Red Wings, who achieved prolonged success over years and years without getting high draft picks, still began their run with Yzerman, who had been a 4th pick overall. Does that mean the Red Wings, clearly the best run organization in the sport for the last 20 years, deserve less respect? They drafted Joe Murphy 1st overall in '86, and Keith Primeau 3rd overall in '90. Those two players eventually helped them get Shanahan, who was a huge part of their lengthy run as a perennial cup contender.
Everyone plays by the same rules. If the Rangers choose to play by a different set of rules, than they should find a way to succeed in spite of them. Glen Sather has had 13 years to try. He has failed, despite virtually every advantage a man in his position could ask for, despite numerous coaching changes and countless roster overhauls. When is enough enough?
I look forward to seeing you avoid addressing this central question yet again in your next post.
