Around the NHL [Jets re-sign Little/Wheeler/Bogosian]

[JohnC]

I believe the Rangers finished 12th this year. The Devils finished 22nd. Therefore, The Rangers>The Devils

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Just look in this thread.

All I see is you picking and choosing arguments that are absurd and misguided, save one or two points.

The Devils were the much better team sans goaltending in the regular season. They had a higher fenclose rating, so it's appropriate that they won the series in 6 games. Simply the better team. The Bruins won because they have better hockey players than the Rangers.



Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon to name recent ones. Trading picks for washed up vets like Clowe is another. Just two trades in the past calendar year. No plan



And the team consists of no high-end talent, a large role of depth players playing out of their capabilities.



You do realize that the Flames just in 2009-10 had a core similar to the Rangers? Their best forward was a 32 year old Iginla (similar to Nash), their defense was their focal point as it consisted Phaneuf (24), Bouwmeester (25), Giordano (25) and Regehr (29) similar to McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, MDZ. They were backstopped by a 32 yr old Kipprusoff. I see a similar transition to the Rangers in a couple of years.

Bolded just proves your stigma. You keep saying things like that and all people will see you as is a stat watcher who isn't anything near objective on that alone. I said this before too. And you had no real response for it. What you're doing is here is going out on some flimsy limbs. Howcome the Bruins beat us cause they played better hockey, not because of your beloved and messiah fenclose, but NJ did? There is SO much more to winning and losing games, I suggest you start looking into that more instead of just the computer screen with graphs and characters.

 

[Kershaw]

several times in the past I’ve posted a link to Jim Schoenfelds break up meetings with the Whale, the summer prior to signing
Richards. did you see it? Schoenfeld goes into detail about the philosophy and “vision†of the NYR organization. There is a unified front here. Its not an eccentric madman throwing #### at the wall to see what sticks.

It sure seems like it. This organization has very little clue on what they're doing for the future IMO. An example is the Nash/Gaborik swap. Let's trade for Nash, we need more scoring. Derp, now we don't have any depth in place, let's move Gaborik to get that depth. Yay we finally have depth now, but wait, we still can't score in the playoffs. Let's move more depth for Bobby Ryan/Thomas Vanek. Wash, rinse, repeat. The true problem with the roster is the lack of an elite defenseman and sub-par center depth.

In summary Schoenfeld states there will never be a conventional rebuild in NY because of where they finish in the standings. They will look to build the standard way all teams do, however they will largely depend on FA s and trades to bring in top talent. I realize this isn’t the way some would like us to go about doing things, but in the situation we are in with Hank, this makes most sense at the moment.

And the trades and FA signings that Sather has made in his tenure have largely been disasters and haven't work. When is enough, enough? If you keep failing at that, why keep doing it?

The FA signings that didn’t pan out are largely over criticized imo with Redden being the most unforgiveable gaffe. Regardless, it is largely on the player to bear the responsibility for his play or lack thereof. Many here see this team trending upward, if we can build a legitimate offense in front our defenseman and all star goalie. this is an enviable position to be in. You’ve admitted yourself that there's more than one way to build a SC contender.

So you think it's largely the players' faults that the FA signings didn't work? No accountability is given to the man and his pro scouts who constantly hire these suddenly declining players?

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I believe the Rangers finished 12th this year. The Devils finished 22nd. Therefore, The Rangers>The Devils

Devils has better advanced stats though so they actually won the cup

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The Devils were the much better team sans goaltending in the regular season. They had a higher fenclose rating, so it's appropriate that they won the series in 6 games. Simply the better team. The Bruins won because they have better hockey players than the Rangers.

Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon to name recent ones. Trading picks for washed up vets like Clowe is another. Just two trades in the past calendar year. No plan

And the team consists of no high-end talent, a large role of depth players playing out of their capabilities.

You do realize that the Flames just in 2009-10 had a core similar to the Rangers? Their best forward was a 32 year old Iginla (similar to Nash), their defense was their focal point as it consisted Phaneuf (24), Bouwmeester (25), Giordano (25) and Regehr (29) similar to McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, MDZ. They were backstopped by a 32 yr old Kipprusoff. I see a similar transition to the Rangers in a couple of years.

Who cares that we traded Dubinsky? My God, are you really going to consider him this great young piece that we moved and now regret? Is this real life right now? And Erixon? Again, who cares? We got Moore back when we dealt an underperforming vet. So funny that you don't even mention that (obviously you won't mention it since it is contrary to whatever point you're trying to make). And we also got Brassard (I'll take him over Anisimov). Yet clearly we are all about moving kids for vets

And I love the comparison to the Flames. Because we have similarly aged players our teams are clearly so alike. Wow. Phaneuf's career fell off a cliff (to the point where he had to be moved), Bouwmeester just isn't that good, and Regher aged like Drury the minute he got close to 30 (that type of game will do that). The only comparison I can see is Girardi going the way of Regher eventually.

We have a much better, overall core of home-grown and young players than the Flames did at that time. But of course you leave them all out since that wouldn't support your argument.

 

[aufheben]

We're the 8th youngest team, with Beav, Biron, and Hamrlik. May have not drafted any star power, but we've drafted Top sixers, bottom sixers, top 4 d-men, etc.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

All I see is you picking and choosing arguments that are absurd and misguided, save one or two points.


Bolded just proves your stigma. You keep saying things like that and all people will see you as is a stat watcher who isn't anything near objective on that alone. I said this before too. And you had no real response for it. What you're doing is here is going out on some flimsy limbs. Howcome the Bruins beat us cause they played better hockey, not because of your beloved and messiah fenclose, but NJ did? There is SO much more to winning and losing games, I suggest you start looking into that more instead of just the computer screen with graphs and characters.

Who gives a crap about Glenn Close? What the hell does she have to do with the game of hockey? She can go drink some FenBro syrup for all I care.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Who gives a crap about Glenn Close? What the hell does she have to do with the game of hockey? She can go drink some FenBro syrup for all I care.

Same. But that'd give her more possession time though so she'd beat our whole team.

 

[aufheben]

By the way, mediocrity isn't "only" making it to the 1st/2nd round every year, mediocrity is the 06-12 Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

By the way, mediocrity isn't "only" making it to the 1st/2nd round every year, mediocrity is the 06-12 Toronto Maple Leafs.

And clearly Kershaw did not live through the late 90s, early 2000s Rangers. If he wants to see a **** team that was built through only the free agent market while eschewing drafting he can take a time machine back to that time.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Same. But that'd give her more possession time though so she'd beat our whole team.

Are you saying she is the John Mitchell of advanced actresses?

 

[JohnC]

Devils has better advanced stats though so they actually won the cup

I'm mad now. Gonna need to go back to my elementary school and my high school and tell them that they taught me wrong all those years.

Ass holes makin me think 12th>22nd

> : (

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I'm mad now. Gonna need to go back to my elementary school and my high school and tell them that they taught me wrong all those years.

Ass holes makin me think 12th>22nd

> : (

Well, 22 is a bigger number than 12.

 

[Kershaw]

But why should we take advanced statistics seriously when they say the Devils, the team who has missed the playoffs twice in two years, are much better than the Rangers? If anything, shouldn't that be an argument AGAINST the validity of advanced statistics?

Because that is taken way out of context. There are statistical anomalies with every stat out there relative to standings.

 

[Kershaw]

All I see is you picking and choosing arguments that are absurd and misguided, save one or two points.


Bolded just proves your stigma. You keep saying things like that and all people will see you as is a stat watcher who isn't anything near objective on that alone. I said this before too. And you had no real response for it. What you're doing is here is going out on some flimsy limbs. Howcome the Bruins beat us cause they played better hockey, not because of your beloved and messiah fenclose, but NJ did? There is SO much more to winning and losing games, I suggest you start looking into that more instead of just the computer screen with graphs and characters.

The Bruins had a better fenclose rating than the Rangers too, so it's appropriate they won the series handily, especially when the Rangers were constantly amongst the lowest fenclose teams in the playoffs while the Bruins the exact opposite.

I'm not saying the Rangers are a bad hockey team, they're not. They are probably a 5th-8th seeded team with likely exit to superior teams in 1rst/2nd rounds. For me, I would rather change the dynamics of this team now so that it has a better chance of winning in the future. That comes with center depth and more puck possession players. Simply isn't good enough.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

So clearly we should just trade our entire roster (minus Hank) to the Devils. That'd solve the problem, folks!

 

[Kakko]

Because that is taken way out of context. There are statistical anomalies with every stat out there relative to standings.

There is only one team stat that matters: wins. nothing else matters.

 

[Kershaw]

Who cares that we traded Dubinsky? My God, are you really going to consider him this great young piece that we moved and now regret? Is this real life right now? And Erixon? Again, who cares? We got Moore back when we dealt an underperforming vet. So funny that you don't even mention that (obviously you won't mention it since it is contrary to whatever point you're trying to make). And we also got Brassard (I'll take him over Anisimov). Yet clearly we are all about moving kids for vets

It's not only about moving young pieces for vets. It's about having zero plan in place for the future. Like I said, how many roster overhauls does this team need?

And I love the comparison to the Flames. Because we have similarly aged players our teams are clearly so alike. Wow. Phaneuf's career fell off a cliff (to the point where he had to be moved), Bouwmeester just isn't that good, and Regher aged like Drury the minute he got close to 30 (that type of game will do that). The only comparison I can see is Girardi going the way of Regher eventually.

Phaneuf and Bouwmeester are still top pairing defensemen, their careers did not fall off cliffs. They still log top tier ice time on two playoff teams. Phaneuf and Bouwmeester are very comparable to Staal and McDonagh, in fact, I'd say they were much higher regarded during that stage in their careers. Both were expected to be named to Team Canada at the Olympics and both had high Norris finishes. They were more polished defenders at that age and time than McDonagh and Staal are right now.

We have a much better, overall core of home-grown and young players than the Flames did at that time. But of course you leave them all out since that wouldn't support your argument.

I agree with you, but I still see a lot of similarities between the build-up of both teams.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Are you saying she is the John Mitchell of advanced actresses?

I'm going to have to say so.

 

[Kershaw]

So clearly we should just trade our entire roster (minus Hank) to the Devils. That'd solve the problem, folks!

No one said that. Way to toot your own horns though.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

No one said that. Way to toot your own horns though.

You just claimed that the Devils are/were a far better team than ours and, essentially, we were only better because we didn't have bad goaltending. Are you now going to explicitly contradict your prior statement(s)?

 

[Kershaw]

There is only one team stat that matters: wins. nothing else matters.

Okay, but this can possibly be a short-sighted approach.

There are teams that can overacheive and underacheive in a given season. The Wild last year were the top team in the league by the end of the December, while having the worst possession ratings in the league at the team. They fell off a cliff later on in that season. No stat is perfect out there, but I feel this one is the most accurate to evaluate players and teams.

 

[Kershaw]

You just claimed that the Devils are/were a far better team than ours and, essentially, we were only better because we didn't have bad goaltending. Are you now going to explicitly contradict your prior statement(s)?

Having a better fenclose rating =/= trading entire roster

 

[JohnC]

Well, 22 is a bigger number than 12.

You gotta be kiddin me...

You mean to tell me I've been reading standings backwards all this time?!

Fml...

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Having a better fenclose rating =/= trading entire roster

Don't dodge the question. You just claimed that the Devils are/were a far better team than ours and, essentially, we were only better because we didn't have bad goaltending. Are you now going to explicitly contradict your prior statement(s)?