Marty St. Louis

[Thirty One]

Nice word smithing, but that is not really answering my question.

I'm pointing out how your question is flawed. Comparing Martin St. Louis to the mass of players in NHL history isn't really a great basis for comparison. Very few players have been successful into their 40s, but very few have been elite at 38. Don't you think those players tend to be more successful in their 40s than the entirety of NHL players?

 

[Inferno]

When you look at a team and say "Yes, we are a legit contender and as good as any team". Not "If things break right, we can make a run".

I can realistically ask for a better constructed, more talented team.
Respectfully, my opinion is different.

A more talented team....I'm pretty sure no team in the NHL had more players score 14+ goals than we did.

We have 2 elite wingers in Nash and MSL. We have a former Conn Smythe winner in Brad Richards who has been playing pretty damn well in the playoffs. We have an elite #1 goalie. We have a Norris capable defenseman. We have 2 OTHER defenseman who would be #1 defenseman on about 25 other teams.

And this is without our highest scoring left winger in the lineup?

I'm not sure how much more talented the team can get? Not in a cap era anyway, and not without getting cost controlled elite talent. IE...tanking.

And even then, talent != success. Just ask the Edmonton Oilers, or the Atlanta Thrashers...etc


As currently constructed I could see this team coming out of the East. I could see them beating any team in a 7 game series. I can also see them losing to any team in a 7 game series...why? because the marginals when it comes to the playoffs get so small that generally speaking it comes down to health, and it comes down to goaltending.


It's a small sample size, but thus far the Rangers have the 5th ranked offense in the playoffs, and the 2nd ranked defense in the playoffs. they have the 4th ranked goalie in the playoffs (minimum 150 mins played) in terms of SV%...

Theyve given up the fewest shots per game against a team known for scoring lots of goals, and theyve had a middle of the road shots on goal per game.


Add it all up, and it spells an elite team.

I know nobody wants to acknowledge it because it's so much easier to be negative than it is to be positive.

You lose games in the playoffs. You battle adversity, and sometimes, even when you play your absolute best, you get either unlucky or the other team just plays an incredible game.

crap happens, you don't always win, but you know what? This team more than likely WAS 1 move away from being a cup contender. Because I genuinely consider them a cup contender.

Are they a cup FAVORITE? No. You'll have to give that to Bawstun, San Jose, St. Louis, Chicago and about 4 other Western Conference teams.

But you know what? You only have to beat 1 Western Conference "favorite" and you have to have Bawstun make it out of their bracket to even face them.

I'll take those odds.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

A more talented team...

SNIP

Are they a cup FAVORITE? No. You'll have to give that to Bawstun, San Jose, St. Louis, Chicago and about 4 other Western Conference teams.

But you know what? You only have to beat 1 Western Conference "favorite" and you have to have Bawstun make it out of their bracket to even face them.

I'll take those odds.

I disagree here. The Rangers aren't a "favorite" (I think you have Boston and SJ as odds on favorites) but, as i've said before, they're the 7th best team in the league AT WORST.

Besides that, you forgot a great 2-way center who currently has a PPG in the playoffs. Other then that, you're absolutely spot on, and that's largely because MSL playing like he is right now gives this team a zany deep offense.

Nash-Stepan-MSL and Poo-Brass-MZA are two lines that are showing they can create chances consistently and score on you at any time. When you add Kreider and Richards to the mix, and the great bottom-six play of Boyle and Dom Moore, that's a CRAZY deep offense.

MSL coming in and playing like he has in the playoffs so far takes us up a level from where we were post-Jan in the regular season, and we were already very, very good. It blows my mind that people can be down on this team right now- this is the best we've looked in a while.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm not sure how much more talented the team can get? .

An upgrade at center and a PMD defenseman would do wonders. Probably take the team over the top - of course, those are the two hardest things to get and have been holes for almost a generation now.

 

[Thirty One]

Yeah, I would bet large sums of money on Colorado and Anaheim not winning the Cup.

The West has 4 teams that really scare me, and they're currently beating each other up right now.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

An upgrade at center and a PMD defenseman would do wonders. Probably take the team over the top - of course, those are the two hardest things to get and have been holes for almost a generation now.

Sure, because if you added Duncan Keith and Pat Bergeron to this lineup it would be a monumental collapse if we didn't win the cup this year.

We have a very good D, a very deep offense, and an elite goaltender. This year, the team as constructed COULD go over the top.

In order to not go too off-topic, I want to reiterate just how dangerous MSL's addition, and playoff play up to this point, makes this team. We don't have a PPG 1C, sure, but Stepan is a fine 1C playing with one of the most well-rounded elite players of the past 15 years. Anything Stepan lacks on offense is made up for by the lethality of MSL on that line, and that gives us an awesome 1st line.

Do I wish we had an elite PMD and an 80 point defensively responsible 1C? Of course. But I think, as constructed, the Rangers are already a cup contender.

 

[Thirty One]

I'm sure lots of teams would be better if they added an offensive defenseman and a #1 center. As is, they are all, like the Rangers, flawed.

 

[Inferno]

I'm sure lots of teams would be better if they added an offensive defenseman and a #1 center. As is, they are all, like the Rangers, flawed.

exactly.

people like to complain about how the Rangers are missing this and that. of course they are!!! no team is perfect. Look at the Penguins. Built on tanking. 2 best centers in the world (argument can be made for Stamkos being one of them but lets for argument sake say its Crosby, Malkin, then Stamkos)

Theyve got the PMD everyone wants.

but...they dont have the goalie. All their fans are screaming about goaltending and defense. Why dont they add that? Because, in the end, its about the cap. Rangers dont have cap space to add what you want. Penguins dont have cap space to add what they want.

Brooins dont really have an elite #1 center. They have 2 elite #2 centers, or Bergeron could be called an elite 2-way center, but certainly not an elite offensive center.

They have holes. Just like we do. They are not unstoppable though. They play a really strong system and make their sum of their parts greater than the individuals.

 

[aufheben]

Yeah every team has flaws, but some are bigger, and more numerous, than others...

I feel like that's such a cop out to say every team has flaws.

Also, whatever flaws the Bruins have, Krejci & Bergeron are not them. They've made the Finals twice with them as their #1/#2 punch.

 

[AHB*]

Missing a top end center is arguably the biggest flaw for a team though. As, once again, no team, post lockout, has won the cup with a center of Stepan's caliber (I.E. A good #2).

 

[True Blue]

I'm pointing out how your question is flawed.

The question is binary. How many players in the history of the NHL have had the success that the poster was alluding to, at that age?

 

[Blue Blooded]

Yeah every team has flaws, but some are bigger, and more numerous, than others...

I feel like that's such a cop out to say every team has flaws.

Also, whatever flaws the Bruins have, Krejci & Bergeron are not them. They've made the Finals twice with them as their #1/#2 punch.

Yup. Boston lacks depth on D, SJ, LA, and Chicago lack stable goaltending (LA also lack some offensive depth, and Chicago some center depth as well), St. Louis lack speed, we lack offence from the blue line. And these 6 are IMO clearly a step above the rest in "completeness". Other "top" teams such as Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Colorado, and Montreal are a lot more flawed.

 

[AHB*]

Yup. Boston lacks depth on D, SJ, LA, and Chicago lack stable goaltending (LA also lack some offensive depth, and Chicago some center depth as well), St. Louis lack speed, we lack offence from the blue line. And these 6 are IMO clearly a step above the rest in "completeness". Other "top" teams such as Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Colorado, and Montreal are a lot more flawed.

Yes, but again, teams that have won since the first lockout have proven they can overcome the things you list. No team has proven you can win without a #1 center and arguably, an elite #1 Center.

 

[True Blue]

Add it all up, and it spells an elite team.

I know nobody wants to acknowledge it because it's so much easier to be negative than it is to be positive.

Come on, Inferno. You are a long time contributor. Do you really think that I am out to be negative simply to be negative? I guess if that is your opinion, that is fine. But that is not where I am coming from. I just do not see the elite team you portray. Are the Flyers an elite team? Not much separated the Rangers from the Flyers.

I guess that if you believe that this is an elite team or a team that can stand toe to toe with any team in the league, then yes, you can go for it. Unfortunately, that is not my view of this team. As such, I would not have "gone for it".

 

[aufheben]

Yup. Boston lacks depth on D, SJ, LA, and Chicago lack stable goaltending (LA also lack some offensive depth, and Chicago some center depth as well), St. Louis lack speed, we lack offence from the blue line. And these 6 are IMO clearly a step above the rest in "completeness". Other "top" teams such as Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Colorado, and Montreal are a lot more flawed.

I would pretty much agree with this. Just pointing out that some team's are more flawed than others.

 

[Thirty One]

Yeah every team has flaws, but some are bigger, and more numerous, than others...

Exactly. Like every other team in the East sans Boston.

And yeah, I think Bergeron is a top 15 center in the league.

Missing a top end center is arguably the biggest flaw for a team though. As, once again, no team, post lockout, has won the cup with a center of Stepan's caliber (I.E. A good #2).

This conversation is an old, tired one, but when you're looking at a sample of eight teams, some misleading trends can emerge. Before 2010, you could say that a team couldn't win without a very good 2nd line center, looking at the Cup winners back to, when 1995? But then the Hawks won two cups without a semblance of a 2C since.

 

[True Blue]

Yeah every team has flaws, but some are bigger, and more numerous, than others...

That is done to try to equate the Rangers with the elite. I guess some of us have a different view on what "elite" appears to be than others.

I just find it funny that this elite team scored less goals and allowed more than Torts's team that is lambasted here on a fairly regular basis.

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

exactly.

people like to complain about how the Rangers are missing this and that. of course they are!!! no team is perfect. Look at the Penguins. Built on tanking. 2 best centers in the world (argument can be made for Stamkos being one of them but lets for argument sake say its Crosby, Malkin, then Stamkos)

Theyve got the PMD everyone wants.

but...they dont have the goalie. All their fans are screaming about goaltending and defense. Why dont they add that? Because, in the end, its about the cap. Rangers dont have cap space to add what you want. Penguins dont have cap space to add what they want.

Brooins dont really have an elite #1 center. They have 2 elite #2 centers, or Bergeron could be called an elite 2-way center, but certainly not an elite offensive center.

They have holes. Just like we do. They are not unstoppable though. They play a really strong system and make their sum of their parts greater than the individuals.

I hear what you're saying. But the difference between us and them is that they have a cup.

Several arguments can be made as to why that is. I'd argue that post lockout, being able to put the puck in the net is just slightly more important than being able to keep it out of your own net. What I mean by that is you need to allocate more $$$ to your offense than your defense/G. This has been the case for most, if not all SC winning teams since the lockout

 

[Thirty One]

The question is binary. How many players in the history of the NHL have had the success that the poster was alluding to, at that age?

Yes.

Your question, as well as not being binary, is skewed at best, and irrelevant at worst.

Come on, Inferno. You are a long time contributor. Do you really think that I am out to be negative simply to be negative?

The longer I'm here, the more I'm convinced this is the case. Other long-time posters share this sentiment, as well.

 

[anofsti]

Draft picks are kinda overrated anyways:

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

Almost any time you give up picks for NHL players, you win.

 

[Raspewtin]

Yes, but again, teams that have won since the first lockout have proven they can overcome the things you list. No team has proven you can win without a #1 center and arguably, an elite #1 Center.

So what I'm getting from this is that every team can win a cup a different way except the Rangers? Everyone has said it 500 times but you don't NEED anything if you're strong enough everywhere else. ANA didn't have a #1 center when they won the cup. But they had terrifying depth on the wing and D.

 

[Thirty One]

So what I'm getting from this is that every team can win a cup a different way except the Rangers? Everyone has said it 500 times but you don't NEED anything if you're strong enough everywhere else. ANA didn't have a #1 center when they won the cup. But they had terrifying depth on the wing and D.

Lots of ways to skin a cat.

I've personally used 4.

 

[AHB*]

So what I'm getting from this is that every team can win a cup a different way except the Rangers? Everyone has said it 500 times but you don't NEED anything if you're strong enough everywhere else. ANA didn't have a #1 center when they won the cup. But they had terrifying depth on the wing and D.

Ryan Getzlaf isn't a #1 Center? He was young, sure, but he played like one in those playoffs and is pretty much a top 5 C in this league.

This conversation is an old, tired one, but when you're looking at a sample of eight teams, some misleading trends can emerge. Before 2010, you could say that a team couldn't win without a very good 2nd line center, looking at the Cup winners back to, when 1995? But then the Hawks won two cups without a semblance of a 2C since.

So you guys can sit here and discuss weak positions but I can't talk about the most glaring one. The one that has caused us problems for nearly two decades?

It's not a tired argument, it's the most important position on a hockey team and one we have failed to fill since Messier or arguably Gretzky was here.

You can talk about a team not winning without a #4 or #2 or elite goalie or whatever, but those are much easier to overcome and clearly have been by teams, since the first lockout.

 

[Thirty One]

Ryan Getzlaf isn't a #1 Center? He was young, sure, but he played like one in those playoffs and is pretty much a top 5 C in this league.



So you guys can sit here and discuss weak positions but I can't talk about the most glaring one. The one that has caused us problems for nearly two decades?

It's not a tired argument, it's the most important position on a hockey team and one we have failed to fill since Messier or arguably Gretzky was here.

You can talk about a team not winning without a #4 or #2 or elite goalie or whatever, but those are much easier to overcome and clearly have been by teams, since the first lockout.

You can talk about it, sure. But I feel you are overestimating the impact of their Cup chances based on a tiny sample.

And I have a hard time thinking of a criteria that would rate Getzlaf as a #1 center in 2007 but not Stepan now. McDonald was their #1 center, regardless.

 

[True Blue]

Your question, as well as not being binary, is skewed at best, and irrelevant at worst.

It is a pretty simply question. A question that you have yet to answer.

The longer I'm here, the more I'm convinced this is the case. Other long-time posters share this sentiment, as well.

Congrats to you and other long time posters. As a longer time poster, I see it differently. Probably some other longer time posters do as well.