Post-Game Talk: Rangers vs. Red Wings | 3/19/19 - 7PM - MSG

[Embryo]

I really like the energy and power Lemieux has brought to the team, do you think he will be here for a while? I hope he doesn't turn out to be another Petr Prucha. I f***ing took the number 25 because Prucha and I'm stuck with it lol. (Would have taken 9 for Adam Graves but it was taken)

 

[McRanger]

Just the other day I was watching the NHL network. Stu Grimson was going on and on about how important leadership was in playoff runs. If you ever watch the Rangers who won in 94 talk about that run they all mention the veterans who knew how to win calmed the team down after the Devils tied it with such little time in the third. Alex Kovalev was amazing but not a leader. Go back and watch the reunion that just occurred and listen to his interview. He gives tons of credit to the leadership! I’ll listen to those guys who played in the league and were successful about how important leadership and winning is and how hard it is devoid of that!

Now, the Rangers don’t need a ton of veteran leadership right now. I’d at least like a captain though.

To put in the context of your argument, I would prefer a younger and more talented team that is less likely to fall behind than an older and more experienced team that has the mental fortitude to make comebacks.

Its funny you should mention Kovalev, because if he doesn't replace Anderson with Mess and Graves, game 6 almost definitely turns out very differently and all that veteran leadership we traded young talent away for would not have been meant anything.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

By the way Chytilmania was 4 for 6 on faceoffs too.

1 over 50%. Not bad, but it's a small sample size

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

If any franchise is due, it’s the Rangers. Screwed over be early nhl territory draft rules.

Then in the modern draft we’ve never had a number one pick, never even picked higher than 4th overall.

Pittsburg got Crosby and Malkin in back to back years while Mario Lemieux was still on the team. Edmonton had 1st overall picks 4 times in 6 years. And that’s after having the best player of all time already play for them. Wild.

We’ve been carried as a franchise, the most valuable in the NHL, for the last 15 years squarely on the back of a guy picked at 205th overall as an afterthought.

Looking like our luck had turned eight our 2007 first round pick we had a potential star player on our hands and then he tragically died while playing in Russia.

The two times in recent years our past GMs tried to tear it done and rebuild through the draft (Smith in 99 and. Sather in 04) the 99 draft was one of the worst of that time, getting us Brendl and Lundmark with 4th and 9th overall picks. Any other year we could’ve ended up with stars there.

In the Crosby lottery we were bottom 3 in the league and had the tied for most chances at winning that lottery and then ended up falling to 13th overall. How that was even possible by the rules still baffles me.

We’re due.

Holy gambler's fallacy!

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

To put in the context of your argument, I would prefer a younger and more talented team that is less likely to fall behind than an older and more experienced team that has the mental fortitude to make comebacks.

Its funny you should mention Kovalev, because if he doesn't replace Anderson with Mess and Graves, game 6 almost definitely turns out very differently and all that veteran leadership we traded young talent away for would not have been meant anything.

oh we def would have been a tough contender against Detroit and Colorado if we kept Doug Weight and Amonte

And that younger more skilled team you wanted farted out in 92 and even worse in 93.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Holy gambler's fallacy!

I know obviously, just saying how and our luck has been. Of course that has no bearing on what will happen in the future, just saying it sucks ass how bad we have had it luck wise.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I know obviously, just saying how and our luck has been. Of course that has no bearing on what will happen in the future, just saying it sucks ass how bad we have had it luck wise.

We ain't getting shit.

 

[JHS]

To put in the context of your argument, I would prefer a younger and more talented team that is less likely to fall behind than an older and more experienced team that has the mental fortitude to make comebacks.

Its funny you should mention Kovalev, because if he doesn't replace Anderson with Mess and Graves, game 6 almost definitely turns out very differently and all that veteran leadership we traded young talent away for would not have been meant anything.

Totally missed the point. Veteran leadership is a key piece of knowing how to win and creating a winning culture. I’m pretty sure it meant a heck of a lot to those guys when Mess came out and guaranteed a win and then played his heart out. I’m pretty sure when multiple time Stanley Cup champion Kevin Lowe calms the team down and rallies them after a crushing last second goal to tie by the Devils,people listen. Right now, who’s the respected voice in this locker room? Who’s the experienced guy getting everyone through the tough stretches? Who’s showing these young guys how to be proper NHL players? The Rangers have gone all season without a captain for crying out loud. This is just more evidence of how this culture is probably a tough one to be playing in- and I’ll give Coach Quinn a heck of a lot of credit for keeping the culture positive and filled with accountability, but even his voice does not have the same weight as a player leading this team.

Now you could say Hank. Maybe— but he’s a goalie and goalies are in a totally different world than position players. They can lead by example and get a team going but almost none are outspoken leaders of position guys for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[McRanger]

Totally missed the point. Veteran leadership is a key piece of knowing how to win and creating a winning culture.

I understood your point. It wasn't particularly new or complicated. I just personally think its more of an NHL trope, akin to idea that having a guy that can fight will deter cheap shots, than a concept that is based in reality.

Guys come into the NHL having over a decade plus of competitive experience. They're born into competition. Most of them have already been winners and know what a winning culture looks like. When they eventually become winners in the NHL its not because someone else showed them how. NHL history is littered with teams that had tons of leadership and were terrible. One of the most horrific team in recent Rangers history, '02-'03 who had at a glance 7 cup winners including The Captain, 13 cups, and maybe 500 playoff games between them and were rudderless and absolutely awful in every facet of the game.

Lets say that ridiculous rookie class of '05-'06 was made an NHL team. Sid, Ovi, Hank, Parise, Keith etc. All rookies and no veterans outside the coaching staff. What happens? Do they struggle in perpetuity with no vets to show them how to win? Or do they struggle for maybe a year or two before they get bigger and more experienced and start crushing everyone in the league?

So, again, I agree that veteran leadership can be helpful. Veterans are able to absorb some of the limelight and media scrutiny. They are able to help some of the young (or stupid) players avoid the pitfalls of being young (or stupid) and rich. In some cases, like Mario and Sid, they even provide a home for them to stay. But the majority of the value a veteran brings to the team is the same as a rookie, what he can contribute on the ice. To think they do anything more than maybe expedite winning is, at least in my opinion, a fairy tale.

I’m pretty sure it meant a heck of a lot to those guys when Mess came out and guaranteed a win and then played his heart out. I’m pretty sure when multiple time Stanley Cup champion Kevin Lowe calms the team down and rallies them after a crushing last second goal to tie by the Devils,people listen. Right now, who’s the respected voice in this locker room? Who’s the experienced guy getting everyone through the tough stretches? Who’s showing these young guys how to be proper NHL players?

Right but Mess should not have had to guarantee a win in game 6 and Lowe should not have had to calm the team down in a game 7 because the Rangers should have skated circles around the Devils like they did during the regular season.

Making the team worse just to add a bunch of "playoff vets" when you already have Messier and Lowe (Or Larmer or Tikkanen or Gartner or hell even Graves had a cup) just to appease an unstable coach was asinine. This is the same guy who wanted to trade Leetch for Chelios (for grit or experience or something) and if that happens, despite that ring on Chelios ringer and his almost 100+ playoff games of experience, we dont win ANYTHING. Because the level that Leetch had to play at for us to eke out a cup still boggles the mind today 25 years later.

The '94 Rangers are the guy that bought a winning scratch off, decided to invest that money in more scratch offs and somehow managed to win more money. I mean, hell I'll take it. I'm not getting in a time machine to undo anything. But it doesn't make the whole thing any less idiotic, and to look at '94 and say "we should do what they did" is supremely idiotic. Outside of maybe the '86 Mets I am not sure there is a more insane or dangerous blueprint to try and follow.

 

[McRanger]

oh we def would have been a tough contender against Detroit and Colorado if we kept Doug Weight and Amonte

And that younger more skilled team you wanted farted out in 92 and even worse in 93.

Amonte and Weight (not to mention Gartner and every other player moved in a bad mid-90's trade to make the team "tougher" or "more experienced") would not have made the Rangers more competitive? The '94 Rangers who went to 7 games against NJ and Vancouver are beating those Mario cup teams? The '93 Rangers sucked for a reason other than they lost their most talented player for half the season?

Those are... well they are certainly opinions.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

And when you're my age, you also do rational analysis and realize that sucking for the sake of thinking it automatically makes the team better over time is a gamble that does not pay off without LUCK.

I've been a fan for 40+ years. I buy Center Ice to watch the Rangers. If the Rangers are going to suck, why bother buying it? Why care until they get better? And I'm one of those fans who watch 75 games a year. A die hard. If someone like me doesn't care, the average fan won't.

Someone made a snide comment about what "evidence" I have to the point that fans won't care? Any of these teams that suck out loud and play to 60% of capacity.

I didn't make a snide comment I pointed out how you were talking out of your ass.

Still are to a large degree even if you think you aren't. Your first paragraph is nonsense. Who EXACTLY does that even describe here? You just make vague statements that imply that "those damn loser millenials" are blindly willing to wait for TWENTY YEARS (your words) for one shot at a Crosby player. Oh and I'm not taking you literally with the 20 year thing. Even figuratively speaking, nothing should give you the idea that more than mayyybe 3 people have the patience to watch garbage for more than a season or two.

The vast majority of this board has very vocally been ok with losing for a season or two. Why? Bc THEY'RE rational and analytical.

They understand you cant win for as long as we did without eventually having a bad season or two. That's life. You publicly talk like you're this self proclaimed mature, rational elder but you cant cope with not getting your way for a season or two after a decade of unprecedented excellence?

I cant think of one single person saying that they'd gladly put up with this past 2020.

Btw I said a helluva lot more than that bc you said a lot of pure bs

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Amonte and Weight (not to mention Gartner and every other player moved in a bad mid-90's trade to make the team "tougher" or "more experienced") would not have made the Rangers more competitive? The '94 Rangers who went to 7 games against NJ and Vancouver are beating those Mario cup teams? The '93 Rangers sucked for a reason other than they lost their most talented player for half the season?

Those are... well they are certainly opinions.

No cup.

 

[McRanger]

No cup.

Certainly debatable. Which is why you can't undo any of the moves, even the ones that very clearly did not improve the team.

But the fact that they worked doesn't make them any less crazy or insane to try and emulate.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Certainly debatable. Which is why you can't undo any of the moves, even the ones that very clearly did not improve the team.

But the fact that they worked doesn't make them any less crazy or insane to try and emulate.

The trades were fine. The was still competitive until 1998. The Sakic matching killed it.

 

[JHS]

I understood your point. It wasn't particularly new or complicated. I just personally think its more of an NHL trope, akin to idea that having a guy that can fight will deter cheap shots, than a concept that is based in reality.

Guys come into the NHL having over a decade plus of competitive experience. They're born into competition. Most of them have already been winners and know what a winning culture looks like. When they eventually become winners in the NHL its not because someone else showed them how. NHL history is littered with teams that had tons of leadership and were terrible. One of the most horrific team in recent Rangers history, '02-'03 who had at a glance 7 cup winners including The Captain, 13 cups, and maybe 500 playoff games between them and were rudderless and absolutely awful in every facet of the game.

Lets say that ridiculous rookie class of '05-'06 was made an NHL team. Sid, Ovi, Hank, Parise, Keith etc. All rookies and no veterans outside the coaching staff. What happens? Do they struggle in perpetuity with no vets to show them how to win? Or do they struggle for maybe a year or two before they get bigger and more experienced and start crushing everyone in the league?

So, again, I agree that veteran leadership can be helpful. Veterans are able to absorb some of the limelight and media scrutiny. They are able to help some of the young (or stupid) players avoid the pitfalls of being young (or stupid) and rich. In some cases, like Mario and Sid, they even provide a home for them to stay. But the majority of the value a veteran brings to the team is the same as a rookie, what he can contribute on the ice. To think they do anything more than maybe expedite winning is, at least in my opinion, a fairy tale.



Right but Mess should not have had to guarantee a win in game 6 and Lowe should not have had to calm the team down in a game 7 because the Rangers should have skated circles around the Devils like they did during the regular season.

Making the team worse just to add a bunch of "playoff vets" when you already have Messier and Lowe (Or Larmer or Tikkanen or Gartner or hell even Graves had a cup) just to appease an unstable coach was asinine. This is the same guy who wanted to trade Leetch for Chelios (for grit or experience or something) and if that happens, despite that ring on Chelios ringer and his almost 100+ playoff games of experience, we dont win ANYTHING. Because the level that Leetch had to play at for us to eke out a cup still boggles the mind today 25 years later.

The '94 Rangers are the guy that bought a winning scratch off, decided to invest that money in more scratch offs and somehow managed to win more money. I mean, hell I'll take it. I'm not getting in a time machine to undo anything. But it doesn't make the whole thing any less idiotic, and to look at '94 and say "we should do what they did" is supremely idiotic. Outside of maybe the '86 Mets I am not sure there is a more insane or dangerous blueprint to try and follow.

Winning a championship when you were 13 years old does not mean you know how to win in the NHL. I think your mindset has been a major issue with why many rebuilds fail. You can’t just assume these guys know how to be NHL players because they may have the skill to. Most of these guys dominated against same age peers and sure these guys are competitive but they need to be taught how to be NHL players. Travel, focus, keeping onesself healthy, desire and maturity are all but a few things a 20 year old NHL player needs to be taught how to do well! Who’s teaching these guys how to do that well right now?

I have no interest in debating with you the values of the moves in 94. 1994 was the best year this franchise has ever had. People who complain about winning the cup and how it set this organization back because Tony Amonte and Doug Weight were so great are truely clueless or were not alive to experience the amazing happiness winning the cup gave this team and fan base! I would have been fine if Doug Weight when on the be a better player than number 99. It would not have bothered me one bit!

 

[The S5]

I wonder if there's been a bit of an idea change over the past couple of decades in the NHL that not everyone has really caught on with.

Used to be that 30 or so was considered prime years and I think teams may not have thought too hard about re-signing guys like Hayes, Zucc, McDonagh, etc with the idea that they'd have them locked up for the rest of their prime years no problem at all and there'd be plenty of time for the team to rebuild around them and be competing for the cup again (not to mention not having a salary cap).

These days we realize that 30 is about when a players prime comes to a screeching halt and their play falls off a cliff and locking yourself into a long contract with them at that point isn't a good idea and if you're a bad team that needs to figure out how to rebuild, then maybe it's best to trade them for assets that can hopefully help the rebuild.

I don't think "tanking" is the only way to rebuild but picking top 3 in a draft or multiple drafts is the closest thing to a surefire way to acquire elite talent and it's extremely hard to win a cup in the NHL without elite talent. If you're not picking top 3, it becomes an even bigger roll of the dice to draft that elite talent further down the draft board.

In a perfect world the Rangers win the draft lottery, Tampa wins the Cup, Dallas wins two rounds of the playoffs, and the Rangers have 4 first round picks to use on selecting an elite talent with their own and then if their scouts were any good pick up at least one other elite talent (magically) with their remaining picks.

In reality...probably not so much

So are you saying the Rangers management had an epiphany after signing Hank to that boat anchor?