- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,937
- 22,873
Lol. Disappointing year? They were 1 win away from the cup.
No, we aren't prying McAvoy or Pastrnak out of Boston.
Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLVI
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Lol. Disappointing year? They were 1 win away from the cup.
No, we aren't prying McAvoy or Pastrnak out of Boston.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
My whole thing is that the Rangers management could've interviewed 15 people as preliminary candidates and the media not report on it. It's just annoying to listen for weeks as people complain about the same thing which might not even be true. Just because Brooks isn't reporting it doesn't mean it's not happening. I like a lot of Blueshirt Banter's content, but their podcast is very often them whining about things they already have their minds made up about without even providing context or anything. A lot of things like: "They are against analytics" spouted as 100% fact when the truth is they definitely use analytics internally, just bc they're not interpreting their analytics the same way you do doesn't mean they are against them.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Yeah, I reeeeally don’t like a lot of how they get to their conclusions and even a lot of their conclusions. I try to stay out of the NYR twitter world, but they said a few weeks in a row that Miller for Namestnikov was a straight up swap in that trade and bitched about how terrible Gorton is for that, so I tweeted at them to point out that they had it wrong, they told me I was wrong and that’s not what Brooks’ report said twice, so I dug up the report, and what do you know, it said it went down exactly like I told them it did. So they even get the information they take as 100% truth wrong
CommaSynapse
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2013
- 5,174
- 2,829
It feels like having a good goalie on a rookie deal or bargain contract is a huge advantage. Use the extra cap space for more skater depth. As great as Lundqvist is, we paid him a ton of money that we could have used elsewhere. Most years there were goalies that performed just as well or better than he did at a fraction of his salary. He was remarkably consistent from year to year but all you really need in the playoffs is for your goalie to go on a hot streak.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Not biting on it this time. Not today, Satan.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
I mean, yeah, but they paid the guy that you don’t really need to cross your fingers and hope for him to be good, he was just going to be good anyway
Paying guys like Girardi and Staal were bigger problems in allocating money than paying Lundqvist
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,936
- 8,279
Not sure the rules, but he played a few regular season games, and took the cup for a spin in gear tonight
UPDATE: qualifies as a black ace
Last edited:
TheBloodyNine
Pure Bred Soviet Savage
No major UFAs. Was bad for many years. Fantastic trades. Good, young goaltending. Stanley Cup champs.
STL was not bad for many years, that is extremely incorrect.
Unless you are citing them being bad in 2007, 12 freaking years ago.
They made the most of their mid to late 1st round picks, which they had because they didnt trade all of them. They made some good trades and even some bold ones, such as Schenn and ROR, respectively. They struck gold with their goaltender halfway through a very muddy season in which they fired their coach.
Lets not act like they stripped it down and went through some serious rebuild, which is why tanking is absolutely not mandatory to building a champion.
Unless you are citing them being bad in 2007, 12 freaking years ago.
They made the most of their mid to late 1st round picks, which they had because they didnt trade all of them. They made some good trades and even some bold ones, such as Schenn and ROR, respectively. They struck gold with their goaltender halfway through a very muddy season in which they fired their coach.
Lets not act like they stripped it down and went through some serious rebuild, which is why tanking is absolutely not mandatory to building a champion.
You’re right that all their UFAs were middle-six Fs. They had some very good trades, after having a few very bad ones. Great in the regular season for a while, but nothing in the postseason. I don’t know how great Binnington or Berube are, but those are the two that the team could rally around. Not Allen, not Ryan Miller, not Yeo or Hitchcock
The blues have played in the 2nd round multiple times and the conference finals before. Just couldn’t get through when the hawks were a dynasty and the kings won in alternating years
11-12: lost to Kings (kings cup) in 2nd round
12-13: lost to kings (hawks cup) in 1st round
13-14: lost to hawks (rangers misssed cup) in 1st round
14/15: lost to wild (hawk cup) in 1st round
15-16: lost to sharks (finalist) (pitt cup) in WCF
16-17: lost to preds (finalist) (pitt cup) in 2nd round
17-18: missed playoffs
18-19: cup
Last edited:
Excuse the hyperbole in describing a decade-long trend. Let’s agree they regularly underperformed in the playoffs compared to regular season record and personnel.
Other than in 14-15 when they were the #1 seed and lost to the wild in the 1st round. That’s not true and your just generalizing
Gotta look at the context. They either lost to the hawks or Kings or the team that ended up as the western conference finals rep.
It’s just a widely believed generalization.
Gotta look at the context. They either lost to the hawks or Kings or the team that ended up as the western conference finals rep.
It’s just a widely believed generalization.
Their young talent and core > our young talent and core.
Schwartz, Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Edmundson, Sundqvist, Barbashev, Sanford, Blais, Thomas
You’ll have to excuse me. I’ve been watching the Blues for about thirty years.
They have been one of the most consistent teams for a decade. Regular season, to be a tough out in the playoffs.
Last edited:
egelband
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2008
- 16,200
- 15,060
His value is low now. I'd hold on to Lias. Plus, his upside is...really...the kind of player you want to keep. If the Rangers have totally given up on him, sure, trade him. But otherwise, keep him.
- Status
