Sam Rosen was right (Historical impact of Rangers' roster moves)

[SupersonicMonkey*]

The only player in that realm is Lundqvist. And thats the singular reason most fans have latched onto this win-now mentality. Its not enough.

Forget fans latching onto it, management has, and that's the problem. Dolan and Sather are the worst thing to ever happen to New York hockey.

 

[Ruggs225]

Can I ask you a question? Why, for so many, is pretty offensive plays the only entertaining form of hockey?

Theres so much more that goes into the game. I cant understand the narrow view.

Oh and a major reason Lundqvist was so good 2 years ago was the team commitment to defense, which is almost non-existent this season -- in the name of "entertainment" I guess.

I like offense. I appreciate defense, but that year it wasn't even good defense we had. It was a shooting gallery on Lundy who had to make save after save. To me it was a snoozefest. Everygame the same, pray for a goal or two and pray hank only lets in one or none while the opposing team controls the play and puck most of the game.

and to counter your argument, why do some people hate offense?

I love seeing goalies make great saves, to me sometimes that is better than seeing a good goal. But you know what goes into making a good save, a team making a good play and providing offense!

1-0 can be fun, but so can 8-6. It's all how many good quality chances there are, and i like to see good hits as well. A nice fight is cherry on the top.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

They also had stockpiled home grown assets to improve that team.

Richter, Leetch, Kovalev, and Zubov were home grown.



They used James Patrick, Darren Turcotte, Todd Marchant and Tony Amonte (all homegrown players) to get players who ultimately played a part in winning the Cup that season. They also traded Doug Weight (home grown), Troy Mallette (home grown), Steven Rice and Louie DeBrusk (both home grown) to a add important pieces.

You know what else the Rangers did better. They lied better. They talked up non-prospects like Roman Oksiuta to make him more palatable for Sather to trade Kevin Lowe. They talked up Michael Stewart so he seemed like a good return for Pat Verbeek. They just did a better job selling guys as real prospects when they were actually garbage.

 

[Ruggs225]

Heck i even found the pounding we took against SJ in the beginning of the year entertaining because it was comical how bad we were.

 

[Ruggs225]

You know what else the Rangers did better. They lied better. They talked up non-prospects like Roman Oksiuta to make him more palatable for Sather to trade Kevin Lowe. They talked up Michael Stewart so he seemed like a good return for Pat Verbeek. They just did a better job selling guys as real prospects when they were actually garbage.

I don't think you can get away with lying like that anymore.. much better scouting and too many resources now. But great point.

 

[aufheben]

By limiting quality shots by keeping the opposing team to the outside and clogging the shooting lanes, for example. Do we really need to discuss the the benefits a goalie receives by having a competent defense in front of him?...

 

[jskramer83]

And the Rangers have Lundqvist and one the best/deepest group of defenders so it's not like they don't have anything.

I am now confused and not sure if you think this team has a good core or if you think this team has no future

 

[McRanger]

I wonder how fans on this board would have responded to the '94 trade deadline deals.

1st in the conference. But less than a year removed from missing the playoffs and 53 years of perpetual failure on the mind.

Somehow I feel like "going all in" would not have been met with unanimous applause.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I wonder how fans on this board would have responded to the '94 trade deadline deals.

1st in the conference. But less than a year removed from missing the playoffs and 53 years of perpetual failure on the mind.

Somehow I feel like "going all in" would not have been met with unanimous applause.

Judging by this group's penchant for pretty goals, I think they would've flipped the **** out.

Others would've recognized that trading players like Mike Gartner for grit filled other needs, very important needs to get through the playoffs.

I mean, theres still plenty of people who think they would've won the cup with that original roster. Im happy we never had to find out.

 

[jskramer83]

I wonder how fans on this board would have responded to the '94 trade deadline deals.

1st in the conference. But less than a year removed from missing the playoffs and 53 years of perpetual failure on the mind.

Somehow I feel like "going all in" would not have been met with unanimous applause.

What helped even more was a dominant Penguins team losing to the 7th seed in the 1st round, allowing us to play the 7th seed in the second round, and the third seed in Conference Finals.

Also what helped is an 8th seeded san jose beating a killer redwings team and a 7th seeded Canucks team betting a very good Flames team.

Eventually leading the Rangers to play the 7th seeded Canucks in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Everything fell in place perfectly in the finals run. *sigh* guess that used up all of our luck

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I wonder how fans on this board would have responded to the '94 trade deadline deals.

1st in the conference. But less than a year removed from missing the playoffs and 53 years of perpetual failure on the mind.

Somehow I feel like "going all in" would not have been met with unanimous applause.

This board would've collapsed.....We have fans that to THIS DAY say the Rangers should've never trade Amonte. They STILL complain that Weight was traded in 93 for Tikkanen.

It wasn't just those trades. We would've had guys complain that the Ferraro brothers aren't being given a chance. This board would've went nuts the day Mike Hurlbut was traded for Alexander Karpovtsev.

We would've had posters complain about Peter Anderson not playing but Jay Wells is. The Patrick and Turcotte for Larmer and Kypros trade? Forget it.....This board would've went nuts that we traded for a guy like Larmer who gave up his iron man streak for a few extra bucks.....Especially TWO fan favorites like James Patrick and Darren Turcotte. Not to mention the team didn't make the playoffs in 93. It would've never taken the 94 team seriously because they didn't make the playoffs the year before.

Asset management? The phrase du jour on this board, imagine the day they traded Beezer for Doug Lidster. I can see the posters saying we picked the wrong goalie to keep in Richter, who was sent to Binghamton in 93. We would've had posters who would've went crazy that we brought in Glenn Healy (who every Ranger fan hated) instead of giving Corey Hirsch a chance. Jesus, we would've had posters in the summer of 93 saying that Hirsch should be the starting goalie going into the 93-94 season!!!

So yeah, this board would not have been able to handle the 93-94 trading deadline.....or everything else that went into building that team...

 

[Pugs35]

I couldn't agree with the OP more. I can't believe how many people think this team is being run competently.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Why would playing in a shot blocking defense cause Lundqvist to stop a higher percentage of shots?

Not sure if this is serious...but because the quality of shots was vastly different. The Rangers gave up way more point/outside shots and almost never left the slot 100% wide open. Which is now a regular occurrence.

 

[True Blue]

If you go by cups, which you were, than they have the same amount in the past 15 years.

Call is Cups, call it success, call it whatever you want. Which franchise has seen more sunny days? And you are comparing an original 6 to an expansion team. That is like comparing IBM to a start up. You would think the team that has been around since the beginning could get it right.

But yes, San Jose has been better in the past 15 years. And we have been better than many teams in the past 15 years as well. Especially since the lockout.

And now look at the teams that have been around for 70 years. Which of those are Rangers faring better than? And then look at the expansion teams. Since those teams have come into the league, more often than not, they have had at least the same amount of success as the Rangers. Is that really something to beat your chest about?

This team is no where near as bad as you make them out to be. No, they aren't world beaters, but we aren't bad by any imagination.There are plenty of teams run worse than us, and Chicago was run much worse than us before Wirtz died.

We must have different definitions of success than you do.

But I don't know how blowing up a good team will guarantee us to be better, because it doesn't. Right now we have alot of good players and are one of the top 10 teams in the league. Why start over. It's hard enough to get up there.

You have missed the entire point of the thread.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Stanley, here we come!

Stastny*

 

[ThisYearsModel]

Forget fans latching onto it, management has, and that's the problem. Dolan and Sather are the worst thing to ever happen to New York hockey.

This should be the caption over all threads on the Rangers pages here.

 

[Off Sides]

Comparing the 1994 team to this one in 2014?

Not only is it basically a different era, cap, not being able to trade cash for players, etc, that team was a legit contender who had some of the best players in the league in their primes, many who had won cups playing for the Oilers not long before hand.

 

[Riverdale]

I couldn't agree with the OP more. I can't believe how many people think this team is being run competently.

Yup.

I am so tired of the same old ******** year after year. I have reached my limit; not going to get my hopes up watching this team until Sather is gone.

 

[Ruggs225]

Call is Cups, call it success, call it whatever you want. Which franchise has seen more sunny days? And you are comparing an original 6 to an expansion team. That is like comparing IBM to a start up. You would think the team that has been around since the beginning could get it right.

You know as well as I that being an O6 team means nothing anymore. I mean we have been more successful than Montreal and Toronto the last 20 years no? And Montreal is the most successful team in NHL history.

And what are you counting as success, because you keep changing all your parameters to make a point.

And now look at the teams that have been around for 70 years. Which of those are Rangers faring better than? And then look at the expansion teams. Since those teams have come into the league, more often than not, they have had at least the same amount of success as the Rangers. Is that really something to beat your chest about?

I said before that we are faring better than montreal and toronto recently. We have also been faring better than the Isles, Philly, Edmonton, Calgary, Washington, Phoenix, Florida etc. And the last expansion happened 12 years ago. You would think that one of those teams would have made a so it's not like none of those teams didn't have enough time yet to build a contender but they haven't yet.

We must have different definitions of success than you do.

What is your definition? If it's cups than most teams have not had success in the past 10 years.

 

[Pugs35]

You know as well as I that being an O6 team means nothing anymore. I mean we have been more successful than Montreal and Toronto the last 20 years no? And Montreal is the most successful team in NHL history.

And what are you counting as success, because you keep changing all your parameters to make a point.

I said before that we are faring better than montreal and toronto recently. We have also been faring better than the Isles, Philly, Edmonton, Calgary, Washington, Phoenix, Florida etc. And the last expansion happened 12 years ago. You would think that one of those teams would have made a so it's not like none of those teams didn't have enough time yet to build a contender but they haven't yet.

What is your definition? If it's cups than most teams have not had success in the past 10 years.

Philly, Edmonton, Calgary and Florida have all been to cup-finals since we have, so I think that counts as building contenders. And yes, while 3 of those teams are dumpster fires right now, over the last 10-15 years we haven't done as well as they have.

 

[Ruggs225]

Philly, Edmonton, Calgary and Florida have all been to cup-finals since we have, so I think that counts as building contenders. And yes, while 3 of those teams are dumpster fires right now, over the last 10-15 years we haven't done as well as they have.

so one final for those three teams and years of horribleness is better than making PO's almost every year except one since the lockout?

In the end we all have zero cups, but at least we have not been a team without any hope as those three.

And edmonton was an 8 seed at that! Which people say that isn't good enough for us and we can't anywhere as an 8 seed and should just give up.

 

[SKjEi o2]

Henrik Lundqvist is the worst thing that ever happened to this organization.

 

[aufheben]

Henrik Lundqvist is the worst thing that ever happened to this organization.

Can you elaborate before people inevitably misinterpret this? Thanks.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Stastny*

It's true. And i don't know whether to cry or laugh.

We could have kept Callahan, traded up at the draft, and drafted a #1 center that could contribute next year or the year after. And just roll Stepan, Brassard, Miller in the middle until then.

Or traded Callahan to somewhere like Anaheim or Nashville as an example, in return for Kerdiles or Watson. Even if we had to add.

But, alas...

 

[Thirty One]

Not sure if this is serious...but because the quality of shots was vastly different. The Rangers gave up way more point/outside shots and almost never left the slot 100% wide open. Which is now a regular occurrence.

They didn't allow way more outside shots: