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

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Can you elaborate before people inevitably misinterpret this? Thanks.

They probably mean that Lundqvist is so good (he is, he is a future HOF and best goaltender in NYR history) that management is dilusioned to go for it every year in Henrik's prime. Even though the rest of the team isn't up to par.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Similar to how the Maple Leafs and Blackhawks couldn't win anything until Harold Ballard and Bill Wirtz, respectively, were done mismanaging the franchises, the Rangers will never win anything until Sather is done mismanaging our franchise.

The good news is Sather can just stop being a GM, as opposed to Ballard and Wirtz, who were owners.

I think in 10-15 years tops Sather will ride off to Banff and give a real GM a chance. Just have to wait out this bad period.

 

[ajdj10]

Can you elaborate before people inevitably misinterpret this? Thanks.

His beauty makes us all feel like we don't belong here.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

They didn't allow way more outside shots:

First of all, very cool. Second of all, where is this from? 3rd of all, how does the league average compare? What about top 5 finishers each year?

3rd of all, I stand by my assessment on quality uncontested chances in the slot.

 

[OverTheCap]

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.

There was an article earlier this year that confirms Lundqvist is seeing far more slot opportunities (and this is from January so I'd have to imagine he's seen even more when taking into account the past few games):

As we can see above, Lundqvist has been exposed to more slot opportunities this season. If I take his career average save percentage of .851 on those 44 extra shots, we are left with seven extra goals. That is significant when we realize that Lundqvist has pushed himself up to .910 his past two starts—.910 is .004 below the league average and .917 would place him slightly above. He is also facing a slightly more difficult workload in regards to transition opportunities, leaving even his extreme depth at risk.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/mediocre-play-of-rangers-lundqvist-wont-last/

 

[Thirty One]

First of all, very cool. Second of all, where is this from? 3rd of all, how does the league average compare? What about top 5 finishers each year?

3rd of all, I stand by my assessment on quality uncontested chances in the slot.

http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/

I don't feel like doing the research for league average and whatnot, sorry.

 

[True Blue]

You know as well as I that being an O6 team means nothing anymore.

Your opinion. Not mine.

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.

we have had more success than Montreal? How do you define that? I mean yes, there is a Cup, but if I make it 30 years, then who has more success?

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

Year over year success. Runs to conference finals. One of final 8 teams left standing.

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.

How have we been faring better than Philly? And is lumping yourself in with Isles, Phoenix and Florida really the way to go?

In the end, no matter how you try to slice and dice, one cup in 70 odd years is embarrassing and a sign of organizational failure. Period.

 

[aufheben]

They probably mean that Lundqvist is so good (he is, he is a future HOF and best goaltender in NYR history) that management is dilusioned to go for it every year in Henrik's prime. Even though the rest of the team isn't up to par.

I know what he means, I meant for others.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Can you elaborate before people inevitably misinterpret this? Thanks.

For me, I think Lundqvist's emergence in 2005-2006 kickstarted the win-now stuff before it was legitimately ready to happen. Bad decisions and the same mistakes have followed in an effort to win now.

Lundqvist has also hid the roster flaws quite well over the years, which has only fed the false notion that this team is a couple of shortcuts away from winning a Cup.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/

I don't feel like doing the research for league average and whatnot, sorry.

Why dont you just tell us what your eyes tell you.

 

[aufheben]

There was an article earlier this year that confirms Lundqvist is seeing far more slot opportunities (and this is from January so I'd have to imagine he's seen even more when taking into account the past few games):



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/mediocre-play-of-rangers-lundqvist-wont-last/

Yep. I'm gonna post this again, you because it sums it up so well. And this isn't the beginning of the season, this is less than a week ago:

 

[McRanger]

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.

Others, meaning of course our more intelligent and reasonable posters, would have been ok with trading Gartner for Anderson and Amonte for Matteau and Noonan?

Considering the Rangers history of failure, you don't think posters would have taken issue with moving young talent like Amonte for depth or grit? Potentially lessening the teams future success for a short term boost?

I'm not sure I agree. I'm pretty sure the board would go bananas.

 

[Ruggs225]

One of final 8 teams left standing.

That is winning one round in the playoffs. So we have done that 4 times in the last 8 seasons which are the post lockout. That is pretty successful I think.

How have we been faring better than Philly? And is lumping yourself in with Isles, Phoenix and Florida really the way to go?

Judging by your formula for success we are tied with Philly with 4 times each winning at least one round in playoffs since the first lockout. They made the finals once, and we didn't but they missed the playoffs twice and we missed only once. So I do stand corrected, we are about even with them.

Heck Chicago only has made it past the first round of the PO's three times in the last 8 seasons. Granted they won the cup 2x, but that just goes to show how hard it actually is to get past even the first round of the PO's.

In the end, no matter how you try to slice and dice, one cup in 70 odd years is embarrassing and a sign of organizational failure. Period.

I'm not saying it isn't embarrassing. I'm just saying that we aren't as badly run as other organizations. Especially now. We are actually run pretty decently now and have had a good team for the last 8 years.

As much crap as Sather has taken (and he has deserved plenty) he also brought this team out of the dark ages when we had no prospects or hope, to a team that has prospects and plenty of hope that is competing year in and year out.

Now our cupboard might not have much left, but its not like it is completely empty either.

 

[Thirty One]

That is winning one round in the playoffs. So we have done that 4 times in the last 8 seasons which are the post lockout. That is pretty successful I think.

Only two teams have done it more:

 

[Crease]

Be careful not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for all the first-round success there, guys.

 

[Ruggs225]

In fact only Detroit and SJ have actually made it past the first round of the playoffs more than the Rangers since the lockout each with 6. Then Pitt, Philly and us with 4, Boston with 3, Ottawa with 3, Washington with 3 St. Louis with 1 Anaheim with 1.

Again it just goes to show you how consistent we have been the last 8 seasons... and how hard it is to get by 1 round in the PO's. Unfortunately we don't have a cup, but we have been consistently one of the best teams (but not best) in the NHL.

 

[Ruggs225]

Only two teams have done it more:

thanks.

 

[Pugs35]

I've always dreamed of being the best at being completely mediocre.

 

[Pugs35]

Only Ranger fans can convince themselves they've been one of the best teams in the NHL because they've won four first round playoff series in the last 15 years.

Someone has to buy all those new St. Louis jerseys!

 

[Thirty One]

Be careful not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for all the first-round success there, guys.

Why is that not an accomplishment?

 

[Ian]

Clearly the way to decide just how successful the Rangers have been is to go to exactly the last year they had a major success in your eyes, and then go up one from there.

Feel free to jump between what the definition of success is if there's a year or two in there that doesn't best fit your agenda.

I only consider seasons where they AT LEAST lost the elimination playoff game in OT versus a non-divisional opponent, so how many times have they done that in the past 6 years?


Yeah, I thought so.

 

[haveandare]

I love how there's a thread to talk about how much the team sucks, and a thread to talk about how they don't suck, but both of them are the same people hating on the team for the same things.

 

[Ail]

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

Actually said this in another thread at some point this season, but by the time he retires he will be the best and worst thing to ever happen to the Rangers, if they don't win a 'Cup with him.

 

[Crease]

Why is that not an accomplishment?

It's an accomplishment like getting B's on your report card is an accomplishment.

 

[Thirty One]

I love how there's a thread to talk about how much the team sucks, and a thread to talk about how they don't suck, but both of them are the same people hating on the team for the same things.

There's also a thread to talk about how good the Rangers are.