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

[haohmaru]

Actually, the statistical reality is that beyond very high round one picks no one drafts that well in the first round as most mid to late first rounders don't generally amount to much of anything at all. If I remember numbers compiled, 15-30 overall picks have about a 50 percent chance of becoming 3rd and 4th liners, the other 50 percent don't make it in the NHL at all. I think I recall of the 15-30 picks who make it to playing on a 1st or 2nd line or top D pairings it was like 3 percent or something. And all those numbers drops significantly in round 2 and later draft picks.

No team is generally going to build anything significant through season after season of late picks. We don't have the ultra high picks that Chicago, LA or Pitt did, and that being the case, you have to manage to your circumstances. Choosing late round one picks that likely amount to nothing over the guy who, in the last three combined seasons, has more points than Kane, Ovechkin and Tavares seems a poor decision.

People love to say nonsense like we're not a Marty St. Louis away from winning a Cup. Who cares if that's the case or not? Whatever we are away from a Cup, we are a playoff team and I think one of the elite scorers in the league, and last season's Art Ross winner, certainly brings us a step closer. Even if we are two excellent pieces away, why not bring one of those pieces in and bridge the gap?

Great post

 

[aufheben]

Trading this many picks away in a short time when you already have a crappy prospect pool is all but guaranteeing a mediocre at best future for this organization. Whether or not we win a Cup with MSL won't change that, it will just make it way easier to swallow. What do you think its going to happen? We're going to magically have a a great farm system by trading away our draft picks? It's selling the future to win now. If that's fine with you, cool, but don't act like that's not what's happening.

The fact that draft picks are no guarantees is exactly why you need a lot of them.

People love to say nonsense like we're not a Marty St. Louis away from winning a Cup. Who cares if that's the case or not? Whatever we are away from a Cup, we are a playoff team and I think one of the elite scorers in the league, and last season's Art Ross winner, certainly brings us a step closer. Even if we are two excellent pieces away, why not bring one of those pieces in and bridge the gap?

Um, I do?

 

[Cake or Death]

Trading this many picks away in a short time when you already have a crappy prospect pool is all but guaranteeing a mediocre at best future for this organization. Whether or not we win a Cup with MSL won't change that, it will just make it way easier to swallow. What do you think its going to happen? We're going to magically have a a great farm system by trading away our draft picks? It's selling the future to win now. If that's fine with you, cool, but don't act like that's not what's happening.

The fact that draft picks are no guarantees is exactly why you need a lot of them.

Um, I do?

I understand where you're coming from. But where exactly is this team falling apart any time soon? We have a really young team overall. On D: Moore (23), McD (24), Stralman and Staal (27), Klein and G (29). Are we in desperate need of D in the next 3-5 years beyond maybe needing 1 or 2 new guys? On forward: Kreider (22), Steps (23), Hags (25), Brass and Zucc (26), Pouliot and Dorsett (27), Carcillo, Boyle, Nash (29), Moore and Richards (33), MSL (38). Talbot (26) and Hank (32).

We have a pretty young team overall that is a playoff team year in, year out. You look at that and have to decide which direction to go. You cannot do ten things at once: you can't rebuild and at the same time say, we have Hank at 32, let's try to win now while he's still fairly useful. Which way do you want to go? We're not Pitt, we didn't trade away our roster and then have a lottery ball hand us a generational player on top of it. We didn't have eons of dreadful seasons and stock pile top ten picks like a few teams out there have, some of them having little to no viable success with that I might add.

At the end of the day, you have to look at what you have, decide on a direction to go with it, and do so within the reality that 29 other teams are going to be fighting and clawing to do the same.

IMHO... the team needs to be built to try to win now-ish. We have a hall of fame caliber goalie who is locked up long term and doesn't have forever to have a good team built around him. If we were Buffalo or an older team, heck yes the picks are vital. But we are a perennial playoff team, so adding pieces that really strengthen and improve your team seem like the way to go. And MSL makes any team in this league a better team.

It is not just St Louis' top-end scoring, it is also his top-tier work ethic, his winning attitude, how he makes people around him better, and how all these things cannot help but rub off on everyone around him. This guy is going to ooze into the psyche's of younger players and drill into them great things for seasons to come. The kind of guy that, when Stamkos goes down long term, keeps his team winning and somehow keeps squeezing success out of himself and his teammates, and still stays atop the league scoring leaders even without Stamkos in the lineup.

St Louis is 38 and has a window of effective time, obviously. But we didn't pick up some washed up vet here. He is still, right now, one of the best scorers in the league and much better than anyone on this team. He is also probably in as good or better shape than anyone on the team.

Was this ideal? Who knows? I guess hindsight will let us know at some point. But what is a fact is that we were losing Callahan one way or the next, and even offering him 6 mil was something I felt highly troubled by. In the end, we dropped a few picks to secure one of the top scorers in the league, who is on an incredibly nice contract, with the major risk being a few picks that statistically probably don't amount to much. Our team got better. And however far we may or may not have been from true contender status, St Louis bridges that gap and brings us closer than we were without him. I'm very okay with it and I did my best to try to explain why.

 

[True Blue]

It's a moot point. Either way the value wasn't there.

So yes, you are making a statement based on pure conjecture?

Any time that a team captain is traded, there is value to be had.

 

[Ail]

So yes, you are making a statement based on pure conjecture?

Any time that a team captain is traded, there is value to be had.

While Callahan is certainly worth more than a 3rd and a 5th, him being the captain had little to do with that. Captains aren't chosen by skill and value as a rental to other teams. If someone was trying to use his captaincy to get me to pony up more assets in a trade, I'd laugh. Teams don't trade for players because they need captains.

 

[True Blue]

There is no "math". The better player got a 2nd and a weak prospect. If you can't do the correlation there then I can't help you much.

So the 3rd and 5th came from nowhere but your head? At least we settled that.

It's an irrelevant question.

It is an irrelevant question because it hurts your case that St. Louis is going to continue to be an elite player at the age of 39 or 40. The odds are overwhelmingly against it. Which is why you are claiming that the question is irrelevant.

You really don't. Jagr is an all time great that improved at age 42 from his seasons at 41 and 40. St. Louis is also a Hall of Fame player that's shown no signs of deteriorating. It doesn't matter what Joe Blow did at age 38.

I don't? Then proceed to rattle off to me how many players in the history of the entire NHL have somehow improved or even stayed the same at the age of 39. You seem to be making your case on Jagr alone. And as you are incapable of proving other evidence to me, it certainly does matter what historically EVERY Joe Blow did from the age of 38 to 39 to 40.

Again, irrelevant. Evaluate the player and his play. Not his age.

Let's try this from a different angle. In the entire history of the NHL, how many players declined in level of play from38 to 39? And from 39 to 40?

All IYHO. Pittsburgh has to prove that they can do something in the playoffs with their playoff-challenged goaltending. Ottawa and TB? Dunno about that. Tampa has won 3 of its last 10 games and their hold on a playoff spot is slipping. Ottawa isn't in the playoffs and is 7 points behind the Rangers.

Yes, it is all opinions, but tell me this. The Penguins have to prove that they can do something in the playoffs but the Rangers somehow do not?

You can't, however, prove that your "assets" will ever turn out to be better than St. Louis over the next two seasons. It's something you can't, and won't, ever be able to prove.

Off course no draft pick will be better than St. Louis in the next two years. However, unless St. Louis brings the Cup, those assets will better serve the organization in the future, as opposed to 1.5 years of MSL.

Marty is, so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that the chances of him maintaining elite play as soon as next year is overwhelmingly against him. Which is not to say that he will not be a very good player. However the chances of being "elite" are not good.

And, we aren't arguing less picks vs. more picks. That's not an argument that I've made. You can't ignore St. Louis' contributions over the next two seasons as something that isn't worth anything and could quite possibly turn out to be a lot more than whatever those picks might've been.

Off course MSL will contribute more in 1.5 years than draft picks. But unless he brings the Cup home, the picks better serve the organization than he does.

 

[True Blue]

While Callahan is certainly worth more than a 3rd and a 5th, him being the captain had little to do with that.

I think that you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that Captains tend to have value. Period. Not that him being a Captain increases or decreases his worth.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Traded almost nothing for McD. Signed a completely cast aside Stralman who became a solid top 4 d-man. Signed an FA in Zucc who is now one of the best players on the team. Signed UFA Gaborik who ended up living up to his contract and contributing 100+ goals.

The past few years haven't been this nightmare people like to pretend they have been.

Where guys like SBOB and TB lose me is they emphasize negative points so far that it becomes incorrect and irrational. It does however drive home a consistent, cathartic narrative which helps to accept not winning the cup which is very understandable looking at the franchise history. I honestly think the biggest problem the team has had since 05 is that it's actually extremely difficult to win. Nothing more. Not some GM who magically retains a job b/c of evil Dolan who doesn't care about us poor NYR fans, not the all time bad contracts which didn't hinder much of anything at all (Redden was buried, Drury was only 5 years and Gomer was actually an extremely net positive move)

From 2000-2004 the team was a pathetic mess. A mess that was definitely inherited to a significant degree from the previous administration. Then we had the lockout. We have since been a perennial PO team and at least TWICE a legitimate cup contender. This year might make it 3.

We built a strong pipeline for years. A pipeline that has fed this team a steady stream of quality players for YEARS and continues to. The good trades that have been made far, far FAR exceed the bad ones. (John Scott and a wasted 5th is nothing compared to Anson Carter for Jagr).

Seems ridiculous the lengths we go to ( and I was going to) so we can be blaming evil CEO's and 80 year old boogie men when we should accept the fact that it's extremely hard to do what this team has done for almost a decade. We've actually been watching fun, entertaining, winning hockey overall while some teams have been in the basement the entire time. We've had legit shots at the cup. We've had star players, legacy Rangers, good drafts, good signings way more than we've had the bad and it shows in the actual product.

I can't continue to **** all over the product like I have been when the facts are so obviously against what my agenda was. I dunno if agenda is a good word for it but in hindsight it feels like it. I think I just needed something to blame to make it easier to accept not getting what I wanted (a cup) and I suspect this drives the animosity around here well beyond what it should be. That's why it's so maddening talking to people on here. Any fact or stance that goes against an individuals narrative gets obfuscated or outright ignored even if it's completely logical. If it doesn't contribute to the anti Sather rhetoric than clearly someone just doesn't know hockey.

How many times can a blind squirrel find a nut before we accept that there's more than just our way of obtaining it.

 

[True Blue]

What picks are you talking about for McD? There were no picks exchanged there.

MSL not MCD.

No, I don't want to play the game. I think that whole game is a lazy reduction that people make because they can't or don't want to admit that Sather's entire term overall can't be labeled with a binary great/worst ever distinction.

It is not a lazy exercise. It is calling a spade a spade. Want to tell me that Sather's tenure has been a success? Then tell what makes it so.

Is this really so hard to see? Overall, his work has been just awful because he's made many, many bad decisions, almost all of which are pretty far in the past now in my opinion.

Gutting a team that had more success than any team in roughly 20 years and replacing them with Columbus Blue Jackets is far in the past?

You say that somehow is "looking at things in a vacuum," I disagree. It's looking at something with context and trying to see something more than a simplistic binary distinction.

Evaluating trades without looking at the overall organization is in fact looking things in a vacuum. And whether his tenure has been successful is indeed binary.

Are all the deals I mentioned in that post not example of good GM work over the past few years? Where have been the huge disasters over that time? Nash? Hardly. MSL? What, three games after the trade?

Nash has done NOTHING to evidence that the trade is a success. Ripping a part a locker room and depleting your depth is hardly evidence of a good trade. And issues with the MSL trade are well documented (for those that have an issue with it). Having an organization with little depth and a bare cupboard does not a good GM make.

I'm so sick of reading about people who are just so unpleased that a team they voluntarily choose to follow is only good and not hands down the best. God forbid.

There is a very easy solution for what you are sick of. No one is stating that their view is the only view. But having a view that not all sunshine is allowed as well.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Where guys like SBOB and TB lose me is they emphasize negative points so far that it becomes incorrect and irrational. It does however drive home a consistent, cathartic narrative which helps to accept not winning the cup which is very understandable looking at the franchise history. I honestly think the biggest problem the team has had since 05 is that it's actually extremely difficult to win. Nothing more. Not some GM who magically retains a job b/c of evil Dolan who doesn't care about us poor NYR fans, not the all time bad contracts which didn't hinder much of anything at all (Redden was buried, Drury was only 5 years and Gomer was actually an extremely net positive move)

From 2000-2004 the team was a pathetic mess. A mess that was definitely inherited to a significant degree from the previous administration. Then we had the lockout. We have since been a perennial PO team and at least TWICE a legitimate cup contender. This year might make it 3.

We built a strong pipeline for years. A pipeline that has fed this team a steady stream of quality players for YEARS and continues to. The good trades that have been made far, far FAR exceed the bad ones. (John Scott and a wasted 5th is nothing compared to Anson Carter for Jagr).

Seems ridiculous the lengths we go to ( and I was going to) so we can be blaming evil CEO's and 80 year old boogie men when we should accept the fact that it's extremely hard to do what this team has done for almost a decade. We've actually been watching fun, entertaining, winning hockey overall while some teams have been in the basement the entire time. We've had legit shots at the cup. We've had star players, legacy Rangers, good drafts, good signings way more than we've had the bad and it shows in the actual product.

I can't continue to **** all over the product like I have been when the facts are so obviously against what my agenda was. I dunno if agenda is a good word for it but in hindsight it feels like it. I think I just needed something to blame to make it easier to accept not getting what I wanted (a cup) and I suspect this drives the animosity around here well beyond what it should be.

You have piss poor standards, which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You have piss poor standards, which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

What are they? Like I said anything that goes against the narrative is completely obfuscated or disregarded without merit or logic. This post affirms that but by all means go ahead and explain

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I understand where you're coming from. But where exactly is this team falling apart any time soon? We have a really young team overall. On D: Moore (23), McD (24), Stralman and Staal (27), Klein and G (29). Are we in desperate need of D in the next 3-5 years beyond maybe needing 1 or 2 new guys? On forward: Kreider (22), Steps (23), Hags (25), Brass and Zucc (26), Pouliot and Dorsett (27), Carcillo, Boyle, Nash (29), Moore and Richards (33), MSL (38). Talbot (26) and Hank (32).

We have a pretty young team overall that is a playoff team year in, year out. You look at that and have to decide which direction to go. You cannot do ten things at once: you can't rebuild and at the same time say, we have Hank at 32, let's try to win now while he's still fairly useful. Which way do you want to go? We're not Pitt, we didn't trade away our roster and then have a lottery ball hand us a generational player on top of it. We didn't have eons of dreadful seasons and stock pile top ten picks like a few teams out there have, some of them having little to no viable success with that I might add.

At the end of the day, you have to look at what you have, decide on a direction to go with it, and do so within the reality that 29 other teams are going to be fighting and clawing to do the same.

IMHO... the team needs to be built to try to win now-ish. We have a hall of fame caliber goalie who is locked up long term and doesn't have forever to have a good team built around him. If we were Buffalo or an older team, heck yes the picks are vital. But we are a perennial playoff team, so adding pieces that really strengthen and improve your team seem like the way to go. And MSL makes any team in this league a better team.

It is not just St Louis' top-end scoring, it is also his top-tier work ethic, his winning attitude, how he makes people around him better, and how all these things cannot help but rub off on everyone around him. This guy is going to ooze into the psyche's of younger players and drill into them great things for seasons to come. The kind of guy that, when Stamkos goes down long term, keeps his team winning and somehow keeps squeezing success out of himself and his teammates, and still stays atop the league scoring leaders even without Stamkos in the lineup.

St Louis is 38 and has a window of effective time, obviously. But we didn't pick up some washed up vet here. He is still, right now, one of the best scorers in the league and much better than anyone on this team. He is also probably in as good or better shape than anyone on the team.

Was this ideal? Who knows? I guess hindsight will let us know at some point. But what is a fact is that we were losing Callahan one way or the next, and even offering him 6 mil was something I felt highly troubled by. In the end, we dropped a few picks to secure one of the top scorers in the league, who is on an incredibly nice contract, with the major risk being a few picks that statistically probably don't amount to much. Our team got better. And however far we may or may not have been from true contender status, St Louis bridges that gap and brings us closer than we were without him. I'm very okay with it and I did my best to try to explain why.

Really enjoyed reading this. The reality of this team and its recent history just doesn't gel with the narrative anymore. I'd very much love the cup but I don't want to be so obsessed that I become spoiled or entitled while ignoring how difficult it is to win. I want good, enjoyable hockey and a chance once every few years. That's all that could realistically be expected with 30 teams and only one cup. I would likely be pretty disgusted if we were the Isles or how Chicago used to be. I wouldn't be happy if we were missing out every year and never had a shot. But that's not the reality of the NYR for the last 9 years so why continue to pretend it is? Other than making it easier to accept not winning it all?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What are they? Like I said anything that goes against the narrative is completely obfuscated or disregarded without merit or logic. This post affirms that but by all means go ahead and explain

Sather has had the greatest goaltender of this generation at his disposal for 9 years and counting -- hes churned out mediocre rosters with gaping holes in every one of those years. The result is what you've seen post-lockout; usually a playoff team without the ability and depth to go all the way. Im not happy with that, you seem to be.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I understand where you're coming from. But where exactly is this team falling apart any time soon? We have a really young team overall. On D: Moore (23), McD (24), Stralman and Staal (27), Klein and G (29). Are we in desperate need of D in the next 3-5 years beyond maybe needing 1 or 2 new guys? On forward: Kreider (22), Steps (23), Hags (25), Brass and Zucc (26), Pouliot and Dorsett (27), Carcillo, Boyle, Nash (29), Moore and Richards (33), MSL (38). Talbot (26) and Hank (32).

We have a pretty young team overall that is a playoff team year in, year out. You look at that and have to decide which direction to go. You cannot do ten things at once: you can't rebuild and at the same time say, we have Hank at 32, let's try to win now while he's still fairly useful. Which way do you want to go? We're not Pitt, we didn't trade away our roster and then have a lottery ball hand us a generational player on top of it. We didn't have eons of dreadful seasons and stock pile top ten picks like a few teams out there have, some of them having little to no viable success with that I might add.

At the end of the day, you have to look at what you have, decide on a direction to go with it, and do so within the reality that 29 other teams are going to be fighting and clawing to do the same.

IMHO... the team needs to be built to try to win now-ish. We have a hall of fame caliber goalie who is locked up long term and doesn't have forever to have a good team built around him. If we were Buffalo or an older team, heck yes the picks are vital. But we are a perennial playoff team, so adding pieces that really strengthen and improve your team seem like the way to go. And MSL makes any team in this league a better team.

It is not just St Louis' top-end scoring, it is also his top-tier work ethic, his winning attitude, how he makes people around him better, and how all these things cannot help but rub off on everyone around him. This guy is going to ooze into the psyche's of younger players and drill into them great things for seasons to come. The kind of guy that, when Stamkos goes down long term, keeps his team winning and somehow keeps squeezing success out of himself and his teammates, and still stays atop the league scoring leaders even without Stamkos in the lineup.

St Louis is 38 and has a window of effective time, obviously. But we didn't pick up some washed up vet here. He is still, right now, one of the best scorers in the league and much better than anyone on this team. He is also probably in as good or better shape than anyone on the team.

Was this ideal? Who knows? I guess hindsight will let us know at some point. But what is a fact is that we were losing Callahan one way or the next, and even offering him 6 mil was something I felt highly troubled by. In the end, we dropped a few picks to secure one of the top scorers in the league, who is on an incredibly nice contract, with the major risk being a few picks that statistically probably don't amount to much. Our team got better. And however far we may or may not have been from true contender status, St Louis bridges that gap and brings us closer than we were without him. I'm very okay with it and I did my best to try to explain why.

This is a good post on acquiring St. Louis, which I dont have a major problem with when looking at just that move.

My problem is everywhere else on the roster not involving RW and G.

 

[Nightshift]

You guys really think these doom and gloomers get even a sliver of excitement from a Ranger W? You see these people in all walks of life. They have to complain, nitpick about anything. This team could hoist the cup in June and you'd still see posts whining about draft picks, a questionable trade, or the age of the GM. Its what these folks do. Its in the DNA. It does make for some good comedy though. At the end of the day, it really makes you wonder why they dedicate their time to something which is so hopelessly abysmal in their eyes.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You guys really think these doom and gloomers get even a sliver of excitement from a Ranger W? You see these people in all walks of life. They have to complain, nitpick about anything. This team could hoist the cup in June and you'd still see posts whining about draft picks, a questionable trade, or the age of the GM. Its what these folks do. Its in the DNA. It does make for some good comedy though. At the end of the day, it really makes you wonder why they dedicate their time to something which is so hopelessly abysmal in their eyes.

Funny, in my experience, its these types of people that are often the most successful in life.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Sather has had the greatest goaltender of this generation at his disposal for 9 years and counting -- hes churned out mediocre rosters with gaping holes in every one of those years. The result is what you've seen post-lockout; usually a playoff team without the ability and depth to go all the way. Im not happy with that, you seem to be.

You don't seem committed to your definition of what the team has been. Is a team expected to be the NE Patriots and win the division and be a contender every year for 9 years? Is that what the fans think they are entitled to now?

Just because the team didn't go all the way doesn't mean that they couldn't have. Multiple teams with the ability to win it all don't every year. We've had a legitimate shot multiple times since 2005 and we've had multiple teams that were more than mediocre. teams which had problems but not gaping holes. Again where guys like you lose me is you emphasize some negative points to the degree that you become incorrect. But i understand it helps make it easier to rage against the man behind the curtain.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You don't seem committed to your definition of what the team has been. Is a team expected to be the NE Patriots and win the division and be a contender every year for 9 years? Is that what the fans think they are entitled to now?

Just because the team didn't go all the way doesn't mean that they couldn't have. Multiple teams with the ability to win it all don't every year. We've had a legitimate shot multiple times since 2005 and we've had multiple teams that were more than mediocre. teams which had problems but not gaping holes. Again where guys like you lose me is you emphasize some negative points to the degree that you become incorrect. But i understand it helps make it easier to rage against the man behind the curtain.

Name them. I'd love to hear you try to explain this one.

Ill give you '11-12, where the team played a style that almost killed them.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Funny, in my experience, its these types of people that are often the most successful in life.

Your experiences are such a small sample size compared to the rest of the world and the history of humanity so this is a fairly meaningless thing to say. Not to mention it seems to be made due to a large amount of bias you may have so it's veracity had to be questioned just as much as the sample size and person analyzing the results

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Your experiences are such a small sample size compared to the rest of the world and the history of humanity so this is a fairly meaningless thing to say. Not to mention it seems to be made due to a large amount of bias you may have so it's veracity had to be questioned just as much as the sample size and person analyzing the results

Thats a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Should I be referencing other people's experiences?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Name them. I'd love to hear you try to explain this one.

Ill give you '11-12, where the team played a style that almost killed them.

Team had a darn good shot at beating Buffalo in 06 and hitting the ECF. not to mention it was just a real fun year to watch. Since my criteria is watching fun, meaningful hockey I would be nothing short of entitled if I discounted it simply b/c we didn't win the cup.

Obviously we had 11-12.

We also weren't basement dwellers every year aside from those two years we were perennially in the PO's while simultaneously building a strong draft pipeline.

Now we come to this year which hey I'd hate to be wrong b/c it means losing but this is a very nicely constructed team which has no excuses for losing. Too much meaningful hockey to gel with the narrative that this has been nearly a Mickey mouse operation, a rudderless ship with no direction, a place where hockey dies.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Thats a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Should I be referencing other people's experiences?

Ironic considering that this is what I said about your previous post. Go ahead but didn't I mention small sample sizes and bias? Maybe you need spark notes for two lines of writing?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Team had a darn good shot at beating Buffalo in 06 and hitting the ECF. not to mention it was just a real fun year to watch. Since my criteria is watching fun, meaningful hockey I would be nothing short of entitled if I discounted it simply b/c we didn't win the cup.

Obviously we had 11-12.

We also weren't basement dwellers every year aside from those two years we were perennially in the PO's while simultaneously building a strong draft pipeline.

Now we come to this year which hey I'd hate to be wrong b/c it means losing but this is a very nicely constructed team which has no excuses for losing. Too much meaningful hockey to gel with the narrative.

You really believe this so theres not much help I can give you.

If they gave out championships for RW depth, solid D, and a great goalie, I guess I'd be really happy.

 

[Nightshift]

We are not the Blackhawks. There is no reason to be positive.

 

[Nightshift]

We are not built like the Bruins. No reason to take any enjoyment from the team I root for.