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

[McRanger]

That just makes it seem the Rangers organization even fails the "blind squirrel" argument.

10 teams have won a cup since 2001.

15 teams have made it to the finals since 2001.

And a few of those teams were brand new expansion teams in 2000. Although the Rangers state in 2000 was arguably worse than an expansion team.

Using the most complimentary language possible, the Rangers were the best of the worst. Better since the cap, but somewhere between unacceptable and horrid overall.

 

[True Blue]

Using the most complimentary language possible, the Rangers were the best of the worst. Better since the cap, but somewhere between unacceptable and horrid overall.

You are right. That is the most complimentary possible language. And summarizes the mediocre state of the organization. Since the cap. Since 2000. Since 1940.

The fact that we are more than a third of the way on the way to ANOTHER 54 years is mind boggling. And not any closer to turning it around.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

How often do I watch MSG and contribute to ratings? I have no idea how to measure how much I contribute to ratings. I watch 98% of the games. Of that 98%, I DVR them because I can't make a 7PM start between working, commuting and spendinga bit of time wih my daughter before putting her to bed.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

I didn't ask you how much you contribute I asked how often. I also said earlier why I was curious about this. You're going into way more detail than I was asking for which is odd

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

That just makes it seem the Rangers organization even fails the "blind squirrel" argument.

Based on pretty much every single year since then I'd say looking at "they made the SCF once" is a very shallow way of determining greater success. Which again is my point. You dismiss how horrendous they've been to use the one single piece of data that doesn't contradict your argument. If you used the rest of their recent history how much of it would make your implication incorrect?

Not that Sather is good (Anyone actually reading would realize I've said the opposite many times) but that it hasn't been nearly as bad as people say around here. He has been good at a significant amount of things though for sure. I do think the mess inherited is downplayed and the effect of the lockout + Hank's emergence simultaneously is ignored too much around here. I could be wrong but so could you folks. Doesn't mean it's not even up for debate. There's is nothing wrong with your exaggeration and frustration on this matter I am simply challenging your notion b/c it is widely accepted and may not be completely accurate. Even saying things like "new heights of mediocrity" while reasonable may not necassarily be an accurate or truthful way to look at it.

It is easy to narrow it down to ECF appearances and higher being the only measures of success but it seems too easy. I do like the reasonability of looking at total PO appearances, wins, gp, etc as well as reg season play. But even this ignores how significant luck is especially top draft pick luck.

Again imagine a GM took over in 2007. Everything happens exactly the same since then. Would you feel as harshly about him as you do Sather? We can't ignore the beginnings but I'm not sure many of you are fairly evaluating the beginning 5 years of his tenure either. This is causing the later part of his tenure to be unfairly criticized to a much higher degree than it should be (although ultimately a firing is completely justified)

 

[True Blue]

Based on pretty much every single year since then I'd say looking at "they made the SCF once" is a very shallow way of determining greater success. Which again is my point. You dismiss how horrendous they've been to use the one single piece of data that doesn't contradict your argument. If you used the rest of their recent history how much of it would make your implication incorrect?

Look at the data that McRanger provided. And that is just since 2000. That is far more than one data point.

Not that Sather is good (Anyone actually reading would realize I've said the opposite many times) but that it hasn't been nearly as bad as people say around here.

He has not been good, but not as bad as others say. Does that make him mediocre at best? And then take into consideration that in 14 years he has been able to do anything he wants and has a big city budget to operate in. That drops him a lot.

He has been good at a significant amount of things though for sure

So he is the opposite of good, but is good at a significant amount of things? What does that mean?

. I do think the mess inherited is downplayed and the effect of the lockout + Hank's emergence simultaneously is ignored too much around here.

Whatever mess was there, he took it and created more of it. Much more.

Doesn't mean it's not even up for debate. There's is nothing wrong with your exaggeration and frustration on this matter I am simply challenging your notion b/c it is widely accepted and may not be completely accurate.

You are what your record says you are. Period. Since 2000, essentially half the league made the Cup Finals. Have the Rangers been one of them? How many playoff series victories have they had since 2000? What is their overall winning percentage in that time? Have expansion teams been more successful?

Even saying things like "new heights of mediocrity" while reasonable may not necassarily be an accurate or truthful way to look at it.

Then tell me WHAT organizations have the Rangers fared well when compared to since 2000? How many do you count?

It is easy to narrow it down to ECF appearances and higher being the only measures of success but it seems too easy.

Ok, let's lower the bar and ask about playoff series victories. How is he doing now? What about developing too-6 forwards?

Igain imagine a GM took over in 2007. Everything happens exactly the same since then.

Except that is not when he took over.

 

[Thesensation19*]

Sather has made some terrible decisions in his youth as a Ranger GM. However in the last few seasons hes done exceptionally well.

 

[Trxjw]

Sather has made some terrible decisions in his youth as a Ranger GM. However in the last few seasons hes done exceptionally well.

In his youth? He's been the Rangers GM for 14 years and was the Oilers GM for 20 years before that.

 

[BBKers]

Sather has made some terrible decisions in his youth as a Ranger GM. However in the last few seasons hes done exceptionally well.

Not resigning Cally to huge contract. GOOD
Girardi contract. OK
McD contract. GOOD
Stepan bridge contract. GOOD
Hagelin contract. GOOD
Hank contract. MEH
Signing of Allen. GOOD
Resigning Zuc for cheap. GOOD
Pouliot & D Moores signings. Looking GOOD
Prince Cams discovery & emergence. GOOD
Stralman pickup. GOOD.
Signing Pyatt. BAD
Waiving Pyatt. GOOD
Signing Asham. BAD
Letting Prust go. BAD

Nash trade. Jury still out but more & more looking BAD
Gaborik trade. GOOD
Trade for MSL. Jury is of course still out, but has a fishy smell considering what we give up
Trading for Clowe. BAD
Trading Thomas for Christ. Meh
Not trading away Kreider, Miller, Fast. GOOD
Trading Mashinter for Beach (minor trade). BAD
Missing deadline pickup of Penner for cheap. BAD
Missing waiver claim of Jussi Jokinen. BAD
Evaluating PAP. BAD

Buch & Duke in the 3rd. Looking GOOD but far too early to tell
McIllrath pick. BAD
Skjei & Nieves picks. Meh
Firing Torts. GOOD (but he shows sign of dementia how it was handled)
Hiring AV. Jury still out.

 

[haveandare]

Sather's reign has been a train wreck, plain and simple. Look at the years, and look at the number of playoff series' won. How can anyone argue that he has done a good job?

I'd argue that he's done a good job in the past 5 years. I'd argue that the team that actually exists today is a product of some shrewd moves from the front office, whoever it may have been that made them.

Making the McDonagh trade, singing Stralman off the scrap heap, signing Zucc as a free agent, singing Gaborik as a UFA, getting 100+ goals from him, then pulling off the Nash and Gaborik trades, which essentially replaced a ~30 goal scorer who's skills are fading fast with a ~30 goal scorer who is younger and isn't about to fall off the map. Losing Dubi hurt. Getting Brass was good. I'd argue that replacing Gaborik with Nash and getting extra offense from Brass was worth the loss of Dubi, or is at least arguably worth it. Singing an undrafted Talbot was a pretty good move in hindsight too. Drafted Kreider, who has been on something like an NHL first line all year and is putting up good numbers. Drafted Stepan, who is about to break his career high for assists this year. Drafted Miller, who has looked good in limited NHL time and is dominant at the AHL level now. Traded Werek I believe for Lindberg, who isn't a huge asset, but who is certainly a huge upgrade from the Werek and actually has a chance at the NHL. This front office also just used two third round picks to get an 18 year old who is playing well (historically well for his age) in the KHL with other adults, and Duclair, who is absolutely killing his junior league.

Are those all huge moves? No. Are some of them? Absolutely. Some, like drafting NHL players with early picks, are results of luck and/or are just what you expect from an NHL franchise, but given the way that this front office is crapped on, I guess you need to point out that they can just do what is expected of them.

I think Sather sucked real, real hard for a while, but I also think that he, maybe due to the influence of Gorton and others, has made some real good moves in the past few years along with very few bad moves. I'd argue that the Clowe trade was the worst thing in a while. There were other mistakes, but many were extremely minor.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Not resigning Cally to huge contract. GOOD
Girardi contract. OK
McD contract. GOOD
Stepan bridge contract. GOOD
Hagelin contract. GOOD
Hank contract. MEH
Signing of Allen. GOOD
Resigning Zuc for cheap. GOOD
Pouliot & D Moores signings. Looking GOOD
Prince Cams discovery & emergence. GOOD
Stralman pickup. GOOD.
Signing Pyatt. BAD
Waiving Pyatt. GOOD
Signing Asham. BAD
Letting Prust go. BAD

Nash trade. Jury still out but more & more looking BAD
Gaborik trade. GOOD
Trade for MSL. Jury is of course still out, but has a fishy smell considering what we give up
Trading for Clowe. BAD
Trading Thomas for Christ. Meh
Not trading away Kreider, Miller, Fast. GOOD
Trading Mashinter for Beach (minor trade). BAD
Missing deadline pickup of Penner for cheap. BAD
Missing waiver claim of Jussi Jokinen. BAD
Evaluating PAP. BAD

Buch & Duke in the 3rd. Looking GOOD but far too early to tell
McIllrath pick. BAD
Skjei & Nieves picks. Meh
Firing Torts. GOOD (but he shows sign of dementia how it was handled)
Hiring AV. Jury still out.

Our prospect pool is rated 27 out of 30 on this website. BAD
This is before the effect of Sather trading away so many first and second round draft picks in consecutive years. POTENTIALLY HORRIBLE GOING FORWARD

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Go back and look at the box scores of all the games the Rangers played after the deadline deals of 1994.

Talk about impact trades. The day before the trades were made, they were destroyed on national TV by Keenan's old team and the Devils were only a few points behind them with a big home-and-home upcoming.

They never looked back.

By my count, Sather had three deadlines where he did well: 2007, 2009 and 2013. All those deals did were solidify a lower playoff seed.

Sather has had 14 years to build a Cup contender. Fourteen years to build a foundation, and solidify the foundation with support players. It took the best single-season goaltending from any Rangers goalie in 90 years for them to scratch, claw and crawl their way to a CF.

Fourteen years. One CF. And in that CF, they were outplayed in every aspect by an older, inferior, slower team.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Look at the data that McRanger provided. And that is just since 2000. That is far more than one data point.

He has not been good, but not as bad as others say. Does that make him mediocre at best? And then take into consideration that in 14 years he has been able to do anything he wants and has a big city budget to operate in. That drops him a lot.

So he is the opposite of good, but is good at a significant amount of things? What does that mean?

Whatever mess was there, he took it and created more of it. Much more.

You are what your record says you are. Period. Since 2000, essentially half the league made the Cup Finals. Have the Rangers been one of them? How many playoff series victories have they had since 2000? What is their overall winning percentage in that time? Have expansion teams been more successful?

Then tell me WHAT organizations have the Rangers fared well when compared to since 2000? How many do you count?

Ok, let's lower the bar and ask about playoff series victories. How is he doing now? What about developing too-6 forwards?

Except that is not when he took over.

I wasn't referring to McRanger when I said that I was referring to your comment. I did separately address McRanger's stats by saying that they were more than reasonable but still leave out a lot of things that definitely should influence the evaluation. What was really lacking among many things were the identities of the various teams so we can look at each of their situations independently. (this is true for SOME of his stats not all) For instance we can look at Edm and say yea they went to the SCF but I don't think anyone should be saying they've been more successful overall when you look at all of these years.

Mediocre at best? It depends. Does hearsay cause reality to change? If one person says he's been great and 100 say he's horrible but the reality is he was above mediocre but certainly not good enough for a 14 year run than the reality doesn't change. PS this doesn't mean that this IS the reality it's just an example

Looking at 2000-2004 vs 2005-2014 I'd say he didn't really create more of a mess when you look at it overall. If he did create more of a mess than what he inherited then he's done one helluva cleanup job. B/c he inherited a nightmare

The record argument has been debated before why continue to repeat it as if you're the first to bring it up? It looks like an agree to disagree but hot damn dude I think 5 or 6 times bringing up the same exact point (multiple people) is kind of enough. i addressed that argument the exact same way multiple times so refer to those posts. In order to properly evaluate a franchise we'd need to take into account such a large amount of things besides wins and losses that I'd have to have no life for quite awhile to properly assess it and it just isn't that important. I'd probably need a committee of unbiased folks to make sure there is a consensus reached when evaluating the data, I'd need to assign a weight to the importance of each individual factor. We'd have to make sure to take into account everything that needs to be taken into account (For instance we can look at regular season success but ignore the PO's. We may unfairly assign too much weight to the presidents trophy or winning the division, we may accidentally ignore freak injuries or draft pick luck, we can ignore that teams do poorly right when all time talent is available and other teams get screwed by weak drafts. List can go on). All we can do here on this board is give informed opinions based on, results, stats, and a plethora of intangible factors including but not limited to luck. (FA luck, draft luck, timing of the lockouts luck, unpredictable player performance dropoff, other teams being the beneficiary of unreasonably high luck, etc) a bit of bias will factor into deciding how much each thing did or didn't contribute. But that's where the fun of this convo comes into play. So many debatable intangible factors exist.

using ONLY the CF stat has been addressed. McRanger brought up stats that looked at CF, ECF, PO and I already said it was much more reasonable to look at the scope through those stats which is why I said that mediocre is a reasonable conclusion. But for the sake of fun I did also challenge that notion based on factors that cannot be controlled.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

In his youth? He's been the Rangers GM for 14 years and was the Oilers GM for 20 years before that.

I hope he meant the early part of his tenure or maybe it was a bit of a joke b/c of how long he's been here

 

[True Blue]

I wasn't referring to McRanger when I said that I was referring to your comment.

Why is it so difficult for you to simply support your conclusion by pointing out which franchises, since 2000, by your estimation do the Rangers compare favorably with? Which ones?

 

[Jersey Girl]

Why is it so difficult for you to simply support your conclusion by pointing out which franchises, since 2000, by your estimation do the Rangers compare favorably with? Which ones?

He won't answer. He's more interested in the semantics of discussing what 'compares favorably' and 'mediocre' means.

And he hides behind rhetoric in statements like ' I'd probably need a committee of unbiased folks to make sure there is a consensus reached when evaluating the data'. and 'Does hearsay cause reality to change?' instead of actually having a direct conversation that does not involve a wall of words on his side. He's using all those paragraphs to deflect the fact that he won't answer a direct question.

 

[True Blue]

He won't answer. He's more interested in the semantics of discussing what 'compares favorably' and 'mediocre' means.

And he hides behind rhetoric in statements like ' I'd probably need a committee of unbiased folks to make sure there is a consensus reached when evaluating the data'. and 'Does hearsay cause reality to change?' instead of actually having a direct conversation that does not involve a wall of words on his side. He's using all those paragraphs to deflect the fact that he won't answer a direct question.

You are right. But not sure what is so hard. Even back tracking to "compares favorably" implies that since 2000, the organization has been one of the better ones in the league. Or at least the way that I read it. As such, that captures the majority of franchises in the NHL. Maybe even an easier way would be to name those franchises that they unfavorably compare to. Which is the minority. Should be a quick exercise.

Pratling on and on without actually naming one, is exactly what the scenario that you describe.

But again, this is about more than just Sather. It is not about one trade in which picks are added to try to get a 38 year old. It is about the fact that there has been a lack of vision for a long, long time. MSG continues to sell out, so cash is not the problem. Sather, we all know, is a part of the problem, not the solution. But he is the latest care taker. Turns out that being a lion has not fared well for him. Maybe he would have had more success as a mouse.

But by hook or by crook, we are no closer to being a Cup contender and now have a bare cupboard as well.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Why is it so difficult for you to simply support your conclusion by pointing out which franchises, since 2000, by your estimation do the Rangers compare favorably with? Which ones?

Probably for the same reasons you refuse to, or can't, point out which ones were better. I have mentioned quite a few franchises in comparison. So have you but neither of us have mentioned all. In fact with mcRangers data I asked for all the franchises and their order and never received it. Why are you ignoring that i made that request in order to lobby irrational accusations which distract from the debate? And in the ones you mentioned I expressed why I felt your evaluation was shallow and possibly incorrect as a result. This comment makes it seem like you're pretending that this did not happen or did not realize that this happened. Also as I've said multiple times I don't have one solid conclusion about where exactly this team should be ranked. My only conclusion was that it shouldn't be regarded as poorly as it has been. I have supported that particular conclusion many times

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

He won't answer. He's more interested in the semantics of discussing what 'compares favorably' and 'mediocre' means.

And he hides behind rhetoric in statements like ' I'd probably need a committee of unbiased folks to make sure there is a consensus reached when evaluating the data'. and 'Does hearsay cause reality to change?' instead of actually having a direct conversation that does not involve a wall of words on his side. He's using all those paragraphs to deflect the fact that he won't answer a direct question.

The question requires an answer based almost wholly on semantics no matter which side is giving the answer. Do you truly not understand this despite having it explained multiple times? If you disagree then why is it that when I explained why it is based on semantics previously did you not prove otherwise? You may disagree with me that it is not based on semantics but you did not do anything to discuss this. You instead are acting as if I never brought up the topic. Too often now you have insisted on avoiding the topic/my addressing of a topic and you instead take the opportunity to jump in to make snide or insulting comments and incorrect generalizations. This has happened both before and after you expressed a desire to do the opposite

 

[Jersey Girl]

The question requires an answer based almost wholly on semantics no matter which side is giving the answer. Do you truly not understand this despite having it explained multiple times? If you disagree then why is it that when I explained why it is based on semantics previously did you not prove otherwise? You may disagree with me that it is not based on semantics but you did not do anything to discuss this. You instead are acting as if I never brought up the topic. Too often now you have insisted on avoiding the topic/my addressing of a topic and you instead take the opportunity to jump in to make snide or insulting comments and incorrect generalizations. This has happened both before and after you expressed a desire to do the opposite

Let's drop all the backfill.

Can you please just state which franchises the Rangers compare favorably to during Sather's tenure?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Let's drop all the backfill.

Can you please just state which franchises the Rangers compare favorably to during Sather's tenure?

This was just answered and answered multiple times. If you feel my answers have been lacking I have explained why they might be a little bit incomplete. Just as your answers have been incomplete. Until you guys supply a complete answer how can I do the same? More importantly why would I? Whether you choose to accept that answer and the answers that have been repeatedly given is up to you.

I'm sure you'll continue to try and distract from everything further by going on a tangent about how I can't deliver ANYTHING while ignoring the fact I've delivered a substantial amount previously and all throughout this convo. You'll also continue to ignore that you guys have given no more information to defend your stance. And yet you'll continue to represent it like somehow I'm the only one lacking a complete answer because that makes you look like you know better by default.

 

[Jersey Girl]

This was just answered and answered multiple times. If you feel my answers have been lacking I have explained why they might be a little bit incomplete. Just as your answers have been incomplete. Until you guys supply a complete answer how can I do the same? More importantly why would I? Whether you choose to accept that answer and the answers that have been repeatedly given is up to you.

I'm sure you'll continue to try and distract from everything further by going on a tangent about how I can't deliver ANYTHING while ignoring the fact I've delivered a substantial amount previously and all throughout this convo. You'll also continue to ignore that you guys have given no more information to defend your stance. And yet you'll continue to represent it like somehow I'm the only one lacking a complete answer because that makes you look like you know better by default.

You made the statement that during Sather's tenure his record 'compares favorably' to most other franchises. We're asking you to support that statement by saying which other franchises. Please name them, as you never have.

Even though I didn't make the statement I will name franchises, so hopefully you'll do the same. Ready? Here goes:

During Sather's tenure the Rangers rank 15th in playoff series wins. So Sather's Rangers compare favorably to the 15 teams behind us in playoff series wins, and unfavorably to the 14 teams in front of us in playoff series wins. You can look up the names of the franchises if you like. That's my opinion.

Your turn. Name the franchises you think we compare favorably to during Sather's tenure.

Go.

 

[True Blue]

This was just answered and answered multiple times.

If that is the case, then simply cut and paste the responses which listed the franchises to which Rangers favorably compare to.

You made the claim. You produce the teams. Stop with the word play. Simply list the franchises.

If you refuse so, fine. We can chalk it up to you not being able to produce them and we can move on to continuing with what was the original point of this thread.

Here is who I think they compare favorably to: 1. Islander 2. Florida Panthers 3. Columbus 4. Phoenix. 5. Calgary 5. Minnesota 6. Buffalo 7. Edmonton 8. Winnipeg 9. Nashville

Some of those teams have made it further than the Rangers have in the playoffs. You will probably want to add in a team like Carolina, but I will not. One Cup win and another Cup appearance. Like it or not, that is more than the Rangers have done in a very, very long time.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You made the statement that during Sather's tenure his record 'compares favorably' to most other franchises. We're asking you to support that statement by saying which other franchises. Please name them, as you never have.

Even though I didn't make the statement I will name franchises, so hopefully you'll do the same. Ready? Here goes:

During Sather's tenure the Rangers rank 15th in playoff series wins. So Sather's Rangers compare favorably to the 15 teams behind us in playoff series wins, and unfavorably to the 14 teams in front of us in playoff series wins. You can look up the names of the franchises if you like. That's my opinion.

Your turn. Name the franchises you think we compare favorably to during Sather's tenure.

Go.

Completely false statement in bold. As I said if you want more of an answer that's fine but I have provided or discussed several examples already AND talked about McR's stats. Addressing those stats would certainly fall into the category of discussing this. i asked for the identities of the franchises in each of the stats McR listed and no one has brought them to light yet.

You brought up McRangers stat. One of the stats actually (so in essence McRanger did what you just did only way better). I addressed that post with all of his stats. So please go back and reference those posts.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Completely false statement in bold. As I said if you want more of an answer that's fine but I have provided more than enough based on severeal examples already.

Did you name the franchises?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

If that is the case, then simply cut and paste the responses which listed the franchises to which Rangers favorably compare to.

You made the claim. You produce the teams. Stop with the word play. Simply list the franchises.

If you refuse so, fine. We can chalk it up to you not being able to produce them and we can move on to continuing with what was the original point of this thread.

Here is who I think they compare favorably to: 1. Islander 2. Florida Panthers 3. Columbus 4. Phoenix. 5. Calgary 5. Minnesota 6. Buffalo 7. Edmonton 8. Winnipeg 9. Nashville

Some of those teams have made it further than the Rangers have in the playoffs. You will probably want to add in a team like Carolina, but I will not. One Cup win and another Cup appearance. Like it or not, that is more than the Rangers have done in a very, very long time.

It's provided in a number of posts. Why would I bust my butt for your laziness? You made your own claims and if you choose you can bring up the teams as well.

My point has always been that many of you are way too negative about the NYR. You have now given me something more exact in this regard. Obviously you named 9 out of 30 teams. We know who the other 20 are. Just to clarify are you saying that all 20 of those teams have been run better to the point where the NYR don't even compare favorably? If so than this would certainly support my argument that you are looking too harshly at things. You may disagree but I see no reason why the NYR wouldn't be able to compare to teams that have won the cup once or made the ECF/SCF once (or multiple times) but also spent some time being bad teams. LA for example was not doing well for many years. Do we ignore this because they won a cup and are good now? TB won a cup in 04 (Sather was here obviously) but have spent years in the basement until recently where they are a borderline PO team. Does the one cup win trump all the years of terrible hockey and put them so far above the NYR that they can't even compare?

Montreal had a 1 seed (and lost in the EQF I think). So did the NYR (Scraped barely to the ECF). Montreal has also had a couple of real bad seasons and have made some reeeaaal bad decisions.

If the NYR are considered as a team that hasn't won squat then Washington hasn't won squat. They've had some better Regular season success overall I think but we've gone back and forth whipping each others ***** in the PO's.

Teams the NYR can't compare favorably to at all would be a shorter list imo. Boston (They had a terrible season or two in there but the multiple cups are too much)

Pitt imo is maybe the oddest one. I can't fault Sather for not winning the Crosby lotto. In fact that was THE year we were primed to tank but the lockout happens. I don't think hank was ready in 04 and we had a wasteland of a roster (arguably still due to Smith as much as Sather). But we get deprived of our chance to tank, Pitt (already loaded with top guys) wins the lotto (literally) and our chance to land top picks based on losing and luck was gone. I can't in good conscience say that Pitts was run better. Run luckier maybe.

Philly made the SCF. Woop-di-doo they've also been run into the ground and had some real bad seasons too at separate times.

What has Ottowa done to be considered better overall? Toronto? Carolina (1 cup but a loooot of real real bad hockey too)
St. louis and Colorado have been basement dwellers for years while the NYR were relevant and playing in the PO's, Dallas, SJ, Vancouver,? All teams with varying degrees of Regular season success but not much more to show than the NYR in the end

Many teams have been atrocious in their recent histories. Then there is a fairly large clump of teams that have been run about the same with a little bit of luck separating them here and there.

I'd say it's difficult to compare the NYR to Boston, NJ (although how long can we look back to pre lockout cups. losing to them in the ECF gives them a bump but getting caught with a cap circumventing contract, losing Kovie, having a few real bad seasons lately starts to even it up a bit.) because they have multiple cups and good seasons so I have to put them ahead

We've had such a lengthy period of at LEAST making the PO's without falling into the pits. A couple of those seasons we were better than JUST making the Po's. All these other teams have these times where the team was irrelevant for a season+ which starts to even out even if a cup win is in there. You may feel the cup trumps all. That's fine. I disagree whena team has to suffer through 2 or 3 seasons of being totally irrelevant. If the NYR win a cup in the next few years I'd have to say they are among the absolute most well run franchises since 2005 with very few equals. Now they have not won the cup so they have MANY MANY equals. But they aren't at the bottom of the success list and depending on perspective there may not be too many who are clearly ahead of them in terms of overall success