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

[Jersey Girl]

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

Honestly sweetie your posts are so long and drawn-out I cant' even get through them anymore. If you're not going to keep it simple and name the franchises to support your statement (which both True Blue and I did), that's fine. Just say so, and we'll stop asking.

 

[True Blue]

It's provided in a number of posts. Why would I bust my butt for your laziness?

Then cutting and pasting it should be pretty easy, no?

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?

That is what I am saying.

LA for example was not doing well for many years. Do we ignore this because they won a cup and are good now?

No, but winning the Cup counts for A LOT. As a Rangers fan, you should know that. After all, how many have you seen in your lifetime?

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?

Winning Cup counts for a lot. Being competitive in plenty of years counts for a lot. Since 2000, the Rangers have had seasons where they were not competitive. AND, let's not forget that Tampa is a friggin' expansion team and does not operate with the same unlimited budget in a big market that the Ranger do.

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.

Since 2000, the Ragners have had a couple of real bad seasons and have made some reeeeal bad decisions. How favorably can they stack up?

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.

The Caps have not won it all, but have gotten further in the playoffs than the Rangers have. They have also had more regular season success.

I can't in good conscience say that Pitts was run better. Run luckier maybe.

Sorry, results speak for themselves. You are what your record says you are. Better or luckier is not the premise. You said which franchise they compare favorably to. The answer is not even close.

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.

Since 2000, I believe that they made the playoffs more than the Rangers have. The Rangers have not been the better franchise.

What has Ottowa done to be considered better overall?

Had better years than Rangers since 2000. They do not have the 27th ranked organization when it comes to prospects.

Toronto? Carolina (1 cup but a loooot of real real bad hockey too)

LOTS of bad hockey by the Rangers since 2000. Carolina is a small market team that has been to 2 Cup Finals since 2000. How many have the Rangers been to in 70 years?

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

Dallas has seen the Cup finals more than the Rangers have since 2000. Colorado has a Cup. The teams you list have had more success than an original 6 franchise which resides in New York. Sather's checkbook permits much more than any of these. St. Louis and Colorado look like strong, young teams now. The Rangers are still stuck in mediocrity.

I'd say it's difficult to compare the NYR to Boston, NJ

Not very difficult at all. You are what your record since 2000 says you are.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Honestly sweetie your posts are so long and drawn-out I cant' even get through them anymore. If you're not going to keep it simple and name the franchises to support your statement (which both True Blue and I did), that's fine. Just say so, and we'll stop asking.

You ask me to name franchises and I do you one better. I provide reasoning for each franchise named and your excuse is "Oh now that you supplied franchises I'm going to give up b/c it's too long" Thank you for the laugh and for proving me right

 

[Jersey Girl]

You ask me to name franchises and I do you one better. I provide reasoning for each franchise named and your excuse is "Oh now that you supplied franchises I'm going to give up b/c it's too long" Thank you for the laugh and for proving me right

Even in one small paragraph, I'm confused.

Are you saying that you did provide your list of franchises? Or that you're refusing to?

 

[Megustaelhockey]

This thread has gotten too far off topic and is now closed.