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

[stan the caddy]

My only concern with that team was whether or not they were going to win the President's Trophy. To say this team right now is better than one...is this Earth? Where am I?

'11-12: Lucky team
'13-14: Unlucky

Is that right?

Pitt would have won the division by 10 points that year if the best player in the world hadn't missed 60 games. Boston had a down year, a terrible start, and were ultimately bounced by Washington in the first round. That wasn't lucky?

 

[OverTheCap]

Yea, but it's all set up by having Kane and Toews to build around. You don't have to pay a premium to obtain a star in a trade when you already have two. Same goes for free agency.

In terms of building a team, the Rangers are actually quite comparable to Chicago. They've built a quality defensive core, they have a good goalie, etc. The major difference is that the Rangers didn't have the opportunity to draft two franchise players, instead they have to trade for them.

I think the difference between the two franchises goes beyond the Rangers not having Toews and Kane. For example, the Blackhawks' bottom 6 is entirely homegrown, with the exception of when Regin plays on the 3rd line, while our only homegrown player in the bottom 6 is D. Moore, and occasionally Miller when there is an injury. There's a stark contrast in organizational philosophy here - the Blackhawks are able to fill these roles from within while the Rangers are forced to seek outside the organization. Even if we don't have the opportunity to draft players like Toews and Kane, the Rangers should at least be capable of filling the holes in the bottom 6 internally. It gets too expensive to have to plug these holes via FA.

 

[stan the caddy]

I think they can. I also think that any one of those teams can knock the Rangers off.

So, to get back to your original question, yes, I'd still have doubts about getting to the finals.

Yea, they can lose to those teams, just like they lost to the Devils in 11.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I laughed thinking about when one announcer celebrated Wirtz's death as the only way to get meaningful hockey back to Chicago. I'm syure quite a few people on here feel the same about Sather. Of course we've had meaningful hockey but for many manchildren on HF if a team doesn't win a cup then it sucks. This place isn't so much a place to admire hockey as it is a sounding board for men to ***** and moan about the accomplishments we take no part in of other men. Including me I've kvetched about the Big Brich too much for one lifetime

How dare you? I'm serious, we can say a lot of nonsense, ***** back and forth but laughing when an announcer laughed thinking about Wirtz death because it brought meaningful hockey back to Chicago. Then you say you are quite sure the some people would feel the same way when Sather dies. we are talking about a hockey team. Take a step off the ledge for a second. Speak for yourself but don't ever assume that other fans are as morbid as you. Grow up. I hate Sather as much as the next guy but I don't take any pleasure in someone dying. You laughed when an announcer laughed, I call ******** on that ever happening. Prove it. You know why it didn't happen. Because the guy would never work again. I have never called anybody a liar on this board but until you prove that accusation, I'm calling you a liar. Also, name the announcer. name the guy. Don't guess because I'm writing whoever you name so he can decide if what you wrote is slander.



Shame on you....

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yea, they can lose to those teams, just like they lost to the Devils in 11.

Right, or Montreal in 1986.

Are we going somewhere with this?

 

[The Gloaming]

I'm not talking about the Islanders here. Getting "quality" players is the easy part. Even Glen Sather can build a team full of quality players, getting star players is the hard part.

I don't think you and I have the same definition of "quality." The hawks have guys like Hossa and Sharp and Keith. Those are all lower tiered stars, with Keith being one of the best defensemen in the league. It's not just Toews and Kane.

 

[aufheben]

Pitt would have won the division by 10 points that year if the best player in the world hadn't missed 60 games. Boston had a down year, a terrible start, and were ultimately bounced by Washington in the first round. That wasn't lucky?

Is this based on...anything? We still would have won 51 games. I just think it's a riot that people discredit that team as being "lucky", and credit this team with being "unlucky"; not only that, but it seems like people are doing it for no other reason than because they like AV's style of play more.

zZzZz

 

[McRanger]

Is this based on...anything? We still would have won 51 games. I just think it's a riot that people discredit that team as being "lucky", and credit this team with being "unlucky"; not only that, but it seems like people are doing it for no other reason than because they like AV's style of play more.

I think he is guessing that 60 more games of Crosby would have gotten Pitt 2 more points in the standings.

But who knows? Maybe having Crosby knocks the Rangers down to the 4th seed and they get bounced in the first round. Or maybe having Crosby makes the Pens worse. Maybe the Rangers don't go 2-4 against the Pens and win the Presidents Trophy. Maybe, galvanized by that accomplishment the Rangers beat the Devils and win the cup.

It's impossible to know.

 

[stan the caddy]

Is this based on...anything? We still would have won 51 games. I just think it's a riot that people discredit that team as being "lucky", and credit this team with being "unlucky"; not only that, but it seems like people are doing it for no other reason than because they like AV's style of play more.

I don't even like AV's style more. Go back to and look at the Tortorella threads, I was easily one of his biggest defenders. I thought him being fired was a sham.

I'm not blind to reality. The whole Crosby concussion saga and Boston's SC hangover opened the door for everything that year.

 

[True Blue]

you would drop off only one team which would be colorado. We would be tied or better than everybody else. And we would still have more cup appearances than any of those teams.

so thanks for playing

Dallas Stars :1991, 1999, 2000
Calgary Flames: 1986, 1989, 2004
St. Louis Blues: Not since 1970
Vancouver Canucks : 1982, 1994, 2011
Colorado Avalanche: 1996, 2001
Anaheim Ducks: 2003, 2007
Los Angeles Kings: 1993, 2012
Carolina Hurricanes: 2002, 2006
Buffalo Sabres: 1975, 1999
Florida Panthers: 1996
Ottawa Senators: 2007
Washington Capitals : 1998
Tampa Bay Lightning: 2004

additionally here are the teams that have not even made it to the SC finals in that time period

Colombus
Minnesota
Nashville
Winnipeg/Atlanta
San Jose
Phoenix/Winnipeg

Speaking of playing, let's just put a little historical prespective on it. You are still beating your chest? Let's just round it to 1980 for ease. 1 Cup appearance. The same amount as Florida and Tampa. And they have not even been around since 1980. Which team is built more for success, San Jose or the Rangers? Which franchise has had more success in 15 years?

Ohhh....we are better than Phoenix. Whoopty damn doo.

 

[stan the caddy]

I don't think you and I have the same definition of "quality." The hawks have guys like Hossa and Sharp and Keith. Those are all lower tiered stars, with Keith being one of the best defensemen in the league. It's not just Toews and Kane.

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

 

[jskramer83]

Couldnt agree more.

In 1994, Neil Smith had a 54 year drought hanging over his head. He also had a core involving Messier, Leetch, Graves, and Richter. THATS a reason to go for it.

Nowadays, the fanbase finds any friggin excuse to beat the drum of going for it all right now. I love Lundqvist, but he cant be the reason this team haphazardly throws rosters together in a futile attempt to win immediately. It hasn't worked, and it wont work. The rest of the roster just isn't strong enough for it.

This was more about the 54 year drought as those players you mentioned above were no where near being considered old.

Not to mention besides Leetch and Richter that whole core was acquired through free agency and trading young assets from 88-91. Very few players from that team were home grown.

When you have an opportunity to go for it all you take it. If a player comes available who can likely make you a contender over the next couple years you make that move. If you keep waiting for the future you will be bound in mediocrity, unless you are ready to just trade the whole team away and live with being at the bottom of the NHL for the next few years as Pittsburgh and Chicago did years back.

In 1993/94:

Brian Leetch was 25

Adam Graves was 25

Mike Richter was 26

Mark Messier was 32

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Agree.

**** Sather. **** Dolan.

Sick of them. Sick sick sick.

And then the **** show that is Rangers hockey comes to a dissapointing, utter failure of an end each season...I get to crawl to the Mets...who are run by equally as futile morons.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This was more about the 54 year drought as those players you mentioned above were no where near being considered old.

Not to mention besides Leetch and Richter that whole core was acquired through free agency and trading young assets from 88-91. Very few players from that team were home grown.

When you have an opportunity to go for it all you take it. If a player comes available who can likely make you a contender over the next couple years you make that move. If you keep waiting for the future you will be bound in mediocrity, unless you are ready to just trade the whole team away and live with being at the bottom of the NHL for the next few years as Pittsburgh and Chicago did years back.

In 1993/94:

Brian Leetch was 25

Adam Graves was 25

Mike Richter was 26

Mark Messier was 32

I dont care how old they were. The bolded part is the most important piece. These were cornerstone players, covering all positions, that presented the opportunity to go for it.

This team doesn't have that, but its not stopping the organization from pretending the opportunity is there.

 

[Ruggs225]

Is this based on...anything? We still would have won 51 games. I just think it's a riot that people discredit that team as being "lucky", and credit this team with being "unlucky"; not only that, but it seems like people are doing it for no other reason than because they like AV's style of play more.

zZzZz

They didn't luck into those 51 wins. They played a very gritty, and very boring style of hockey. They did earn all of those wins.

The big difference I see that this team will not win 51 games and that team did is Hank. That year he was absolutely sensational and put on a clinic. This year he has been above average but hasn't made as many of those key saves as he did that year.

If that hank was put on this year's team I think we win more than 51 games. This team has more skill, controls the puck more and gets much better opportunities to score.

For some reason it seems that Hank just isn't good this year on breakaways, penalty shots, shootouts which were a bread and butter that year.

 

[CostaTheCrazyGreek]

That's why I REFUSE to give this team any money. The Rangers can go 0-82 as long as there are 41 "paid" sellouts at MSG. There is no accountability or incentive to win. So all you "paying customers" I hope you enjoy losing or at best mediocrity.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They didn't luck into those 51 wins. They played a very gritty, and very boring style of hockey. They did earn all of those wins.

The big difference I see that this team will not win 51 games and that team did is Hank. That year he was absolutely sensational and put on a clinic. This year he has been above average but hasn't made as many of those key saves as he did that year.

If that hank was put on this year's team I think we win more than 51 games. This team has more skill, controls the puck more and gets much better opportunities to score.

For some reason it seems that Hank just isn't good this year on breakaways, penalty shots, shootouts which were a bread and butter that year.

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.

 

[aufheben]

I'm sure the shot blocking machines in a zone defense system had nothing to with Hank's career year. It wasn't all Hank then, and it's not all Hank now.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

I dont care how old they were. The bolded part is the most important piece. These were cornerstone players, covering all positions, that presented the opportunity to go for it.

This team doesn't have that, but its not stopping the organization from pretending the opportunity is there.

Not to mention: Leetch (Hall of Fame offensive defenseman), Messier (Hall of Fame #1 center and leader), Graves (tough as nails and can score consistently), Richter (borderline Hall of Fame big game goaltender).

Where on our current roster do those parts exist? I don't see them.

Nash? Lazy, fat, out of shape lump.
St. Louis? Great guy, old.
Lundqvist? Needs to get over his endorsements and distractions and focus on winning. When he is focused he is the best in the game.
Richards? Slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww

This roster is so full of flaws, i can not fathom how upper management is so out of touch with reality.

 

[Thirty One]

I'm sure the shot blocking machines in a zone defense system had nothing to with Hank's career year. It wasn't all Hank then, and it's not all Hank now.

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

 

[jskramer83]

I dont care how old they were. The bolded part is the most important piece. These were cornerstone players, covering all positions, that presented the opportunity to go for it.

This team doesn't have that, but its not stopping the organization from pretending the opportunity is there.

Do you think that is what people were saying prior to the 93 - 94 season? Hell the year before the Rangers came in last place with that core.

SI's hockey preview had the Islanders winning the division. It just takes one addition sometimes to turn that around.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Not to mention: Leetch (Hall of Fame offensive defenseman), Messier (Hall of Fame #1 center and leader), Graves (tough as nails and can score consistently), Richter (borderline Hall of Fame big game goaltender).

Where on our current roster do those parts exist? I don't see them.

Nash? Lazy, fat, out of shape lump.
St. Louis? Great guy, old.
Lundqvist? Needs to get over his endorsements and distractions and focus on winning. When he is focused he is the best in the game.
Richards? Slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww

This roster is so full of flaws, i can not fathom how upper management is so out of touch with reality.

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.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I dont care how old they were. The bolded part is the most important piece. These were cornerstone players, covering all positions, that presented the opportunity to go for it.

This team doesn't have that, but its not stopping the organization from pretending the opportunity is there.

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), Roman Oksiuta to a add important pieces.

 

[Ruggs225]

Dallas Stars :1991, 1999, 2000
Calgary Flames: 1986, 1989, 2004
St. Louis Blues: Not since 1970
Vancouver Canucks : 1982, 1994, 2011
Colorado Avalanche: 1996, 2001
Anaheim Ducks: 2003, 2007
Los Angeles Kings: 1993, 2012
Carolina Hurricanes: 2002, 2006
Buffalo Sabres: 1975, 1999
Florida Panthers: 1996
Ottawa Senators: 2007
Washington Capitals : 1998
Tampa Bay Lightning: 2004

additionally here are the teams that have not even made it to the SC finals in that time period

Colombus
Minnesota
Nashville
Winnipeg/Atlanta
San Jose
Phoenix/Winnipeg

Speaking of playing, let's just put a little historical prespective on it. You are still beating your chest? Let's just round it to 1980 for ease. 1 Cup appearance. The same amount as Florida and Tampa. And they have not even been around since 1980. Which team is built more for success, San Jose or the Rangers? Which franchise has had more success in 15 years?

Ohhh....we are better than Phoenix. Whoopty damn doo.

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


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.

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.

Can we be better yes, can we be worse definitely.

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.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

No grit.
No size.
No tough forecheck.
No tough board play.
No real #1 center.
No real offensive defenseman.
No accountability from the coach or the players.
Country club.
Terrible contracts.
No sense of urgency.
No intensity.

Stanley, here we come!