Can you explain your first sentence?
I haven't seen one person tell me, using any type of logic or statistic, why we are not "legitimate" contenders.
1) A playoff contender is 1/16 teams. 14 teams are eliminated. All 16 teams have a chance, no matter how small - meaning that the argument of "anything can happen" is improbable - not impossible.
2) We have a balanced offense. Best 4th line we've had in years. All 3 of our lines apply pressure and have offensive potential. In fact, this is the most balanced offense we've had in years too. We have like 10 players in double digits in terms of goals already.
3) We have a dominant and balanced defense. A great shutdown top defensive pairing. A 2nd defensive pairing that is debatably playing as well as our first pairing. A 3rd pairing that is definitely now amongst the best in the league - for a 3rd pairing. They're only getting stronger as the year goes along. That's the trend you want to see as you get closer to the playoffs.
4) We have a top 3 goalie (debatably #1) who is also dominating and improving as the season goes on. Many years, he'd single-handedly take us into the 2nd round by himself.
You telling me we're not legitimate based on a gut feeling or what you think isn't convincing me.
We've been pretty consistent these last 2.5 months. We're trending upwards. PK and PP are both in the top 10.
I'm sorry, but we've been through this round and round, and then suddenly we hit the Olympic break and mysteriously you're back to square one, going through the same arguments and asking us for the same justifications over and over. It's getting a little frustrating.
The goal is to build a consistent, perpetual contender. Contender means odds-on favorite. One of the 3-4 teams that OTHER teams talk about not wanting to have to go through to get the Cup, in the way we all talk about Boston and Pittsburgh and whichever of the Western Conf. powerhouses makes it to the finals.
Anyone else is relying on the fallacious old saw that "anything can happen" in the playoffs. This saying only applies in football where you have to win at most four games - and, in fact, the NHL playoffs are specifically designed to defeat this phenomenon, because they require you to play consistently superior hockey over an extended stretch of 16-28 games, virtually eliminating the chance to "get lucky" and beat better teams.
I believe we are not a contender based on our roster construction. We are WAY too weak down the middle and lacking offense from the blue line that I think we need. I am pleased that we appear to be a second tier team, but propping up even a second tier team by trading away assets is fool's gold. You should always build towards that true contender status until you get there. THEN you can look at win-now deals. Anything else is actually working against the best interest of the team because it's sacrificing assets that could help you get to true contender status in order to boost your 2% chance to 2.5%.
Of course there is no
statistic I can give you, no proof, because I can't predict the future and having Nostradamus come here and tell you for a fact that the Rangers will lose in 6 in the 2nd round to Pittsburg on a goal by Neal appears to be the only "proof" you would accept. This is precisely the mindset of "anything can happen". I look at our roster, see holes, don't think we can stack up and think we should therefore not make any deals that sacrifice futures for a one-time run that I believe to be ill-fated.
Does this make me a bad fan? No. It makes me a realistic one. Once the trading deadline passes and all that's left is playing the games, I'll be rooting for this team to win every single one. But when it comes to talking deals before the deadline (and then again after the season), any trade that doesn't improve the team long-term is a mistake and, in fact, counterproductive to what should be the long-term goal: building a contender.
