Looks at where San Jose is in the standings. Look at the Rangers. Look at the conference they are in. Look at the Rangers. Look at the division, look at the Rangers.
The Sharks have remained consistently competitive for as long as they guys have been there together. No they haven't won ****, but guess what only one team can win a year. I would rather have a team who you know is making the playoffs every year CONVINCINGLY and not winning the Cup, then a team who MIGHT make the playoffs every year and has almost no shot of winning the Cup.
Also, the Sharks aren't the greatest example for someone to argue with, but they're still in a better place than the Rangers. Only the past two seasons have they struggled a bit. They re signed those played because they feel like they have a good core now and those two players help a.) develop that core, and b.) give them a chance to win a Cup.
Do Callahan and Girardi have the same effect? On the former, yes they are good role models and have experience. On the latter? No. The latter is more important when considering their upcoming contracts.
My point is that many people boil the Rangers recent history down to "No cups? Failure" while they praise other teams who also have no cups. That's an absurd metric. The one you're using, place in standings, how far they get in the playoffs, etc. are real useful metrics. If that's the argument, I can't disagree. But it's not.
Also, very, very few teams would be able to turnover a good bit of the roster along with the coach and playing style and then just rise up to the top of the league immediately. We're in a transition phase, and the Sharks aren't.
To say they might win a cup and the Rangers won't is based on little more than liking the Sharks because they aren't the Rangers. They've done very little to deserve the benefit of the doubt in the post season, much like the Rangers.
I'd completely disagree that G and Callahan don't give the team a chance to win. Of course, that depends on what they'd be replaced with. Being replaced with picks, the team would very obviously have a better chance of winning with them than they would winning with players who aren't even statistically sure things to make the league, let alone become first pairing d-men and second line wingers who do everything.
As for the long term, the idea seems to be to get picks, suck for a while, and hope that those picks pay off. First of all, if we're trading for those picks, our sucking doesn't guarantee that they're good. Secondly, the team can do that without shipping off major assets - they just need to stop buying stupid players at the last second and hold on to their current picks and prospects. Guys will come up and play well. The pipeline is not even close to being as bleak as people present it. Many players have done plenty of encouraging things - Fast and Lindberg have done very well in their past leagues and are still relatively new to the NA hockey. McI seems to be doing very well in the AHL from what I've read from some sources that I trust and that seem to know the Pack well. Duclair is absolutely murdering the league he's in. If he was a first round pick, people would be drooling over him. I don't care where he was picked, so long as he plays well, and he is. The team drafts well considering where they pick. If they can keep stacking up these solid 2/3 line guys and 2/3 pair d-men, they'll build up some very serious depth, which can eventually be combined and traded for a game-breaker if nobody turns into one and the need is there.
