BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
I'll never understand Rangers fans who dislike Jagr.
Even if they're mad we didn't rebuild and go for Malkin/OV/Crosby/Toews/Kane, it's crazy that they dislike a guy who played as well as Jagr.
Speculation: What If Jaromir Jagr Never Left?
- Thread starter Thirty One
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I'll never understand Rangers fans who dislike Jagr.
Even if they're mad we didn't rebuild and go for Malkin/OV/Crosby/Toews/Kane, it's crazy that they dislike a guy who played as well as Jagr.
I don't know what would have happened, but I certainly would have enjoyed being able to continue to watch Jagr play. One of the most amazing players I've seen.
Who OwnsDaChiefs
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 124
- 0
Does this sort of mean not signing Jagr gave us McD?
I do miss those black skates/blades with yellow laces!
I will always give credit to Jagr for returning the NYR to respectability. This organization really needed those exciting seasons in which Jagr, Prucha and Shanny gave us hope.
HockeyBasedNYC
Feeling it
Rangers would be worse.
I love how people forget how he would go stretches (plural) of 20 games without scoring and like 40 without a PP goal.
Not about liking him or disliking him, he was done here. It was time to move on.
He's had a renaissance in the NHL in large part to the fact that he went back to Russia.
I love how people forget how he would go stretches (plural) of 20 games without scoring and like 40 without a PP goal.
Not about liking him or disliking him, he was done here. It was time to move on.
He's had a renaissance in the NHL in large part to the fact that he went back to Russia.
Jagr made watching the Rangers fun again.
But the guy has always been about the almighty dollar. To keep him, the Rangers would've had to make him the highest paid player on the team - an impossibility.
But the guy has always been about the almighty dollar. To keep him, the Rangers would've had to make him the highest paid player on the team - an impossibility.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I'm not sure that's the case. He signed for $5 million per season in Russia (tax implications there, but still). The main sticking point was the Rangers insistence on a one-year deal.
And they could have made him their highest paid player, if they didn't sign Wade Redden on July 1.
He did give up guaranteed money to facilitate a trade to the Rangers, so he hasn't chosen money every time.
Who OwnsDaChiefs
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 124
- 0
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
It was a two year deal.
He said it was worth 10 million total. Other reports had it as much as $35 million / 2 years.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=242465&
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Nylander was under contract with Washington, so definitely not him. I don't remember a thing about him demanding Straka to be re-signed, either.
He will always be a Penguin. The Rangers lost a brutal series in 1992 to Pittsburgh. Then they lost another series in 1996 to Pittsburgh. He is a rival to me and never warmed up to him as a Ranger. Sather brought in Lindros,Holik and Jagr within 3 seasons from 3 of the Rangers biggest rivals. Jagr had a detour in Washington before coming to NY. Its hard to root for someone who would beat the Rangers every time. Jagr was much better than the other two but he will always be a Penguin.
Who OwnsDaChiefs
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 124
- 0
It might have been Nylander then. If I remember, he was a big proponent of retaining Nylander due to their chemistry. So, I'm not sure of that had any bearing of him staying with the Rangers.
pld459666
Registered User
We would have continued to be mediocre much in the same way we have since he left.
So if Jagr never left, nothing would have changed.
So if Jagr never left, nothing would have changed.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Whoa! Multiple stretches of 20 games without a goal? You're right, I did forget that! Clearly he is inconsistent Eurotrash, and I'm glad they tossed him aside.
Except, of course, it's not true.
Jagr's longest goalless streaks with the Rangers:
12 games
10 games
8 games
8 games
6 games
Only five times in 3.5 years did he have a goalless streak of greater than 5 games.
Why was he done here? Why was it time to move on?
I dont necessarily agree with it being "time to move on"
Especially because I think the 2008-2009 Rangers was one of the least enjoyable teams I had the displeasure of watching. An offense led by Gomez, Zherdev, and Naslund was really enthralling.
Especially because I think the 2008-2009 Rangers was one of the least enjoyable teams I had the displeasure of watching. An offense led by Gomez, Zherdev, and Naslund was really enthralling.
pld459666
Registered User
He made a statement about salary equating to role on team.
I have no doubt that he wanted as much as Drury or Gomes was getting (cap hit) and wanted more than one year.
Jagr is the kind of player you want around when he's happy and enjoying the game.
Jagr is the kind of player you run from as fas as you can when he's unhappy and not enjoying the game.
Sulks like a child.
At 35 years old, and the newly signed 27 year old Gomez and 31 year old Drury, Jagr saw his role was about to be reduced and was looking to extract as much as he could.
The nice thing about it was that he WANTED to be here. He could have taken Oiler money, but instead chose to play in Russia.
I have no doubt that he wanted as much as Drury or Gomes was getting (cap hit) and wanted more than one year.
Jagr is the kind of player you want around when he's happy and enjoying the game.
Jagr is the kind of player you run from as fas as you can when he's unhappy and not enjoying the game.
Sulks like a child.
At 35 years old, and the newly signed 27 year old Gomez and 31 year old Drury, Jagr saw his role was about to be reduced and was looking to extract as much as he could.
The nice thing about it was that he WANTED to be here. He could have taken Oiler money, but instead chose to play in Russia.
Who OwnsDaChiefs
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 124
- 0
You actually saw Zherdev?
Antropov helped there for a little while, didn't he?
That was a terribly frustrating season offensively. Especially seeing Prucha constantly scratched then finally being shipped to Phoenix.
Last edited:
He specifically came out and said he could not play 100% over a full season and be fully productive in the playoffs. He was true to his word and was an animal that year when they rolled around. I doubted him during the season and didn't think he could just flip a switch, but he did.
Of all the Glen Sather moves, not offering Jagr the extra year on that contract was my most hated. After Jagr dragged this team back to relevency he basically spurned him for Gomez, Drury and Redden.
It was disgusting.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
I know that hockey is a team game, and a team is the sum of its parts, but the Rangers would not have been a good team from 2005-today if it weren't for Lundqvist, who aside from this season and the last shortened season never had less than 35 wins on a team with huge roster turnovers from year to year.
Since we were basically horrible for 7 years prior to the 2005-2006 season, there wasn't too far for the team to fall, so by the team finishing 3rd in the division for all of Jagr's tenure and actually making the playoffs, Jagr contributed to making us 'good" with any comparison to the dark ages, but let's give credit due where it's really due, King Henrik.
Furthermore, one could easily say the extra 4.5 wins the Rangers had over finishing dead last in the league in 2004 and missing drafting another franchise player beside Lundqvist means we may not have been a loser in the Jagr acquisition considering the Capitals haven't been steam rolling the league since that draft, but Jagr's huge output after the lockout not withstanding, were not the winners either.
Besides, after Jagr's departure he hasn't posted more than 54 points (on pace for a magical 68 points this season, which may be a huge reach after the olympics). Moreover, the same knock on the Rangers both from Jagr's tenure and today are the lack of impact centers, which was a reason the team signed Gomez and Drury in the same summer.
I have always been an avid Jagr fan, but regardless of his current political issues with his original team, 68 will always be a Penguin over a Ranger when one not only looks at the contribution he gave to his respective team, but also his impact on head to head match ups between the two teams on both sides.
In conclusion, although the mantra of this forum is often "anything could happen," "who knows," and "what could have been...," I don't believe we would have been any better than we are today if we kept Jagr.
Since we were basically horrible for 7 years prior to the 2005-2006 season, there wasn't too far for the team to fall, so by the team finishing 3rd in the division for all of Jagr's tenure and actually making the playoffs, Jagr contributed to making us 'good" with any comparison to the dark ages, but let's give credit due where it's really due, King Henrik.
Furthermore, one could easily say the extra 4.5 wins the Rangers had over finishing dead last in the league in 2004 and missing drafting another franchise player beside Lundqvist means we may not have been a loser in the Jagr acquisition considering the Capitals haven't been steam rolling the league since that draft, but Jagr's huge output after the lockout not withstanding, were not the winners either.
Besides, after Jagr's departure he hasn't posted more than 54 points (on pace for a magical 68 points this season, which may be a huge reach after the olympics). Moreover, the same knock on the Rangers both from Jagr's tenure and today are the lack of impact centers, which was a reason the team signed Gomez and Drury in the same summer.
I have always been an avid Jagr fan, but regardless of his current political issues with his original team, 68 will always be a Penguin over a Ranger when one not only looks at the contribution he gave to his respective team, but also his impact on head to head match ups between the two teams on both sides.
In conclusion, although the mantra of this forum is often "anything could happen," "who knows," and "what could have been...," I don't believe we would have been any better than we are today if we kept Jagr.
Yea those entire facts are false. He had a down year that last season, which i've previously alluded as to why and he showed up in the playoffs as an absolute animal.
I believe when we got knocked by Pitt, he was actually leading the entire NHL in playoff scoring. Ahead of Crosby, Malkin etc. He was the best player in that series.
He finished top 10 in playoff scoring with 15 points in 10 games. Everyone ahead of him played almost 10 or more games.
Your memory may have slightly faded. 319 points in 277 games.
Last edited by a moderator:
I despised Jagr as a Penguin but loved him as a Ranger. That post-lockout team was fun, and Jagr and Lundqvist brought the Rangers back from the dead with that team. I can never hate him again, even on the Flyers or Devils or whoever.
Jagr went 40 games without scoring a PP goal? I'm not saying that's wrong, but it just sounds like a long time. The whole power play back then was setting him up for one timers.
EDIT: Just finished the thread, he was way off. There was always a core of NYR fans who never liked Jagr, even in that MVP season. I remember reading on boards in games where he would have 5 points that he was lazy for not skating to the bench on a change fast enough, or his backchecking was weak. Can't please everyone, especially on the internet.
Last edited:
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
