What is your most unpopular Rangers opinion?

[BKGooner]

Seeing Dolan in action with the Knicks, you know to be thankful about his hands off approach to the Rangers.

 

[Machinehead]

Seeing Dolan in action with the Knicks, you know to be thankful about his hands off approach to the Rangers.

I'm glad he's less involved for sure, but he's still involved and it's still a problem.

 

[Bob Richards]

Seeing Dolan in action with the Knicks, you know to be thankful about his hands off approach to the Rangers.

If the Rangers were run like the Knicks I probably would’ve just died sometime in 2005

 

[Machinehead]

If the Rangers were run like the Knicks I probably would’ve just died sometime in 2005

Remember when Ovechkin scored in game 7 and I said that the team scoring first in game 7 is 1,800,000-2 all-time and then after the game you said "1,800,000-3"?

I'll admit, that was a good time.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Seeing Dolan in action with the Knicks, you know to be thankful about his hands off approach to the Rangers.

I actually think he's a decent owner when it comes to the Rangers. He spends money. He let the team pay players to not play (buyouts) or paid for guys to play in Hartford. By all accounts the practice facility that was built a decade or so ago is start of the art.

If he invests in the team and gets out of the way of the hockey people, that's all I ask, really.

 

[Tawnos]

But your arguing post-1940 in one statement, and then 94 years in the other. That's a complete cherry pick. It's one or the other. And you previously said that hardware was everything, so based on your second criteria they rank 7th.

And where is that cutoff with nothing to say about themselves?

Is it 5th? 7th? 10th?

Chicago had less cups prior to 2010, but more cups since. As such they leap-frogged the Rangers. So are they now a substantially better franchise? If the Rangers do the same, and win three cups in the next 10 years, does that change the trajectory? That would give them the fourth most cups rather than the 7th. Is the difference between four and seven the difference? If that happens, does it become 4 in 90 years, or 4 in 36?

Who are the teams with something special outside of Montreal, Toronto and Detroit? Toronto sits second right now, but they are 0 for their 53 seasons. How does that factor?

Are the Islanders, as a whole really more successful? Basically their whole franchise is summed in one amazing stretch from 1980 to 1983. And yet their fan base has dwindled, they've nearly moved several times, there's little in the 7 years prior or 37 years since to write home about.

As Tawnos pointed out, from 67-68 to 18-19, the Rangers are 7th in points percentage. They've made the playoffs 72.5% of the time, which is 6th behind Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St Louis. They've played in the semi-finals (final 4... conference finals after 1975, divisional before) 22% of the time, which is 7th behind Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Montreal, Philadelphia, and the Islanders. Why wasn't a post-expansion considered a more accurate barometer?

Why is 1940 a better cutoff than 1926 or 1967?

It's crazier to think about the fact that fully half of the Rangers missed playoff years came in the 7 year stretch that was the Dark Ages. Outside of that one 7 year period, during the other 45 seasons of the expansion era they have only gone more than a year without playoffs twice. Once in the mid-70s after the Francis era team fell off. And now. This will be the only other time besides the Dark Ages that they've missed the playoffs more than 2 years in a row. And hopefully, 3 years is where it will end.

 

[BKGooner]

Really enjoying the talk about the history of the game. I can only legitimately remember to the 80's Everything elese I have seen is either unreliable narrator childhood memories or grainy black and white videos punctuated by Foster Hewitt or guys yelling in French.

 

[Maximus]

When you make the playoffs 38 times and win it once, then no, it doesn't move the needle.

If we had made it 38 times and won it 2 or 3 times, then I could say "yeah, doing that is better than making it 5 or 6 times and winning it 5 or 6 times." Then the subjectivity comes into play.

There is absolutely nothing subjective whatsoever about the Rangers being a bad hockey franchise.

And again, it is just blowing my mind that I'm explaining this.

Dude it’s more like your blowing minds due to you narrow minded thought process hence the blowback you are getting.

Tho when someone says the Rangers are almost as terrible as the Knicks are as you did which started this BS, which is nonsensical, one could expect to receive some flack...just the way it is hoss!

 

[Cmox]

I always hated hanks goaltending style. He skating and stance bothers me. And it took him awhile to get comfortable handling the puck which is still mediocre. Funny enough his stance and skating reminded me of Julie the cat Gaffney(too much mighty ducks) . I obviously will always respect/love him and what he’s done with and for the team. I know he’s a great goalie But watching Igor is going to be a great. That’s why I always comment of his skating and movements. It Absolutely lovely.
Fun fact: Hasek style annoyed me too. How’s that for a unpopular opinion?

Of course i know it’s all about keeping the puck out of the net not how pretty it is.

 

[OverTheCap]

Thank God Dolan doesn't care about the Rangers. I wouldn't set foot in the Garden if he started banning/ejecting Rangers fans from games like he does with the Knicks.

Dolan's biggest issue as a Rangers owner is that he's too loyal. Sather was the only GM he hired, and Sather was allowed to retire on his own terms and handpick a successor. It will be interesting to see if he has the same long leash with Gorton.

 

[Maximus]

It's crazier to think about the fact that fully half of the Rangers missed playoff years came in the 7 year stretch that was the Dark Ages. Outside of that one 7 year period, during the other 45 seasons of the expansion era they have only gone more than a year without playoffs twice. Once in the mid-70s after the Francis era team fell off. And now. This will be the only other time besides the Dark Ages that they've missed the playoffs more than 2 years in a row. And hopefully, 3 years is where it will end.

I brought something similar up earlier. I don’t have time but maybe I will later on but if we use making the playoffs as the minimum criteria for a fan base to say their team had a good year, for Rangers to have made playoffs 38 times in past 50 years, one would think that has to be in top 10 overall during this time frame.

The teams at top of my head that might have as good of a playoff success as ours was would be Boston, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit for sure and maybe Montreal.

Out West I can’t include Chicago cause they stunk for most part for long stretches of time. Not sure I can include any of the Canadian teams tho maybe Calgary has had manyplayoff appearances. I guess I’d include St. Louis and maybe the Minny/Dallas franchise...that’s about it.

So yeah Rangers are likely in that 8-12 range overall as far as playoff appearances over past 50 years which is thousand times better than the Knicks over same period and that even takes into account those championship winning teams they had in the early 70’s and those excellent Ewing led Knick teams from late 80’s to late 90’s.

 

[Thirty One]

Fun fact: Hasek style annoyed me too. How’s that for a unpopular opinion?

I think it's pretty universally accepted that Hasek was great but we can't explain why.

 

[BKGooner]

I think it's pretty universally accepted that Hasek was great but we can't explain why.

The only people who hated his style more than fans were shooters. You can be as unorthodox as you want if you have lightning reflexes, the vision of a fighter pilot and a slinky for a spine.

 

[Cmox]

I think it's pretty universally accepted that Hasek was great but we can't explain why.

He was a insane goalie. Didn’t lundqvist say that Hasek was his favorite growing up?

 

[Edge]

It's crazier to think about the fact that fully half of the Rangers missed playoff years came in the 7 year stretch that was the Dark Ages. Outside of that one 7 year period, during the other 45 seasons of the expansion era they have only gone more than a year without playoffs twice. Once in the mid-70s after the Francis era team fell off. And now. This will be the only other time besides the Dark Ages that they've missed the playoffs more than 2 years in a row. And hopefully, 3 years is where it will end.

Overall they've been successful. I think you nailed it earlier, are they the most successful? No, they are not.

But I do think there are a number of criteria when evaluating success, and potential nuances that include era, length of time, level of success, etc.

For some people it's primarily focused on championships. For me, it's a little more than that.

Personally, I want multiple championships in the 2020s, I think we all do. But I don't think it will have a drastic impact on where the Rangers rank all time. It might bump them up a few slots, but it probably won't put them at the top of any long range focused lists --- whether they be 100 years, 75 or 50.

 

[Tawnos]

I brought something similar up earlier. I don’t have time but maybe I will later on but if we use making the playoffs as the minimum criteria for a fan base to say their team had a good year, for Rangers to have made playoffs 38 times in past 50 years, one would think that has to be in top 10 overall during this time frame.

The teams at top of my head that might have as good of a playoff success as ours was would be Boston, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit for sure and maybe Montreal.

Out West I can’t include Chicago cause they stunk for most part for long stretches of time. Not sure I can include any of the Canadian teams tho maybe Calgary has had manyplayoff appearances. I guess I’d include St. Louis and maybe the Minny/Dallas franchise...that’s about it.

So yeah Rangers are likely in that 8-12 range overall as far as playoff appearances over past 50 years which is thousand times better than the Knicks over same period and that even takes into account those championship winning teams they had in the early 70’s and those excellent Ewing led Knick teams from late 80’s to late 90’s.

I mean... isn't that literally this part of a post I made that you liked? I literally gave you the answer to these questions already

From 67-68 to 18-19, the Rangers are 7th in points percentage. They've made the playoffs 72.5% of the time, which is 6th behind Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St Louis. They've played in the semi-finals (final 4... conference finals after 1975, divisional before) 22% of the time, which is 7th behind Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Montreal, Philadelphia, and the Islanders. I didn't include Vegas in there for obvious reasons.

I just went with percentages to normalize against expansion. 19 teams don't span the whole stretch of the expansion era, though a few come pretty close. 67-68 to 18-19 represents 50 seasons, because we missed one. And they've made the playoffs 36 times in that span, not 38.

I think you forget how bad Washington has been for most of it's existence. Detroit had this massive stretch of making the playoffs every year for 25 years, but they also missed the playoffs in 14 of the first 16 seasons of the expansion era. And believe it or not, they've only been to 10 final four appearances... to our 11. Granted, they moved on 6 times and won 4 Cups, while we moved on 4 times and just got the one Cup. Obviously, despite the Rangers having more playoff appearances and more series wins (DET: 32, NYR: 36), Detroit would be considered a more successful franchise. Just interesting to look at.

 

[Maximus]

I mean... isn't that literally this part of a post I made that you liked? I literally gave you the answer to these questions already



I just went with percentages to normalize against expansion. 19 teams don't span the whole stretch of the expansion era, though a few come pretty close. 67-68 to 18-19 represents 50 seasons, because we missed one. And they've made the playoffs 36 times in that span, not 38.

I think you forget how bad Washington has been for most of it's existence. Detroit had this massive stretch of making the playoffs every year for 25 years, but they also missed the playoffs in 14 of the first 16 seasons of the expansion era. And believe it or not, they've only been to 10 final four appearances... to our 11. Granted, they moved on 6 times and won 4 Cups, while we moved on 4 times and just got the one Cup. Obviously, despite the Rangers having more playoff appearances and more series wins (DET: 32, NYR: 36), Detroit would be considered a more successful franchise. Just interesting to look at.

Yeah I did like it even tho it came an hour after I posted something similar such as this in response to Edge and hence my reply to your post indicating similar shit...capiche? :

Not sure what you are eluding too when you say this and so maybe some more clarity is needed but I'd argue that the Rangers from 1965 to 2017 have had two quite long prolonged success windows.

From the 65-66 season till the 96-97 season(the year before the Dark Ages began), the Rangers made the playoffs 26 of those 30 years. They won at least a round in those 26 playoff appearances 16 times, made it to 2 ECF's and 3 Cup finals including the Cup win in '94.

That's some pretty dang good success right there. I gotta be honest as I was actually surprised at how few times we missed the the playoffs during those years. But those are the facts as the Rangers were very competitive for a very long stretch of time.

Than you have that 7 year Dark Ages window as discussed followed by the lockout which it can be argued, was the best thing that ever happend for the Rangers seeing it calmed Sather down from spending money like a sailor on shore leave and so a cap was implemented.

The 2nd prolonged success window than commences the year after the lockout as from 2005-06 till 2016-17 where the Rangers make the playoffs 11 times missing once on a BS shootout vs Flyers in '10. Rangers win multiple rounds 7 of those 11 playoff years with 2 ECF losses and 1 Cup final loss to the Kings obviously.

Once again we are talking another very long sustained period of success. Now if Cups only is your criteria well than I guess we are an abjunct failure of a franchise. But I'm not like that. I don't measure my teams success by just Cup wins. If so that would be pretty narrow minded. Sure the goal is a Cup every year but only one team gets to the promised land.

If my team makes the playoffs, wins a round at least, considering the enjoyment I got from that successful quest to make the playoffs and the fact there is hope that a Cup is not just a pipe dream , I'm a happy camper. I want to be entertained and I want my team to make the playoffs every year. You do that, I am not going to ***** and moan like some that the team sucks cause they weren't able to win the Cup that year.

Bottom line is if you told me that my team from 1965 till current day, made the playoffs 38 times in 50 years with 17 of those playoff years being multiple round or more playoff years, I'd be hard pressed to not think that tho the team had just one Cup win and 3 other Cup final appearances, I'd dare say that the Rangers are easily in the Top 10 most successful franchises in hockey the past 40+ years.

And I'd also say that before the letter from Gorton hit the public two years ago, since the lockout, the only teams I'd say were more successful than the Rangers were the Kings, Black Hawks, Penguins and probably Boston but that's about it. That's a pretty dang nice run and window we had.

Now we hope that beginning next year or 2022 at the absolute latest, if this rebuild goes according to plan another 7-10 year window begins where we should be so lucky to have as good a run as those 2005-2017 Ranger teams had only this time with a Cup or two parades added too it!.​

 

[Maximus]

I mean... isn't that literally this part of a post I made that you liked? I literally gave you the answer to these questions already



I just went with percentages to normalize against expansion. 19 teams don't span the whole stretch of the expansion era, though a few come pretty close. 67-68 to 18-19 represents 50 seasons, because we missed one. And they've made the playoffs 36 times in that span, not 38.

I think you forget how bad Washington has been for most of it's existence. Detroit had this massive stretch of making the playoffs every year for 25 years, but they also missed the playoffs in 14 of the first 16 seasons of the expansion era. And believe it or not, they've only been to 10 final four appearances... to our 11. Granted, they moved on 6 times and won 4 Cups, while we moved on 4 times and just got the one Cup. Obviously, despite the Rangers having more playoff appearances and more series wins (DET: 32, NYR: 36), Detroit would be considered a more successful franchise. Just interesting to look at.

In the timeline I used from 1966-67 to last year's 2018-2019 season, the Rangers did in fact make the playoffs 38 times and missed the playoffs 14 teams in those 52 years. I was off on the non playoff years as I said 12 but it was 14.

These are semantics. Bottom line is the narrative that apparently peeps who have 100k HF messages want to espouse that the Rangers suck and have been an unsuccessful franchise simply flies in the face of the facts. In fact the Rangers as has been shown, have been a pretty darn good franchise....not the best but in that upper 1/3rd of the league all time and certainly in the conversation as one of the more consistent franchises in the league over the past 50 or so years.

 

[Maximus]

Refresh my memory, was Holik on the team at the same time Trottier was coaching? Man what a dark period. I remember being a little kid and not knowing too much about anything but even I knew I hated The Holik signing. My dad was cursing up a storm when it happened.

Holik was one of Sathers bonehead moves back in the 2002-2003 time period. I believe at the time Trottier coached for a bit before being canned by Sather and than we had Tom Renney coaching the team...too lazy too look but I think that's the way it was.

But yeah most of us at the time hated the move signing Holik. Here it is you have a life long Devil who gets a ton of money by Sather and who any Ranger fan hated due to all the wars we had vs them. And yet he comes and we are supposed to like him all of a sudden. Wasn't happening and he really didn't play well for us either albeit he did have his moments.

But even worse than the Holik signing, I'd argue the Wade Redden signing was even worse. The best way to describe how bad Redden was with us was if you recall how poorly Shattenkirk played for us despite all the hype and the big money he got. Well Redden was 10x worse than Shatty ever was.

He was another guy Sather fell in love with and he gave him the big bucks after having a couple of nice seasons in Ottawa. So yeah two of the worst signings ever for this club and those two players got the brunt of it and were extremely disliked by pretty much all of the fan base at the time.

 

[Ola]

I got one for sure, I think we are a bit fortunate to have Dolan as an owner! Think potentially it could be much worse. An owner could "not care" about this team and still make a lot of dough. There have been some instances of venture capitals buying pro teams, you don't want that in the long-run.

 

[Edge]

As an owner I can't really complain about.

The first five years were a tire fire, the proceeding 15 have been relatively peaceful.

 

[True Blue]

But yeah most of us at the time hated the move signing Holik. Here it is you have a life long Devil who gets a ton of money by Sather and who any Ranger fan hated due to all the wars we had vs them. And yet he comes and we are supposed to like him all of a sudden. Wasn't happening and he really didn't play well for us either albeit he did have his moments.

I could care less that he was a Devil, but the mistake was paying him like a top line player. Holik was a great third line center.

That was the glorious summer of Holik, Kasperitic & Oliwa.

But even worse than the Holik signing, I'd argue the Wade Redden signing was even worse. The best way to describe how bad Redden was with us was if you recall how poorly Shattenkirk played for us despite all the hype and the big money he got. Well Redden was 10x worse than Shatty ever was.

Redden fell off a cliff, but was great in Ottawa. You know it is bad when the awards given around here after games were "The good, the bad & the Redden".

He was another guy Sather fell in love with and he gave him the big bucks after having a couple of nice seasons in Ottawa. So yeah two of the worst signings ever for this club and those two players got the brunt of it and were extremely disliked by pretty much all of the fan base at the time.

How quickly we forget the likes of Quintal, Kamensky, Driver, Ulanov......

 

[mike14]

Holik's contract was stupid, but it wasn't my money and there was no salary cap. The issue was playing him as a top-6 player and expecting him to be a big part of our scoring. Only the Dark Era Rangers would pay an elite defensive center to be a point producer....

 

[Thirty One]

Holik's contract was stupid, but it wasn't my money and there was no salary cap. The issue was playing him as a top-6 player and expecting him to be a big part of our scoring. Only the Dark Era Rangers would pay an elite defensive center to be a point producer....

He was our leading scorer by a sizeable margin in his second year here.

 

[mike14]

He was our leading scorer by a sizeable margin in his second year here.

It ended up being sizable margin because Lindros was injured and we traded our next 3 highest scorers in Kovalev, Rucinsky and Nedved; but I've tried to block 03-04 from my memory so now you have to deal with my therapist!!!