If nobody here thinks that, then why the fuck is there this huge angry debate about what people root for? As though what they think makes a fucking difference? Can you explain THAT to me?
Really, that needs explanation? I don't think anyone is suggesting that rooting for success is actively contributing to the team winning games which ultimately hurts their long term outlook. But rather questioning why some would enjoy short-term success which comes at the expense of long-term success. I don't like to see my teams do poorly, and I'd like to see the players rewarded for hard work and get wins. But I can also understand that while in the moment I always want them to win, in the big picture, it may be counter productive. Whichever side you come down on, I don't think the debate is very hard to understand.
You are completely missing the point. The debate is what is in the best interest of the franchise and the merits or faults of tanking
That is not what is being debated. What is being debated is the merit of fans expressing enjoyment watching this Rangers team - with some people actually suggesting that fans are wrong for having fun.
And for you to suggest tanking is an option ... that any team at this point in the season is actually intentionally losing ... is equally dense. Might as well discuss the odds of aliens from outer-space on skates coming down to earth to help with Friday’s game.
IMO. Odds are they were never going to be bad enough to have a highly likely shot at Hughes. Hank alone makes that unlikely.
But I think most would have agreed they would be an underwhelming team this year and likely miss the playoffs.
So, with a new coach, you know he's going to care more about the day to day than the next year's draft.
he's going to try and do the best he can with the players he has to win every game.
I think it's ok to enjoy the effort, high effort teams are fun to watch.
But at the same time I think it's ok to question how sustainable it is and how competitive the approach will be long-term and how it's helping the growth of the core.
Vegas changed everything last year. They went to the conference finals without a super star on forward or D. Even in net, I know MAF has rings, but he's been the portrait of inconsistent goal-tending his career, especially the playoffs.
so as Rangers fans I think it's fine to admire the job Quinn is doing, enjoy the efforts of players like Zibby, Hayes, Kreider, Pionk (who I told you would be solid), etc. and a Hank revival, but also feel it's best for the long-term success of the Rangers to learn as much as possible this year, develop the younger players, and be sellers at the deadline and nail the draft in an effort to build for future long-term sustainable success.
Worst case is the Rangers prove everyone wrong and pull a Vegas. who complains if that happens?
If nobody here thinks that, then why the fuck is there this huge angry debate about what people root for? As though what they think makes a fucking difference? Can you explain THAT to me?
Really, that needs explanation? I don't think anyone is suggesting that rooting for success is actively contributing to the team winning games which ultimately hurts their long term outlook. But rather questioning why some would enjoy short-term success which comes at the expense of long-term success. I don't like to see my teams do poorly, and I'd like to see the players rewarded for hard work and get wins. But I can also understand that while in the moment I always want them to win, in the big picture, it may be counter productive. Whichever side you come down on, I don't think the debate is very hard to understand.
But that’s a really, really stupid thought process. I want the Rangers to get the first overall pick. Meanwhile I want to enjoy watching them play. They are NOT inconsistent things (or only inconsistent things to people who believe in magical thinking)
RE: Rangers are really in a no-lose situation here Â
Worst case is the Rangers prove everyone wrong and pull a Vegas. who complains if that happens?
No, worst case is that they are buyers at the deadline in an attempt to scrape into the playoff picture, deal picks away, and still come up short.....but win enough games that they end up picking 14th.
I'm 41. I've been watching the Rangers my entire life. I've seen them play for the Cup all of two times, and win it once. I've seen them produce exactly one bonafide superstar skater, Brian Leetch, who came up 30 years ago. I want to see another one. I want to see not just a contending team, but a no-shit favorite to win it all. I've seen middling little-engine-that-could Ranger teams, scrappy overachieving teams. That does nothing for me now. The prospect of an 4th-8th seed does nothing for me. Been there, over and over.
I really want the Rangers to get the #1 overall pick - to get some top flight talent we can enjoy watching for 15 years.
Meanwhile, I’m going to the movie theatre tomorrow night and hope to be entertained with a good movie. Then Fri I hope to be entertained by this Ranger team.
And none of those desires are inconsistent. What movie I see and whether I enjoy it will have no impact on where the Rangers pick in the next draft. Nor will my desires for Fri night’s game.
This is all such a silly discussion. Enjoying the Rangers, or the movies, or a good dinner, or playing with my kids ... none of that will impact whether the Rangers pick #1 next year. So you can choose to have fun or choose to be miserable - either way you won’t influence what happens. So, why choose to be miserable? That’s like getting angry because it rained. It’s just nonsense.
RE: RE: Rangers are really in a no-lose situation here Â
Worst case is the Rangers prove everyone wrong and pull a Vegas. who complains if that happens?
No, worst case is that they are buyers at the deadline in an attempt to scrape into the playoff picture, deal picks away, and still come up short.....but win enough games that they end up picking 14th.
I'm 41. I've been watching the Rangers my entire life. I've seen them play for the Cup all of two times, and win it once. I've seen them produce exactly one bonafide superstar skater, Brian Leetch, who came up 30 years ago. I want to see another one. I want to see not just a contending team, but a no-shit favorite to win it all. I've seen middling little-engine-that-could Ranger teams, scrappy overachieving teams. That does nothing for me now. The prospect of an 4th-8th seed does nothing for me. Been there, over and over.
Good point, like Vegas trading a 1st, 2nd and 3rd (though they are spaced out to be fair) for a Tomas Tatar rental and making him a healthy scratch most of the playoffs.
Then including Tatar as a throw-in in a trade with MTL that included uber prospect Nick Suzuki and a 2nd for Max Pacioretty.
So, you could say they traded a 1st, two 2nd's, 3rd, Tatar, and Suzuki for Pacioretty (though slightly disingenuous)
that's worst case, but Gorton is better than McPhee.
the Rangers will be buyers at the deadline, even if they were in the playoff picture. They very easily could have bought their way into the playoffs last season but instead chose to sell when they were a few points out. They could have used assets to trade for a number of the big names that moved this past offseason and they didn't. They seem committed to this plan.
the Rangers will be buyers at the deadline, even if they were in the playoff picture. They very easily could have bought their way into the playoffs last season but instead chose to sell when they were a few points out. They could have used assets to trade for a number of the big names that moved this past offseason and they didn't. They seem committed to this plan.
I’d be shocked if they are anything but sellers at the deadline regardless of where they are in the standings. I fully expect Hayes and Zucc won’t be Rangers by the end of this season.
If they're in a playoff spot mid-February approaching the deadline they really can't be sellers.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
Snagged a pair of tickets for Isles - Rangers at the Barc next week Â
If they're in a playoff spot mid-February approaching the deadline they really can't be sellers.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
St. Louis has done it two seasons in a row with Shattenkirk and Stasny
RE: Snagged a pair of tickets for Isles - Rangers at the Barc next week Â
Rangers are on a roll. Shaping up to be a fun game.
Mike man, you guys own us at the Barclays or as I like to call it, "The House Tavares Built". I thought for sure some of those Coliseum games would include a Rangers game.
I am actually coming in on Dec 10 to see a game with my Islander fan buddy to the Coliseum against the Penguins.
If they're in a playoff spot mid-February approaching the deadline they really can't be sellers.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
St. Louis has done it two seasons in a row with Shattenkirk and Stasny
Good catch and fair point, but two different situations with those two players and the Blues team to put things in context.
And, and more importantly, I don't think trading 1 player in the final year of their contract really constitutes the full spirit of "being sellers"
With Shattenkirk he was relegated to 3rd pair, and his TOI was dwindling in the last year of his deal. So it made sense, and the team thrived without him winning 10 of 11 after the deadline.
Stastny the Blues while in a playoff spot were trending down, they lost something like 7 in a row heading to the deadline and 10 of 12.
So with your example I think my comment should be amended to allow that in some cases it makes sense to sell a player, but I definitely didn't consider trading Shattenkirk throwing in the towel on the season, in fact it was viewed as a good move, Stastny the team felt like they were not legit contenders based on their play at the time.
And if the Rangers or anyone else is entering the deadline on a massive downward spiral they too could/should be sellers and I doubt the locker room or fan base revolts.
most of the NYR fans I talk to have embraced this rebuild... Â
..for quite some time. Last night was a fun game but I am sure they are committed to this rebuild. 2020-21 is the final season, when many of the expensive contracts expire and hopefully Shestyorkin will have spent that season readying himself for the full time gig.
RE: most of the NYR fans I talk to have embraced this rebuild... Â
..for quite some time. Last night was a fun game but I am sure they are committed to this rebuild. 2020-21 is the final season, when many of the expensive contracts expire and hopefully Shestyorkin will have spent that season readying himself for the full time gig.
I have no qualms with fans accepting that something is a rebuilding years and accepting being sellers at the deadline, but the actively rooting for losses at this stage of the season is a bit strange to me. Even if the Rangers have the worst record in the NHL (they won't) they'll have like a 1 in 4 chance at Hughes.
If they do manage to exceed expectations and are realistically in the hunt later in the season, I certainly wouldn't want them trading assets to be buyers, but I'd also want the team to keep going as is and make a run. Hockey's a very weird game. Who knows what you guys are.
RE: RE: most of the NYR fans I talk to have embraced this rebuild... Â
I have no qualms with fans accepting that something is a rebuilding years and accepting being sellers at the deadline, but the actively rooting for losses at this stage of the season is a bit strange to me. Even if the Rangers have the worst record in the NHL (they won't) they'll have like a 1 in 4 chance at Hughes.
If they do manage to exceed expectations and are realistically in the hunt later in the season, I certainly wouldn't want them trading assets to be buyers, but I'd also want the team to keep going as is and make a run. Hockey's a very weird game. Who knows what you guys are.
I am not one of the fans who root for loses. Last night was a fun win from a team not expecting to have too many. Neil Pionk going coast to coast (off a spin-o-rama nonetheless) was a fun moment. Mike, I think some of us think the winning culture is more important than losses. I do understand why some think losses are good for the draft pick but as we are experiencing with the Giants, losing is not always best because you want some of these players to be part of your foundation.
and having talent that complements and meshes well together. You can have all the rah-rah culture you want - without talent, it's meaningless. It's why hitdog's constant swooning over the Net's "culture" is a punchline on NBA threads.
and if you haven't been in a professional locker room, how can you say with such certainty? Ryan O'Reilly talked at the end of last season how all the losing in Buffalo had completely destroyed the spirit of their team. A team with plenty of top picks and elite talent.
Establishing a positive culture for a franchise is not insignificant
I can't complain about that. Although it would do the franchise the most good to get a top pick superstar, that no longer seems a reasonable expectation, so why not enjoy what we've got -- a hard working team with some nice young parts?
I'd say it's stupid to trade away a youngish player like Hayes without getting a #1 back...or at least two 2s. And is he going to yield that? And will it make a difference to our rebuild if it does? I'd say no on the latter, and likely no on the first.
Kyle - I would suggest that culture isn't causing Buffalo to be a disastrous franchise. Being poorly run, having high picks who flop, and being in a city that absolutely no one wants to play in are the reasons why they've underachieved.
Toronto was just as bad for just as long as Buffalo. Culture isn't why they succeed while Buffalo fails. Toronto succeeds because a)a bit of luck, by having the #1 pick when Matthews was in the draft b)players like Marner @#4 and Nylander @ #8 and Rielly @ #5 have been better than Reinhart @ #2 and Ristoleinen @ #8 and Eichel @ #2
They have a couple of elite talents in Beckham and Barkley, one very good one in Collins, and virtually the entire rest of the roster is mediocre to atrocious. Culture ain't got a thing to do with it.
This team has a deep farm system, but it does lack that game-changing, revolutionary talent that Hughes and Kakko seem to be. Until we get that, we may be middling.
But I can't root for any of my teams to lose, unless it is officially out of the playoff race. Just can't do it. Don't have it in me.
RE: The Giants are a team with very little talent Â
They have a couple of elite talents in Beckham and Barkley, one very good one in Collins, and virtually the entire rest of the roster is mediocre to atrocious. Culture ain't got a thing to do with it.
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
Need the elite talent. The team can turn it around in two-three years if they win the lottery and hit.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
Need the elite talent. The team can turn it around in two-three years if they win the lottery and hit.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
This all may be true, but Hughes is going number 1 overall almost guaranteed. Point is, we dont look nearly as bad as the Kings, the Panthers or the Wings. We are not that bad a team and we have a ton of youngsters. I would much rather see competitive play from a team of young guys with 2/3 showing legit top end potential, just miss the playoffs and make picks next year for a run in '20 than straight dump (its the only way to be worse than LA) to get ONE player. Otherwise, why take players back at all last year? Why not insist on picks?
RE: RE: The Giants are a team with very little talent Â
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What Cup champions have had them best player be a veteran FA signing? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Maybe the Bruins almost a decade ago, if you think Chara was their best player, but it's debatable whether he was or not. Bergeron would certainly be in the conversation, and their most important player in the playoffs was Tim Thomas.
Look, I don't actually enjoy losing. Far from it. I just would rather they take their medicine for a few years and try to build from the ground up. To that end, dump guys like Namestnikov, Spooner, McLeod, McQuaid, Steal, Smith. They serve absolutely no purpose. Trade Zuccarello, Hayes, Vesey, maybe Kreider.
RE: RE: RE: The Giants are a team with very little talent Â
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What the fuck are you talking about?!!
I didn't whine to anybody about you. I just don't like you. At all. And I think you don't know shit about sports and I don't think you played them at a decent level either. Yet you're condescending and dismissive to everybody who offers a differing opinion of yours.
You're a short, fat fuck who doesn't make any really good points, and on a secondary note I'd love to hold your head in the toilet. LOL, but the idea that I whine about you to other people or posters or whatever the hell you're talking about is absolutely laughable.
I want miller anymore Greg but I think you're one of the biggest pains in the ass on BBI. Even when a thread has zero to do with you like the one giving Mook advice about where to go in Blacksburg, you infect it with your negativity adding nothing to it.
I'd rather read the back of a shampoo bottle than your drivel. It's a shame there isn't a way to make your posts appear in crayon to get a more true to life experience.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
I'd rather read the back of a shampoo bottle than your drivel. It's a shame there isn't a way to make your posts appear in crayon to get a more true to life experience.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Didnt threaten you once, and Im not surprised you would be thoroughly entertained by the writing on the back of a shampoo bottle.
is doing. Not there yet obviously, but I like the Kane and ROR trades for them. I like Skinner, Eichel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, obviously Dahlin plus they have some talent in the minors. and IMO Eichel is absolutely elite talent. Not McDavid or Matthews, but in that tier below them for young stars.
I used to think culture is overrated too but then Mike Sullivan taught my level 3 coaching clinic. I'm not a starstruck person, but he blew me away. So much wisdom and if you look back about how the Penguins were floundering when he took over and led them to the cup, it shows you that talent isn't everything. system, approach, motivation, etc. and culture/chemistry play a role.
I don't think it's more important than talent, but I definitely understand it, and culture for Sullivan is achieved in a variety of different ways.
but once Crosby and Malkin age a little more and the Penguins stink you'll see it more blatantly why talent matters more.
But I'm not sure I'd say culture and coaching are the same thing, at least not in the way people are using "culture" in this thread.
Agree, but in the Mike Sullivan example, his coaching style helped eradicate a country club culture. Before him the Pens stars were treated differently and he came in wiped the slate clean and said 4th line to 1st line here's is how we practice, earn ice time, get to be on the special units, etc.
and we know the results, a talented under-performing team won the cup in his rookie year and repeated the next.
could he have done that on a team without Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, etc? no.
So I'd put talent #1, but coaching and with it what I'm calling culture #2.
I think Vegas is the only example of a star-less team outperforming their status due to coaching/culture in my recent memory.
and I can separate coaching and culture in this way, coaching is a system, x's and o's, PP approach, PK approach, OT approach, breakouts, in-game adjustments, etc. but culture is getting your players to buy in 100% to that system and develop chemistry playing with each other.
I guess what I'm saying is that a supposed winning culture is essentially meaningless when the roster is full of mediocre players who aren't going to be around anymore if the team ever actually does start winning.
It's Panarin's fourth season in the NHL. He's not the typical 27 year old star with 6-7 seasons under his belt at this point. I don't think he's reached his peak yet.
Really, that needs explanation? I don't think anyone is suggesting that rooting for success is actively contributing to the team winning games which ultimately hurts their long term outlook. But rather questioning why some would enjoy short-term success which comes at the expense of long-term success. I don't like to see my teams do poorly, and I'd like to see the players rewarded for hard work and get wins. But I can also understand that while in the moment I always want them to win, in the big picture, it may be counter productive. Whichever side you come down on, I don't think the debate is very hard to understand.
That is not what is being debated. What is being debated is the merit of fans expressing enjoyment watching this Rangers team - with some people actually suggesting that fans are wrong for having fun.
And for you to suggest tanking is an option ... that any team at this point in the season is actually intentionally losing ... is equally dense. Might as well discuss the odds of aliens from outer-space on skates coming down to earth to help with Friday’s game.
It’s all dumb.
But I think most would have agreed they would be an underwhelming team this year and likely miss the playoffs.
So, with a new coach, you know he's going to care more about the day to day than the next year's draft.
he's going to try and do the best he can with the players he has to win every game.
I think it's ok to enjoy the effort, high effort teams are fun to watch.
But at the same time I think it's ok to question how sustainable it is and how competitive the approach will be long-term and how it's helping the growth of the core.
Vegas changed everything last year. They went to the conference finals without a super star on forward or D. Even in net, I know MAF has rings, but he's been the portrait of inconsistent goal-tending his career, especially the playoffs.
so as Rangers fans I think it's fine to admire the job Quinn is doing, enjoy the efforts of players like Zibby, Hayes, Kreider, Pionk (who I told you would be solid), etc. and a Hank revival, but also feel it's best for the long-term success of the Rangers to learn as much as possible this year, develop the younger players, and be sellers at the deadline and nail the draft in an effort to build for future long-term sustainable success.
Worst case is the Rangers prove everyone wrong and pull a Vegas. who complains if that happens?
Quote:
If nobody here thinks that, then why the fuck is there this huge angry debate about what people root for? As though what they think makes a fucking difference? Can you explain THAT to me?
Really, that needs explanation? I don't think anyone is suggesting that rooting for success is actively contributing to the team winning games which ultimately hurts their long term outlook. But rather questioning why some would enjoy short-term success which comes at the expense of long-term success. I don't like to see my teams do poorly, and I'd like to see the players rewarded for hard work and get wins. But I can also understand that while in the moment I always want them to win, in the big picture, it may be counter productive. Whichever side you come down on, I don't think the debate is very hard to understand.
But that’s a really, really stupid thought process. I want the Rangers to get the first overall pick. Meanwhile I want to enjoy watching them play. They are NOT inconsistent things (or only inconsistent things to people who believe in magical thinking)
No, worst case is that they are buyers at the deadline in an attempt to scrape into the playoff picture, deal picks away, and still come up short.....but win enough games that they end up picking 14th.
I'm 41. I've been watching the Rangers my entire life. I've seen them play for the Cup all of two times, and win it once. I've seen them produce exactly one bonafide superstar skater, Brian Leetch, who came up 30 years ago. I want to see another one. I want to see not just a contending team, but a no-shit favorite to win it all. I've seen middling little-engine-that-could Ranger teams, scrappy overachieving teams. That does nothing for me now. The prospect of an 4th-8th seed does nothing for me. Been there, over and over.
Meanwhile, I’m going to the movie theatre tomorrow night and hope to be entertained with a good movie. Then Fri I hope to be entertained by this Ranger team.
And none of those desires are inconsistent. What movie I see and whether I enjoy it will have no impact on where the Rangers pick in the next draft. Nor will my desires for Fri night’s game.
This is all such a silly discussion. Enjoying the Rangers, or the movies, or a good dinner, or playing with my kids ... none of that will impact whether the Rangers pick #1 next year. So you can choose to have fun or choose to be miserable - either way you won’t influence what happens. So, why choose to be miserable? That’s like getting angry because it rained. It’s just nonsense.
Quote:
Worst case is the Rangers prove everyone wrong and pull a Vegas. who complains if that happens?
No, worst case is that they are buyers at the deadline in an attempt to scrape into the playoff picture, deal picks away, and still come up short.....but win enough games that they end up picking 14th.
I'm 41. I've been watching the Rangers my entire life. I've seen them play for the Cup all of two times, and win it once. I've seen them produce exactly one bonafide superstar skater, Brian Leetch, who came up 30 years ago. I want to see another one. I want to see not just a contending team, but a no-shit favorite to win it all. I've seen middling little-engine-that-could Ranger teams, scrappy overachieving teams. That does nothing for me now. The prospect of an 4th-8th seed does nothing for me. Been there, over and over.
Good point, like Vegas trading a 1st, 2nd and 3rd (though they are spaced out to be fair) for a Tomas Tatar rental and making him a healthy scratch most of the playoffs.
Then including Tatar as a throw-in in a trade with MTL that included uber prospect Nick Suzuki and a 2nd for Max Pacioretty.
So, you could say they traded a 1st, two 2nd's, 3rd, Tatar, and Suzuki for Pacioretty (though slightly disingenuous)
that's worst case, but Gorton is better than McPhee.
I’d be shocked if they are anything but sellers at the deadline regardless of where they are in the standings. I fully expect Hayes and Zucc won’t be Rangers by the end of this season.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
St. Louis has done it two seasons in a row with Shattenkirk and Stasny
Mike man, you guys own us at the Barclays or as I like to call it, "The House Tavares Built". I thought for sure some of those Coliseum games would include a Rangers game.
I am actually coming in on Dec 10 to see a game with my Islander fan buddy to the Coliseum against the Penguins.
Quote:
If they're in a playoff spot mid-February approaching the deadline they really can't be sellers.
How do you sell that to your locker room or even the fan base?
I don't know they'll be buyers, but it's rare to see a team sell out of a playoff spot without getting ready now pieces which really doesn't make you sellers. Not saying 7th/8th or anything, but 3 - 6 in the standings.
Anyway, a lot of season still to unfold.
St. Louis has done it two seasons in a row with Shattenkirk and Stasny
Good catch and fair point, but two different situations with those two players and the Blues team to put things in context.
And, and more importantly, I don't think trading 1 player in the final year of their contract really constitutes the full spirit of "being sellers"
With Shattenkirk he was relegated to 3rd pair, and his TOI was dwindling in the last year of his deal. So it made sense, and the team thrived without him winning 10 of 11 after the deadline.
Stastny the Blues while in a playoff spot were trending down, they lost something like 7 in a row heading to the deadline and 10 of 12.
So with your example I think my comment should be amended to allow that in some cases it makes sense to sell a player, but I definitely didn't consider trading Shattenkirk throwing in the towel on the season, in fact it was viewed as a good move, Stastny the team felt like they were not legit contenders based on their play at the time.
And if the Rangers or anyone else is entering the deadline on a massive downward spiral they too could/should be sellers and I doubt the locker room or fan base revolts.
I have no qualms with fans accepting that something is a rebuilding years and accepting being sellers at the deadline, but the actively rooting for losses at this stage of the season is a bit strange to me. Even if the Rangers have the worst record in the NHL (they won't) they'll have like a 1 in 4 chance at Hughes.
If they do manage to exceed expectations and are realistically in the hunt later in the season, I certainly wouldn't want them trading assets to be buyers, but I'd also want the team to keep going as is and make a run. Hockey's a very weird game. Who knows what you guys are.
If they do manage to exceed expectations and are realistically in the hunt later in the season, I certainly wouldn't want them trading assets to be buyers, but I'd also want the team to keep going as is and make a run. Hockey's a very weird game. Who knows what you guys are.
I am not one of the fans who root for loses. Last night was a fun win from a team not expecting to have too many. Neil Pionk going coast to coast (off a spin-o-rama nonetheless) was a fun moment. Mike, I think some of us think the winning culture is more important than losses. I do understand why some think losses are good for the draft pick but as we are experiencing with the Giants, losing is not always best because you want some of these players to be part of your foundation.
Why do you say that Greg?
Establishing a positive culture for a franchise is not insignificant
I'd say it's stupid to trade away a youngish player like Hayes without getting a #1 back...or at least two 2s. And is he going to yield that? And will it make a difference to our rebuild if it does? I'd say no on the latter, and likely no on the first.
You've been crazy negative about everything lately. Everything ok man?
The Giants are the definition of a team with a locker room that is developing and has developed a losing culture.
Toronto was just as bad for just as long as Buffalo. Culture isn't why they succeed while Buffalo fails. Toronto succeeds because a)a bit of luck, by having the #1 pick when Matthews was in the draft b)players like Marner @#4 and Nylander @ #8 and Rielly @ #5 have been better than Reinhart @ #2 and Ristoleinen @ #8 and Eichel @ #2
But I can't root for any of my teams to lose, unless it is officially out of the playoff race. Just can't do it. Don't have it in me.
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
*when
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
This all may be true, but Hughes is going number 1 overall almost guaranteed. Point is, we dont look nearly as bad as the Kings, the Panthers or the Wings. We are not that bad a team and we have a ton of youngsters. I would much rather see competitive play from a team of young guys with 2/3 showing legit top end potential, just miss the playoffs and make picks next year for a run in '20 than straight dump (its the only way to be worse than LA) to get ONE player. Otherwise, why take players back at all last year? Why not insist on picks?
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
Well, that would be the classic Rangers move, wouldn't it? Some issues:
A)They would still lack a true #1 center, which is something they need more than a scoring wing.
B)Panarin will be 28 next year. NHL players' prime scoring years tend to peak early. Odds are, his best will already be behind him starting in 2019.
C)The defense will still be average at best, and that's likely a charitable assessment.
Would they be better with Panarin? Of course. Would they be a contender? Don't think so.
Look, I don't actually enjoy losing. Far from it. I just would rather they take their medicine for a few years and try to build from the ground up. To that end, dump guys like Namestnikov, Spooner, McLeod, McQuaid, Steal, Smith. They serve absolutely no purpose. Trade Zuccarello, Hayes, Vesey, maybe Kreider.
Quote:
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What the fuck are you talking about?!!
I didn't whine to anybody about you. I just don't like you. At all. And I think you don't know shit about sports and I don't think you played them at a decent level either. Yet you're condescending and dismissive to everybody who offers a differing opinion of yours.
You're a short, fat fuck who doesn't make any really good points, and on a secondary note I'd love to hold your head in the toilet. LOL, but the idea that I whine about you to other people or posters or whatever the hell you're talking about is absolutely laughable.
I want miller anymore Greg but I think you're one of the biggest pains in the ass on BBI. Even when a thread has zero to do with you like the one giving Mook advice about where to go in Blacksburg, you infect it with your negativity adding nothing to it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Didnt threaten you once, and Im not surprised you would be thoroughly entertained by the writing on the back of a shampoo bottle.
I used to think culture is overrated too but then Mike Sullivan taught my level 3 coaching clinic. I'm not a starstruck person, but he blew me away. So much wisdom and if you look back about how the Penguins were floundering when he took over and led them to the cup, it shows you that talent isn't everything. system, approach, motivation, etc. and culture/chemistry play a role.
I don't think it's more important than talent, but I definitely understand it, and culture for Sullivan is achieved in a variety of different ways.
but once Crosby and Malkin age a little more and the Penguins stink you'll see it more blatantly why talent matters more.
Just my opinion.
Agree, but in the Mike Sullivan example, his coaching style helped eradicate a country club culture. Before him the Pens stars were treated differently and he came in wiped the slate clean and said 4th line to 1st line here's is how we practice, earn ice time, get to be on the special units, etc.
and we know the results, a talented under-performing team won the cup in his rookie year and repeated the next.
could he have done that on a team without Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, etc? no.
So I'd put talent #1, but coaching and with it what I'm calling culture #2.
I think Vegas is the only example of a star-less team outperforming their status due to coaching/culture in my recent memory.
and I can separate coaching and culture in this way, coaching is a system, x's and o's, PP approach, PK approach, OT approach, breakouts, in-game adjustments, etc. but culture is getting your players to buy in 100% to that system and develop chemistry playing with each other.
That's a fine move for the 2012 Rangers. Not so much for the 2019 version.
I could go either way on him, if I'm the Rangers.
It depends on the state of the team after the season.
He's 27, not 33 and he's proven to be a creator (the Bowman bet that Panarin couldn't produce without Kane was proved false).
Plus with the impending work stoppage after the 2019-2020 season who knows what's in store for the future.