Worst rule in professional sports (though defensive holding away from the pass on 3rd and 20 ... automatic first down.. is a close second) rears its ugly head again.
Fraction of an inch offsides has nothing to do with a goal. Obviously. League can't get out of its own way on this
Lost another goal to that archaic rule of the skate having to be on the ice entering the zone. I really wish they'd change it so that skate in the air over the blue line is onside. One of the worst rules in sports.
And there's the goal given up to tie the game - like clockwork. Did anyone not think that would happen? Never fails with this fucking team. From one of the most impossible teams to beat with a 3rd period lead to one of the easiest...
They can review fractions of an inch at the blue line which has nothing to do with a goal ... but refs, they're human, miss a puck not dropping to ice on a faceoff which leads to the tieing goal.
Henrik made some nice saves tonight but I think he should've stopped each of the first two CBJ goals. The defense is just not good enough when he's not at the top of his game.
Henrik made some nice saves tonight but I think he should've stopped each of the first two CBJ goals. The defense is just not good enough when he's not at the top of his game.
He is 36. Father Time is an opponent that nobody can ultimately beat
Henrik made some nice saves tonight but I think he should've stopped each of the first two CBJ goals. The defense is just not good enough when he's not at the top of his game.
He is 36. Father Time is an opponent that nobody can ultimately beat
Unbelievably predictable. That summed up everything Rangers in a nutshell.
Any offside penalty egregious enough to actually impact a play will be virtually impossible to miss. It blows my fucking mind that the league felt this was something that needed to be reviewed.
There are spots where review is good for the sport. This is not one of them.
From a game that should have been won in regulation to another blown lead to an OT loss.
my son down to PA for a wrestling tournament starting tomorrow so we listened to the game on Sirius. After Columbus scored to tie it after the disallowed goal - then when they got the winner shortly after - my son goes, that happens to them a lot it seems like, right?
And he's watched about 40 minutes of games this season - all while eating after practice or whatever.
He asked why it happens all the time and i told him losing teams do a lot of loser stuff. Between the Rangers and Giants this year, lots of losing going on.
B, I grew up listening to Jim Gordon's radio play by play
on my small pocket radio with headphones under the blanket when I was supposed to be sleeping. He was so good it was literally better than TV in so many ways. Great memories for me.
RE: B, I grew up listening to Jim Gordon's radio play by play
on my small pocket radio with headphones under the blanket when I was supposed to be sleeping. He was so good it was literally better than TV in so many ways. Great memories for me.
I haven't listened to a radio called hockey game in years. Unfortunately, I believe it was the MSG TV feed with Albert and Maloney. Still fun and a welcome change. Makes the ride seem to go quicker too.
Listened to the ESPN feed of the Miami/Wisconsin Pinstripe Bowl too. They did a great job.
the same game over and over the past month. Same old script ...blowing the lead late then an excriciating OT or SHO loss. The tying goal was as unlucky as it can get too with the bad puck drop off the faceoff not hitting the ice rather it hits the Columbus centermans stick on the way down, makes its way back toward the D man who steps into a 40 foot slapper and naturally the tin man (Staal) was standing in the wrong spot and it deflects off him and past Hank. Plain and simple, shit luck!
has Staal been on the ice since the '11 finals and the Rangers have giving up a late tying goal...and if the goal isn't score the other team hits the post 3 times...
Watched again... didn't realize it was McDonagh... was quite the move by Giroux. Maybe one day we'll see someone in a Rangers uniform doing shit like that, but I'm not holding my breath.
When he gets a goal scoring chance ... he doesn't miss!
stick called... and you'd think it would occur with a player failing to drop a broken stick, not a player picking one up that's laying on the ice ... wtf was he thinking?
RE: In 50+ years of hockey I've never seen playing with a broken
stick called... and you'd think it would occur with a player failing to drop a broken stick, not a player picking one up that's laying on the ice ... wtf was he thinking?
And for some reason I always thought playing with a broken stick was a game misconduct.
Rangers were playing great until McLeod got hurt... the very next
game after he was injured they started a big slide and went into a slump... mighty big coincidence, McLeod finally comes back Sat and Rangers win their first road game in regulation... and now win their second in a row.
And Rangers are 13-5 when McLeod is in the lineup.
RE: Rangers were playing great until McLeod got hurt... the very next
game after he was injured they started a big slide and went into a slump... mighty big coincidence, McLeod finally comes back Sat and Rangers win their first road game in regulation... and now win their second in a row.
And Rangers are 13-5 when McLeod is in the lineup.
Which is utterly bizarre because McLeod is one of the worst hockey players I've ever seen. He makes Tanner Glass look like an All-Star.
And, while I agree he isn't a point producer, having played team sports all my life, good teams are teams that end up having internal chemistry...
think about it this way... if skill was the only thing that mattered, you could take the three best players and put them on one line and that line would always be the best line on your team... but in fact we know that isn't true... there is some unknown force that exists that we refer to as "chemistry" that results in a combination of 3 guys just playing well as a unit versus other groups of 3
Well, take that same concept and apply it to an entire team... and there are certain guys (in football we often refer to them as "a real football player") that may not have the best skills, but somehow and for some reason, when they are added to the mix, the team chemistry goes up. I argue that there is no analytic that can identify it in advance.... it is simply something that happens and you can become aware of it after it happens (but even then it is difficult to identify or measure, but I know from playing team sports all of my life, it exists, because I've experienced it)
this season. Fantastic pace. Penguins had very little time in the Ranger zone.
But no goals. And I dint see how the Rangers can continue with thi# pace. And Pittsburgh can score in bunches out of nowhere. But it has been an eye-opener this period to see what this team is capable of with high energy and effort. Great fun so far to watch!
And the score was 30 seconds or so after Howden was all over a loose puck in front of Pittsburgh's net and he was literally tackled while the puck was loose - with not a glance by the officials (nor a word from the announcers).
don't quit... they give 110% right down to the last second even when the game seems out of hand (which hasn't been often... they've been in almost every game)
And there is Fast literally tackled while the puck was still loose
fine line when you take 5he body the way he does, but hes useless to the Rangers if hes going to get constantly penalized - regardless whether the penalty is warranted or not ... refs are going to be quicker to c@ll boarding on guys like McLeod and bottom line is he has to avoid hurting the team or they cant h@ve him out there ... end of story
Yeah it was. It was the perfect time. I don't get that whole "well, we're not going to put out a skeleton squad." Everyone knew that this team would suck this year so the point was to suck a little less and then trade him at the deadline when we'd be seen as desperate?
Cant thebe said about whomever the Rangers trade at the deadlin
The only difference being theyre playing well (at least in the instance of Hayes and/or Kreisler)? I mean how would you know Zucch would have such a tough year? And was he really that bad before his injury?
Im going to guess he still has a wickedly accurate shot, incredible passing instincts, and great on the shootouts - but just isnt getting the attempts... but who wouldve known that last summer?
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
Hayes, who was sidelined for Friday nights 6-1 paddy whacking in Colorado with unidentified issues lingering from a Dec. 14 crash into the rear wall that had limited the centers practice time in the interim, has not skated since Wednesdays 7-2 rout by the Penguins at the Garden.
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
I thought he looked great. Incredibly skilled. Looked to be a bit weak along the boards. That's my only critique so far.
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
maybe the torn triceps is why he couldn't finish his scoring chances.
otherwise he looked fine to me, he was all over the ice.
I can see triceps limiting your shooting ability.
Rangers being outworked ... which is something new and not
on out of control with all the penalties one after another (and all mostly stupid and unnecessary) ... I hate to say it, but that is lays directly at the feet of the coaching staff (just as has the too many men penalties)... I think Quinn has been great, but he needs to take responsibility too
They're going to give up 6 goals again? For the 3rd game in a row?
I know SOG isn't everything, but most recent games we're outshot at least 2 if not 3 periods by a ton. This game was 16-3 a while ago at 3-0. Now shots overall is 33-14 end 2nd. Not going to win games like that
Saves me the trouble of tuning in. Wake me in June for the draft.
Except all those damned loser points mean that they have to continue to play like this for quite a while to have even a so-so chance to move into the top 5.
I don't know what "embraced the tank" is intended to imply, but
it is certainly disturbing to go from the first period of the Pittsburgh game - which I think was the best 20 minutes of hockey they've played this season - and to end up where they are now ... it's inexplicable to me ... esp today when it was clear they were being outworked.
As always, I really hope they end up with a very high draft pick... but meanwhile I'll still be watching each game... something that has suddenly been very difficult to do. I'm going to be very interested to see if Quinn is able to get them back to playing high intensity and focused hockey or if he's lost them and they've just given up (and what the ramifications of that would be next year and beyond).
that with the Blackhawks win tonight if 3 Rangers regulation wins wee regulation losses they'd be in last place.
of course it's hard to try and lose in the NHL and even finishing in last doesn't guarantee the top pick, but they'll get a good pick regardless in a good draft.
They're a terrible team that has the worst collection of defensemen in the league and has zero elite scoring talent.
Im fully aware of their lack of talent. Thats out of their immediate control. Whats inexplicable is going from playing their best period of hockey of the season to giving up 18 goals in the subsequent 8 periods of undisciplined, uninspired, lack of effort hockey.
They're a terrible team that has the worst collection of defensemen in the league and has zero elite scoring talent.
Well said. I mean we knew it going in. I mean when Pavel Buchnevich is considered your one and only scoring and sniping threat on the wing, you're gonna have a bad year.
What'd you think of Kakko at the WJC? Didn't watch the tournament too closely this time around so I'm curious. And it's pretty clear it's time for Rangers fans to shift focus to the draft
in Kakko and Hughes. I only watched the two Fins games vs the US and part of Finland Sweden.
Kakko was mostly not noticeable until, and not minimizing it, the gold medal winning goal. And you score that goal and people over weight your performance.
Hughes was asked before the tournament how he felt going in and he said (my paraphrasing) I can't wait to play against mostly my own level, it's not easy playing Western Michigan and 23 year old Canadian kids every night (the USNTDP plays a lot of NCAA teams).
Hughes looked electric with the puck in space, but man he was knocked off the puck way to easily and too often. He did miss 3 games with injury, and he set up goals against Russia and Finland, but it's his size (against his own level) that worried me.
He's still 17 years old, but Kakko for comparison at the same age is 6' 2" and almost 200 pounds. Hughes is 5' 10" (maybe) and 165 pounds. Hughes speed wasn't enough to counter the physicality at this level and that concerned me.
I hope he was injured.
Kakko got raves from his teammates. Tolvanen said he has to be the #1 pick.
I thought Kravstov had a great tournament and K'Andre Miller looked exactly as advertised, big, athletic, raw.
Miller played more defensive than offensive, which is good to see for a converted forward, and he flashed offensive skills on a couple rushes, but lost his man defensively a few times. One led to a Russia goal (I think - not going to re-watch it - I'm pretty sure it was Miller with net-front coverage).
overall I don't think Hughes moved off #1, but I'm going to back off Patrick Kane comps for now. and with my preference for bigger players, I wouldn't mind having the #2 pick and getting Kakko.
I do wonder if we see these two at the U18 worlds this April.
I know Hughes is still 17 for the tourney, I think Kakko turns 18 just before it, not sure who can be in it and if they will or not.
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
I didn't see what you saw Bill.
I saw a lower-talent, team, losing games because of a talent gap. With elite goal-tending and msx effort and a great system that players all buy into some talent gap can be closed IMO, but not a huge one in the NHL< and not consistently. that 9 - 1 - 1 stretch or whatever it was earlier in the year maybe was fool's gold for some people because it fit that mode.
Do you mean to say you never saw this Rangers team being a high effort, motivated team?
Or do you mean you don't see any difference in their play over the last 3 games?
Because I see both. What I saw before the last three games was a team lacking in talent who was never going to be able to compete with teams with higher level talent - but who skated their butts off with high energy and effort.
And what I've seen over the last 2 games in particular is a team playing without direction, taking lazy penalties, with zero jump in their legs, not scrambling to the puck, and just not making the same effort they made earlier.
We all agree there is a big drop-off in talent. That's no big surprise and is a big "DUH". What is a surprise is going up against mediocre talent the last two games and being outworked.
i mean all year you saying "this is a fun team to watch".
Maybe you have a point on their effort, I don't know, but I did not find the Rangers fun to watch.
I found them lacking talent, lacking zone time, lack shots (most of the time), lacking puck control. they have a few bright spots and I said before if Hayes and Kreider played 2 - 3 years ago like they're playing now they'd have their name on the cup, but mostly it's old Hank, awful D, and a group of grinders at F.
While I like the grit game, that's not what the Rangers have.
I watch them when there isn't a conflict with something else because they used to have the most concentration of American players and guys I'd followed from their youth hockey/juniors days like Stepan, Miller, Kreider, McDonagh, Skjei, etc. and because there are a lot of Rangers fans on here who like to talk hockey.
If you found the Rangers were a max effort team and now they're not than we differ slightly in our evaluation, but my point with the charts was, their puck luck had been high (shooting percentage inflated as well as save percent), both have normalized along with their record.
You watch them more closely than me to see if the effort tailed off too, but the other stats indicate they're playing equal to their record right now.
i mean all year you saying "this is a fun team to watch"...
That is probably because you aren't a Rangers fan. I have watched the Rangers for close to 60 years and in all that time I do not believe I have ever watched an entire game that didn't include the Rangers.
This team was a fun team to watch (and I think will probably once again become a fun team to watch) precisely because they were a team without high end talent who kept games close solely because of their high energy and effort (and Hank playing out of his mind).
What I don't completely understand is what has caused the sudden change over the last 8 periods of ice time. It has been a dramatic change. It probably isn't a big deal but is a tad worrisome to me because I believe effort (or more precisely lack thereof) usually relates to some form of coaching issue.
If I needed high talent to watch the Rangers for the last 60 years, I'd have given up a loooong time ago. I loved playing hockey (including street hockey into my 40s). I think it is the best team sport to play of all the sports. But from a fan perspective, I am all about one thing and one thing only - the Rangers as a long term organization - the process as an organization from season to season - and enjoying watching that one team and only that team.
It's a very odd thing that I can't honestly rationally explain. Football is close to being the same for me (no interest if the Giants are involved, although I have certainly watched the SB and other complete games that haven't included the Giants).
how much effort the Rangers players are and aren't giving in recent weeks.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
game (almost) and enjoy it. I agree it's the best of the team sports from a spectator standpoint.
I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
I don't know, but I found the Rangers boring all year, only reasons I watched now were to see Chytil and Andersson and to a lesser extent Pionk. I was really impressed with him in the World Cup.
But...as much as I enjoy effort, even more I enjoy watching a player like Gaudreau, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc, - those guys have talent, effort, and IQ. My favorite player to watch though is Crosby, as hated as he is, he thinks the game 2 or 3 plays ahead of everyone else. I can't tell you how many clips I've sent my kids of Crosby to show them how to anticipate the play instead of following it.
The little things we do in practice over and over again that become so repetitive, he does them in games so obviously he's the best training tool I've seen.
Anyway, I like some of the Rangers youth, and prospects, but they have some work to do that waving the coaching magic wand won't fix. Like Quinn or not, he's given Hayes and Kreider trade value (or they gave it to themselves) I don't think they had before the season.
how much effort the Rangers players are and aren't giving in recent weeks.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I don't agree with that at all. Hell, anyone that watches hockey long term can see differences in effort between periods of the same game. How quick they are to chase loose pucks and how quick they are on top of the guy with the puck.
As far as rebuilding and needing to find some young talent... well a big "duh".
... I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
...
PJ, I get that. I do. But I watch (and have always watched) almost all Ranger games every year - year in and year out. And, as you well can imagine, those were some long, lonely years. I mean, it's one thing to be a long term Giants fan through the 60s and 70s, but to be a Rangers fan is a different level.
And as I just posted, I do think effort is something you can see. As I said, you can see it in different periods of the same game. In most hockey games, one team usually has the better jump to the puck (whether a loose puck or getting to the puck handler) than the other team. And Quinn obviously preaches skating downhill in the offensive zone - being the first to loose pucks - or pressuring the puck handler by jumping all over him as soon as he gets his stick on the puck.
And that is precisely what the Rangers had been doing - and which has suddenly stopped over the past two games. They are losing the battles for the puck - they are being consistently beaten to the puck over the last two games. And, to go with that, the other team has been able to set up in the Ranger's zone 5 on 5 as though they were on a power play. Something has dramatically changed in their effort over the past two games.
Against Pittsburgh? I get it. I knew what was going to happen after that scoreless first period against Pittsburgh. But the inability to win the race to the puck over these last two games? Not so much.
without a whistle for several minutes until play is stopped by a goal... at which time a replay shows the SOG several minutes earlier was actually a goal:
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
RE: If there is a SOG that the refs call no goal and play continues
without a whistle for several minutes until play is stopped by a goal... at which time a replay shows the SOG several minutes earlier was actually a goal:
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Yes, the clock and everything else goes back to when the first (and now only) goal was scored, and play continues from there.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
...
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
Yea, it's a difficult time... probably a few things all contributing... disillusionment and worries about the almost certain changes coming up as the trade deadline draws closer... it will certainly help with draft position but it was much more fun watching them when they had jump in their game... hopefully we get to see some of 2018's draft picks getting a shot next year
And did you notice when he entered the box, McLeod totally ignored him? WTF?
I didn't get to really see the replay - want to see it again - but what I did see, seemed to be they got their skates caught up - but without any attempt to stick out his leg/foot, without which how can that be a trip?
Not great, but undoubtedly the best period they've played
Zucc should've kept both hands on his stick... but it was only a brief second and didn't have any impact on the play... just as long as they call them all this tight, I don't have a problem... but I'm not convinced they're going to call all of them that tight
Rangers have more jump in their game again... esp the Chytil line
during the last 2 minutes of every period they play (and often get scored upon in the last 2 minutes)... they need to work on that ... to be more aggressive offensively and keep the puck in the offensive zone... I wonder if there are stats regarding puck possession/SOG during the last 2 minutes of every period...
Could the Isles still ice the puck with no faceoff?
I imagine yes but just checking.
Sure. The rule is that there is no icing when your team has one fewer players on the ice due to penalty. What positions those players play is irrelevant (i.e. goalie or no goalie).
Could the Isles still ice the puck with no faceoff?
I imagine yes but just checking.
Any time you're on a penalty kill you can ice the puck without a whistle. goalie in or not.
It is interesting to know though that USA Hockey just changed this rule and short-handed youth hockey teams are no longer allowed to ice the puck. They did this in an attempt to get kids to learn to be creative and find ways to exit the zone without icing it. 1 man down, 2 men down, doesn't matter. You cannot ice it.
I read they are considering adopting this rule in upper levels (NCAA, juniors, AHL, etc.) as a trial for NHL adoption.
I think it would lead to more scoring or more icing face-offs during penalty times, or both. I hated it at first for my kids I coach, but I understand it, not sure I like it at the upper levels.
I've often thought of doing this cause of the critique of not enough scoring in hockey. It would definitely increase goal output.
I think the league would weigh the off-set of slowing the game down with a ton of extra whistles and play stoppages vs more scoring and vote against it.
but if they could somehow trade removing offsides review for no short-handed icing I'd consider it. offsides review is hurting not helping and probably takes as long as all these whistles would.
Offsides review sucks not because of the time it takes, but because
the offsides is usually very remote in time and consequence... there is rarely any direct connection between the offsides and the subsequent goal ... it really distracts from the game
Note: there is a legal concept known as proximate cause... that takes into account proximity in time and remoteness... for example, assume John gets into an accident in NJ at 10:00 PM ... if it can be demonstrated that John ran a red light in Maryland at 5:00 PM on his way to NJ, it can be said that his negligence in running the red light had a causal link to his accident in NJ at 10:00 because had he stopped for the red light he almost certainly would not have arrived at the location at 10:00 and the accident would have been avoided.
But the law rejects such arguments and requires that the connection be a more direct and efficient cause of the harm. I would argue that the same concept is why so many of us hate allowing an offsides review to invalidate a subsequent scoring play.
offsides review in the NHL sucks - your post could have been simple and succinct. every fan knows it sucks.
my point about the time it takes was not indicating the time it takes as the reason it sucks.
my point about the time it takes was that if the NHL would remove short-handed icing, it would likely increase game time and sports are hesitant to do that these days.
If that were an issue that became a sticking point I'd say to remove offsides review thinking that might be something the NHL would consider to even out the time it added by removing short-handed icing.
NHL offsides review should not exist, but it does and the league so far has shown no interest in removing it.
but my point about the time it takes was not my opinion of why it sucks.
... and yet a competitive period by the Rangers... noticeably different play by Rangers over the last 3 games... W or L, it is much more enjoyable watching them when they get back to being a hard working team focusing on jumping on puck
Just watched Krieder's goal and Nieves actually made a really
That Nash dropped the first puck tonight? That's awesome.
They had a pre-game ceremony for him... he was out at mid ice with his wife and little girl ... but I missed the actual face-off... that is pretty awesome though
I really don't know where he stands statistically, but during his time with the Rangers, I was really impressed by how he developed his defensive game. So many goal scorers accomplish that by cheating on their zone responsibilities and always looking to get a jump on a break out, but Nash's game was solid in all areas.
Ah crap... I forgot about the interview.. I wanted to see that
2-2 at the end of the first... Rangers had played well when 5x5 but gave Columbus 3 PP
Stayed 2-2 through most of the 2nd... Columbus made it 3-2 with around 5 minutes to go ...
Then in the last 2 minutes of the 2nd, the game got out of control with 3 goals scored, 2 of them by Columbus... to end the 2nd 5-3 and the game was over (and the Rangers played a much a weaker 3rd period)
More importantly, TSN has Kravtsov as the top prospect in the league. First time Ive seen him up that high but hes consensus top 10 at least. There were lot of questions surrounding the pick so its nice to see Link - ( New Window )
More importantly, TSN has Kravtsov as the top prospect in the league. First time Ive seen him up that high but hes consensus top 10 at least. There were lot of questions surrounding the pick so its nice to see Link - ( New Window )
Saw that earlier today - I was really pissed that we took him over Wahlstrom that night, but it's starting to look like it was actually a pretty darn good pick and I've warmed up to it exponentially since.
He was playing hurt during Juniors, and every time I watched, it looked like he was in the middle of everything or making a play. I was pretty impressed with him.
BTW - when was the last time we scored 3 unanswered goals?
I bet we haven't done it since the game we shut out NYI a few weeks back. I've grown conditioned to expect that every goal we score will be answered with a goal by the other team.
BTW - when was the last time we scored 3 unanswered goals?
I bet we haven't done it since the game we shut out NYI a few weeks back. I've grown conditioned to expect that every goal we score will be answered with a goal by the other team.
Yea, good point. So far, this seems to be their strongest game since the losing streak started. Let's see them do it for 60 minutes.
Of this young team. We have some decisions to make with Zucc and especially Hayes (playing his best hockey). But I love watching a possible rejuvenation period with these guys.
Agree Chop... and I predict the young D Lindgren is here to stay
Also, Mika might have played his best game last night. He was everywhere.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
this is a team at the top of the possession metrics charts for years now. They then completely luck into the #2 overall pick in the draft last year which they use to draft some much needed offense.
Last year they were easily a playoff team if they had even league average or slightly subpar goaltending - instead we saw them dominate the Rangers 5x5 but Darling was giving up goals high schoolers don't give up.
Is it more of the same in net for them this year? I cant believe they still suck... kind of Edmonton east at this point but at least McDavid had the one good quarterfinals Game 7 year...
Also, Mika might have played his best game last night. He was everywhere.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
I'm not arguing the merits of that trade, but is 41 points in 46 games good for a #1 C?
Also, Mika might have played his best game last night. He was everywhere.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
I'm not arguing the merits of that trade, but is 41 points in 46 games good for a #1 C?
Yes. What does that pace extrapolate to for a whole season? 75 points?
That's usually a top 10 - 15 center.
doesn't factor in defense which obviously is important for a C, but that's a great pace.
Right now Zibanejad is tied for 29th in points among Centers
Of course, a better analysis would be on 5x5 scoring, etc... just saying he's a nice player, but I'd be looking to accumulate assets from one of him or Hayes this trade deadline since cost effective Centers unlike a vet expiring wing like Zuccarello ... will get us a nice haul in return.
For a while there were only a handful of 80+ point guys. About 8-10 each season. Last season there were about 20. See the link below
So I think 70+ point pace is pretty good. Maybe not an upper tier 1C, but still solid. Ideally you get a true elite talent soon and Mika slots in on the second line. But you could do worse.
The debate went on for years about whether Stepan was a 1C and he never broke 60. So I'm happy with the progress shown by Zib and Kreider this season. Advanced stats on Mika are excellent as well.
Rangers haven't had a player hit 70 points since Gaborik in 2012. Just a random observation Link - ( New Window )
are all playing at a high level as they enter their prime years in the NHL. I'm not sure I would trade any of them at this point. Sign Hayes and build around this core for the next 5 years adding talented kids and a few top Free Agents.
are not Lias Anderson type players. Although it's far too early to make a judgement on Lias.
Regardless, the Rangers have the fewest non shootout wins in the league. I like some of what they've shown offensively. Kreider and Zib have taken a step forward. And Chytil shows promise. But they are not close to contending. Hayes has given them exactly what they needed, a career year to boost his trade value. Take advantage.
Chytil, also a good player, I think may wind up at wing.
but people expecting every NHL 1st round pick to be Auston Matthews are in for a let down.
these are 17/18 year old kids who are drafted, not 22/23 years old kids like in the NFL or NBA.
Even MLB (with similar ages for high school draftees) is pretty hit or miss in the 1st round.
It's hard to project a 17/18 year old playing against other 17/18 year old players to play against players much older and players more developed physically - a lot of projection for most of these guys.
but in the case of Andersson I think he'll be a good player.
And I'd probably trade Hayes and Zucarello if there was a good return though I can see Hayes sticking around now that he's playing like most people expected him to play.
are all playing at a high level as they enter their prime years in the NHL. I'm not sure I would trade any of them at this point. Sign Hayes and build around this core for the next 5 years adding talented kids and a few top Free Agents.
NYR is not so far off.
They are most certainly far off and the guys you listed will soon a) require bigger cap hits and b) by the time we are hopefully ready to contend again (3 years minimum unless we draft like Boston did), they will past their primes and older/expensive.
Rebuilding is a multi year effort. It wasn't - trade Nash, Grabner,
McDonaugh and now Zuccs - and call it a day. If aren't anywhere closer to competing today than we were last year and we traded our captain then - so hopefully one of Hayes or Ziba is dealt for mutiple assets. We have plenty of centers next year anyway assuming Lias moves to a depth C slot.
with Hayes. Not like Kreider who has another year on his deal and they can afford to wait while maybe being open to hearing offers (not advocating trading CK, just an example to compare). Can't take the chance on losing Hayes for nothing to free agency.
So what kind of contract would it cost to re-sign him in season? He would only accept a one year deal over the summer because he wanted to get to UFA as quick as possible. So there's no discount to be had here. JT Miller got 5 years and 5.2 per from Tampa. Start there but increase when factoring in Hayes being a natural center, IMO now a better player, and no Florida state income tax. 5 year and 6 million? I don't know, that may be too rich for me.
But yeah, I guess if the rangers are awarded cheap contract 3rd line forwards and 2nd pair Dmen from all other 30 teams, we could be back to the playoffs in no time!
At the moment we are wondering as aimlessly as Detroit and Philly as far as getting back to prominence. Last years sell off was a good start and maybe Zuccs was kept this summer for leadership -- but it's time to stop winning games and accumulate assets and hopefully a top 5 pick!!
500 team now and from what I can see improving the past 4-5 games.
Let some of these kids continue to get PT and develop plus add a few high end FA players (Panarin, etc) in the off season and we are contenders with Hank.
One of 8 teams in hockey (31 teams) with fewer wins than regulation losses - so not even .500 under the little league mentality of determining .500 which makes everyone feel like a winner (i.e. Participation trophy)
13 regulation wins all year against 20 regulation losses
But yes, better last 4 games. Hard to look worse than that stretch vs Pittsburgh - Colorado - Arizona
I think Rangers don't contend for a cup until 2020/21 season
and should consider trading both Kreider, Hayes & Zucc this year because none are likely to go up in value between now and the 2020/21 season... and I hate saying that because I love all 3 players.
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
and 20 losses is basically a 500 club, regardless of the win types.
This team has warts all over the place, I get it - but I think they have a solid foundation of players to build on now. I'm not into the whole tank thing, but I respect those that are and it's not a point to debate.
The draft is a crap shoot - I prefer to keep guy's like Hayes, Zib, Kreids...
RE: I think Rangers don't contend for a cup until 2020/21 season
and should consider trading both Kreider, Hayes & Zucc this year because none are likely to go up in value between now and the 2020/21 season... and I hate saying that because I love all 3 players.
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
The problem I have with that Bill is there is no guarantee you are going to get players like Kreids and Hayes in the draft or in trade return. These guys now are in their prime years, why deal them?
RE: RE: I think Rangers don't contend for a cup until 2020/21 season
and should consider trading both Kreider, Hayes & Zucc this year because none are likely to go up in value between now and the 2020/21 season... and I hate saying that because I love all 3 players.
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
The problem I have with that Bill is there is no guarantee you are going to get players like Kreids and Hayes in the draft or in trade return. These guys now are in their prime years, why deal them?
Because I want the Rangers to be at the beginning of their real upswing in the 2020/21 season with their prime assets doing nothing but growing in talent for the following 5 years... and I don't see Kreider, Hayes or Zucc meeting that definition. Kreider and Hayes will probably be at the height of their talent for the next 3 years culminating in 2020/21. I think the Rangers need talent that extends from 2020/21, not talent that falls off after 2020/21.
It's great to see what earlier this season were boys ... come of age.
Well done, Bill. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The good news is unlike Buffalo, Florida and Carolina which are stuck in what seems like eternal hell... when we are ready to contend again in 3 years, we can actually recruit to build around young drafted players ... better than Hayes, Kreisler, Zibanejad and Shattenkirk for that matter... and get back quickly.
I think there is value in keeping some players in their primes.
Its good for the kids to play with some competent pros as they develop.
I also think its a fantasy to assume that were gong to contend in 2-3 years if we unload players like Kreider and Hayes. How long was Edmonton crap, even with all their top picks? Us having a ton of picks guarantees us nothing.
It's great to see what earlier this season were boys ... come of age.
Well done, Bill. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The good news is unlike Buffalo, Florida and Carolina which are stuck in what seems like eternal hell... when we are ready to contend again in 3 years, we can actually recruit to build around young drafted players ... better than Hayes, Kreisler, Zibanejad and Shattenkirk for that matter... and get back quickly.
I've never felt otherwise. We've simply disagreed on my getting enjoyment from watching them play.
RE: I think there is value in keeping some players in their primes.
Its good for the kids to play with some competent pros as they develop.
I also think its a fantasy to assume that were gong to contend in 2-3 years if we unload players like Kreider and Hayes. How long was Edmonton crap, even with all their top picks? Us having a ton of picks guarantees us nothing.
Yat. That may turn out to be true. After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940, and why would I think getting a bunch of draft picks is going to change things over the next 3 years?
But, as much as I've loved watching Kreider, I just don't see his upside being much more than what it is now. And the bottom line is the Rangers don't have a guy you build a franchise around... a LT or Barkley. I want to see them be patient and try to build through the draft... and hope they develop enough talent internally so they can finally win a Cup without having to import another team - wholesale - to do it.
But there are just very few Crosbys or Matthews that come along. I dont see Hughes as being that kind of difference maker.
As for Kreider, he is what he will be, a fine power forward with exceptional speed. Wed be lucky to land a kid with that talent level in the middle of the 1st round, which is essentially what a trade would yield.
Kreider I'm assuming would return more than one 1st rounder
McDonaugh returned more than that. Agree, I wouldnt let him go for that cheap.
The difference between us and Edmonton or Buffalo or Carolina... is when we are ready to compete again with a good young nucleus (all of the recent draft picks plus hopefully two years picking in the top 5 or at least top 10 plus picks from other teams acquired in future trades) -- the Rangers have proven they can recruit better than most if not all the other franchises.
And with a year and a half left on his deal, Kreider's situation is tricky. But I think Kreider and Zib are the two vets we look to keep and add to the young core. Each have taken their game up a notch this season and are still relatively young.
After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940
Did the Rangers not earn the Cup in 1994?
Five members of that team were Rangers... unlike the Giants of 1986 who legitimately brought a SB to the team without having to go out and "buy" a SB ... the Rangers were not much more than "Edmonton lite" ... I watched... I was excited and thrilled... but it isn't as though 1994 purged the wait from 1940 by the organization finally figuring out how to build a team through the draft ... they did a great job importing a team from the outside. I'm still waiting for the "real Rangers'" to win a Cup.
After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940
Did the Rangers not earn the Cup in 1994?
Five members of that team were Rangers... unlike the Giants of 1986 who legitimately brought a SB to the team without having to go out and "buy" a SB ... the Rangers were not much more than "Edmonton lite" ... I watched... I was excited and thrilled... but it isn't as though 1994 purged the wait from 1940 by the organization finally figuring out how to build a team through the draft ... they did a great job importing a team from the outside. I'm still waiting for the "real Rangers'" to win a Cup.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but man that's a brutal take.
the 1940 Cup is "legitimate" then? The Rangers only had two non-Canadians on the roster. I have no idea how many of them came naturally or ended up playing with somebody before, but it seems like an odd metric to use.
I don't know many people who look at the 1994 Rangers as being one that bought a cup, but maybe that was so long ago, message boards with bizarre opinions didn't exist.
The early 70's teams and the Hank teams that made the finals but didn't win the cup were more organically grown and had a different connection. But the 1994 team was much more than the NY Oilers.
Five members of that team were Rangers... unlike the Giants of 1986 who legitimately brought a SB to the team without having to go out and "buy" a SB ... the Rangers were not much more than "Edmonton lite" ... I watched... I was excited and thrilled... but it isn't as though 1994 purged the wait from 1940 by the organization finally figuring out how to build a team through the draft ... they did a great job importing a team from the outside. I'm still waiting for the "real Rangers'" to win a Cup.
This is really spectacular. You should carry insight and logic like this everywhere you go in life.
at 1994. Zubov was the leading scorer, Graves, Leetch and Kovalev were all in the Top 6. The only ex-Oiler in the group was Messier. Larmer was rounding out his career, but wasn't even with EDM.
Richter was the goalie.
Hey, it is what it is... like I said, I was obviously excited by 1994
and still love Messier for what he meant to that team and the organization... and because I've been following the Rangers since the 1950s, I'm well aware of the differences between the NHL and NFL in building a team
But - the bottom line is - I enjoyed how the Giants built their team leading to the 1986 SB 1000x more than the way the Rangers built their team leading to the 1994 Cup. It felt cheap and still feels cheap.
Maybe it's just me, but to this day I feel a much stronger attachment to draft picks than I do towards imports - both Giants and Rangers.
at 1994. Zubov was the leading scorer, Graves, Leetch and Kovalev were all in the Top 6. The only ex-Oiler in the group was Messier. Larmer was rounding out his career, but wasn't even with EDM.
Richter was the goalie.
Graves was technically an ex-Oiler, although he had been a Ranger for several years at that point.
at 1994. Zubov was the leading scorer, Graves, Leetch and Kovalev were all in the Top 6. The only ex-Oiler in the group was Messier. Larmer was rounding out his career, but wasn't even with EDM.
Richter was the goalie.
I'm talking draft picks versus external imports. Graves was an import (love him obviously, but he wasn't a draft pick).
It completely ignores the hoegrown talent the Rangers used to get all those guys to in that cup.
Likely sabotaged future cup runs.
Weight, Amonte, Marchant, Domi, King, Patrick, Turcotte and those picks were all drafted assets that went on to have pretty good careers to varying degrees.
Now I'm on to lamenting that I used to root for OJ Anderson, Everson Walls - a Cowboy!!, Matt Bahr, Steve DeOssie, and USFL traitors like Carson, Risenburg, Oates and Landeta!!
It completely ignores the hoegrown talent the Rangers used to get all those guys to in that cup.
Likely sabotaged future cup runs.
Weight, Amonte, Marchant, Domi, King, Patrick, Turcotte and those picks were all drafted assets that went on to have pretty good careers to varying degrees.
I am not ignoring the homegrown talent. That was the currency they used to buy the cup.
I have a much greater attachment to draft picks than external imports. I don't know why. I always have.
I also hate free agency. Probably for the same reason.
I love OJ Anderson and cheered him like crazy. I think what he did in the 1990 SB was incredible.
I love Messier. And Graves. I think what they did for the 1994 Cup was incredible.
But I absolutely, positively, enjoyed the slow but steady building of the Giants from 1979 to 1986 by George Young's drafts over anything the Rangers have ever done - and it isn't even close. Those years - the steady increasing dominance of the Giants as the direct result of the draft - is by far my favorite memory in sports and always will be. And it is because of the draft.
I have no clue why I enjoy players who are home grown draft picks more than I do external imports... but I do. By a lot.
But I guess Penguins fans should be put an asterisk next to their Cups too since Kessel, Hagelin, Schultz, Hornquist, etc. -- all hired mercenaries.
Not to mention better to tank for a few years, draft Crosby and Malkin by sheer luck -- then win with those players... much more noble than acquiring Oilers the way the Rangers did!
I don't give a fuck if the next Rangers title comes because the Florida Panthers team went bankrupt and the league awarded us Barkov and Ekblad... just Win.
RE: This line of thinking is just so utterly wrong
But I guess Penguins fans should be put an asterisk next to their Cups too since Kessel, Hagelin, Schultz, Hornquist, etc. -- all hired mercenaries.
Not to mention better to tank for a few years, draft Crosby and Malkin by sheer luck -- then win with those players... much more noble than acquiring Oilers the way the Rangers did!
I don't give a fuck if the next Rangers title comes because the Florida Panthers team went bankrupt and the league awarded us Barkov and Ekblad... just Win.
Well, of course. It's become pretty obvious that buying a Cup is the only way long suffering Ranger fans like me will ever celebrate one. Duh.
The 1994 NY Rangers were one of my all time favorite teams - bar none in sports.
Probably the best playoff run and excitement I ever took as a fan, that team captivated the entire city and surrounding burbs. It was a magical run, once in a lifetime. I feel sorry for any Ranger fan not taking the same joy in the 1994 team.
...
Why watch sports if you're more interested in seeing your draft picks develop than you are with winning a title.
Huh? What should I watch instead?
Thinking about it, I enjoy watching younger guys grow and establish themselves while they are members of the teams I follow - rather than seeing them bring in established talent who I never got the chance to watch them develop.
of watching Filip Chytil become the next Gretzky or trading him for Patrick Kane and winning the 2020 Stanley Cup, which would you choose?
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
of watching Filip Chytil become the next Gretzky or trading him for Patrick Kane and winning the 2020 Stanley Cup, which would you choose?
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
That's a unique opinion and sort of misses the goal of team sports.
but whatever, you have a right to your unique opinion.
of watching Filip Chytil become the next Gretzky or trading him for Patrick Kane and winning the 2020 Stanley Cup, which would you choose?
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
That's a unique opinion and sort of misses the goal of team sports.
but whatever, you have a right to your unique opinion.
I don't know the basis for your statement that it is a unique opinion.
I suspect lots of Giants fans who watched every snap Lawrence Taylor play - if they had to choose between:
1. The Giants of the 1980s being exactly the same as they were except they lost both SBs ;
or
2. The Giants win both SBs but Lawrence Taylor never played for the Giants
would choose the memories of getting to watch Lawrence Taylor game after game for a decade.
And PJ, it is most certainly NOT the goal of team sports fans
I played team sports all my life ... and even then, I don't think winning is the most important thing for team sports... I think competing is. It matters HOW you play the game. Winning isn't everything.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
that would be a small, if not miniscule % of fans.
The joy most fans take in sports is seeing their team win. I'd take two SB's without ever seeing LT than watch LT and win nothing, but we were able to have both.
Ask how happy Saint fans were to get to watch Archie Manning. Or Bills fans for watching Jim Kelly. You don't think those guys would trade in the whole team for titles??
is not even close to the reality of what I proposed or the choice you implied. Obviously if you could have your cake and eat it too every fan would want that, but reality is it's just not likely or realistic in pro sports today.
At the end of the season you would be more content with your choice of:
the Rangers were awful, didn't make the playoffs, but man that Filip Chytil is a hell of a player. I got a lot of enjoyment from watching him.
vs
Holy shit, the Rangers won the cup, Patick Kane was lights out. Conn Smythe winner. but I didn't enjoy it. I miss Chytil.
That's the unique perspective IMO, I gave you a choice of one or the other - watching a prospect develop (and implied not winning a cup) or trading that prospect and winning a cup and you chose you'd prefer to watch the prospect develop.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I infinitely liked winning more. I played adult baseball up until I was 45. I was on teams where I was good friends with guys and we lost and I was on teams with some people I hardly knew at first and we won. While commiserating in a group might be therapeutic, I liked the championship teams, especially the part where we had fun winning, and got to know a bunch of people I didn't previously.
I ended up playing with a few guys who made it up to high levels. Learning about them and their stories was priceless.
that would be a small, if not miniscule % of fans.
The joy most fans take in sports is seeing their team win. I'd take two SB's without ever seeing LT than watch LT and win nothing, but we were able to have both.
Ask how happy Saint fans were to get to watch Archie Manning. Or Bills fans for watching Jim Kelly. You don't think those guys would trade in the whole team for titles??
So in theory you choose a 2020 SB Championship won by 53 Giants players who never had any connection to the Giants before and who never had any connection to the Giants again.
What possible meaning could that have? It would be totally boring and might as well just watch some all star game. I wouldn't even watch. At all. Because it would be devoid of meaning. But, hey, to each his own.
RE: And PJ, it is most certainly NOT the goal of team sports fans
I played team sports all my life ... and even then, I don't think winning is the most important thing for team sports... I think competing is. It matters HOW you play the game. Winning isn't everything.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I never said it was a goal of fans, I said it was a goal of team sports (professional).
And you sound like my father. that's old school way of thinking.
Winning is all that matters in team professional sports.
There is no "did it the right way" anymore.
Athletes are not role models and there are no moral victories.
Winning = good, losing = bad, even if you try really really hard.
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I infinitely liked winning more. I played adult baseball up until I was 45. I was on teams where I was good friends with guys and we lost and I was on teams with some people I hardly knew at first and we won. While commiserating in a group might be therapeutic, I liked the championship teams, especially the part where we had fun winning, and got to know a bunch of people I didn't previously.
I ended up playing with a few guys who made it up to high levels. Learning about them and their stories was priceless.
I played fast pitch softball into my 40s. Two different leagues... one an open and very competitive league which we won 3 years in a row (you had to pay your pitcher if you wanted to win) ... and another a resident based fast pitch town league that, while competitive, was on a lower level...
And while I enjoyed both - competing with my friends was, in the end, much more enjoyable to me.
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
RE: RE: And PJ, it is most certainly NOT the goal of team sports fans
I played team sports all my life ... and even then, I don't think winning is the most important thing for team sports... I think competing is. It matters HOW you play the game. Winning isn't everything.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I never said it was a goal of fans, I said it was a goal of team sports (professional).
And you sound like my father. that's old school way of thinking.
Winning is all that matters in team professional sports.
There is no "did it the right way" anymore.
Athletes are not role models and there are no moral victories.
Winning = good, losing = bad, even if you try really really hard.
PJ, that is what led to the Patriots cheating... more than once. But I guess for you, that's all good. Do anything because winning is everything. Even if you cheat to do it. Not for me.
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
Greg, I don't know why you say that. I made it clear I've enjoyed all the championships my teams have won. It's just that I find building teams in a manner in which I get to follow the development of the players much more enjoyable than 1 year rentals.
But, hey, if you identify with and prefer one year rentals, go for it. I enjoy one year rentals but, unlike you apparently, I happen to prefer home grown guys who win after I get to see them develop over the years. If you don't care where they come from, they just watch all star games.
I was happy, but it sure would've been nice to see Ali Haji-Sheikh nail the FG on the frozen tundra to go out on top in his 23rd season!!
Quote:
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making...
The point I'm making is pretty straight forward. Where players come from matter. If they didn't matter, then fans would be just as happy watching 53 players who never played for the Giants before - and who would never play for them again - complete strangers to the Giants - put on the uniform and play in 2020 and win the SB
I am confident fans would not be happy with that. Fans enjoy following their team from year to year ... watching the team develop ... and that where players come from matter ... that under my extreme example, not many fans would find any emotional bond to a group of strangers putting on the uniform (sort of similar to the 1987 strike season)
All I am saying is... that being a fan is more than just winning... it is watching and following a team being built... season after season growth and development
If it was solely about winning - then fans would actually welcome and be happy about winning with 53 strangers with zero connection to the team before or after... and, as I said, I have zero interest in any such situation and I am confident such a league would die a very quick death from lack of interest.
There are exceptions, but in general I'm in the "I root for laundry" category. I loved Lawrence Taylor, but if you tell me that the choice is between LT and no Super Bowls versus no LT and Super Bowls? I'm taking the Super Bowls every time.
Don Mattingly was my #1 childhood hero, but the Yankees never won while he was on the team. I preferred when they were winning.
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
Don't forget 2 time SB MVP and import Eli Manning.
understand your point, but in practicality in never comes into play:
Quote:
The point I'm making is pretty straight forward. Where players come from matter
I'm not even sure how that Rangers team is a good example. Richter and Leetch were prominent guys. Zubov was their top point guy. I remember how exciting Kovalev was. Like I joked about above, the 1940 Rangers had all but 2 Canadians on their team. Who wants to root for guys from a different country!!
There are exceptions, but in general I'm in the "I root for laundry" category. I loved Lawrence Taylor, but if you tell me that the choice is between LT and no Super Bowls versus no LT and Super Bowls? I'm taking the Super Bowls every time.
Don Mattingly was my #1 childhood hero, but the Yankees never won while he was on the team. I preferred when they were winning.
If the choice is to watch the Giants dominate in the 1980s with all the same players but lose the two SB
versus
Watch the Giants be mediocre with no dominating players but WIN the 1986 and 1990 super bowls
I pick #1 every single time.
Now, I see PJ in a post I missed above ... said watch LT but the Giants are not competitive ... or watch Chytil develop but the Rangers are not competitive... that is a much more difficult thing for me... and I'd have to go with watching a competitive team
But - here is the real point for me ... I choose long term competitive teams with no championships than I would choose long term lousy teams with two lucky championships. In other words, championships are not everything for me... I much rather have enjoyment every game for a decade except 2 lost super bowls ... than be bored for a decade except for winning 2 outliers Super Bowls
understand your point, but in practicality in never comes into play:
Quote:
The point I'm making is pretty straight forward. Where players come from matter
I'm not even sure how that Rangers team is a good example. Richter and Leetch were prominent guys. Zubov was their top point guy. I remember how exciting Kovalev was. Like I joked about above, the 1940 Rangers had all but 2 Canadians on their team. Who wants to root for guys from a different country!!
They put gravy on French Fries for fuck's sake!
It is a really odd take.
FatMan... c'mon ... I loved the Cup in 1994... I'm a fucking Rangers fan for over 50 years... how could I NOT love it?
All I'm saying is that in theory I would have loved it a lot more if the Cup contained the names of more than 5 Ranger draft picks. That is literally all I am saying.
I know a ton of Bills fans who vehemently disagree with you.
You think Vikings fans preferred to root for the Purple People Eaters and grizzly Bud Grant instead of having SB's?? It basically ruined Jim Marshall's life!
Don't forget 2 time SB MVP and import Eli Manning.
Haha... but, as I have been thinking out loud as I post, I made the point earlier that I think it isn't so much being a draft pick as it is getting to watch and follow a young player develop into a star ... versus a player join the Giants/Rangers after they had already developed into a star with some other team.
Are you sure you aren't an Islanders fan? I am sure they were so happy to watch Tavares develop all those years and never winning play off series'. Because, ya know, he was home grown...
But hey, they had that dynasty from the 80s to reflect back on.
Are you sure you aren't an Islanders fan? I am sure they were so happy to watch Tavares develop all those years and never winning play off series'. Because, ya know, he was home grown...
But hey, they had that dynasty from the 80s to reflect back on.
Thinking on it as we've been discussing it ... actually PJ's post about a lousy Giants team versus a SB winning team ... clarified my thoughts ... watching a long term competitive team is my #1 goal that, for me, trumps championships or individual players.
I have an Islander fan friend who calls the 94 Rangers...
...the Edmonton Rangers. Yet most of those acquisitions were trades. Like Neil Smith has said (at the time) - paraphrasing 'Am I supposed to trade for Sharks?'
Neil Smith used/gambled his assets to go for a run.
Mark Messier - trade - Steven Rice was a highly touted prospect, DeBrusk and Bernie Nicholls (Jeff Beukeboom was the future considerations part with Dave Shaw eventually heading out).
Adam Graves was an RFA and Troy Mallette was the compensation. Mallette was an underrated Ranger who was a personal favorite.
Esa Tikkanen cost the Rangers Doug Weight
Kevin Lowe was a trade (late December that year in 92?)
Craig MacTavish was Todd Marchant
Glenn Anderson came from Toronto and Mike Gartner went the other way.
Edmonton was certainly salary dumping but we did risk some good players and yes I acknowledge that the Rangers, financially were a few teams that could have afforded the contracts.
I don't feel guilty at all - I love the Giants but that was my all time favorite championship.
If I had to choose between reliving 1979-1990 versus 2004-2015 (two 11 year periods with new QBs)
...
and the only change is that in the 1979 period the Giants lose the two Super Bowls
I would choose the 1979-1990 time frame without hesitation... those 11 years brought me more joy from the week in and week out Giants domination than the 11 very long years from 2004-2015 (with the most exciting and best SB in my lifetime being the 2006 win over the assholes)
But, from the view of my happiness season after season, I have to go with the dominance of the greatest Giants football squad in Giants history - the teams put together by George Young over the 11 years starting in 1979. That was the best period of time in my lifetime as a fan.
by Barry Miesel, it's a great read for Rangers fans about the Keenan/Smith relationship. Keenan wanted to trade Leetch for Chelios which is pretty known now. I think he also suggested Amonte or Leetch for Stu Grimson. It's been a few years since I read it. Link - ( New Window )
Well that is the benefit of hindsight, because the Giants did win 2 championships.
Separate yourself from being a Giants fan for a second and lets say you are SD/LA Chargers fan. You would be content with the team since 2004, with having the homegrown talent of Rivers, Tomlinson, etc...going to the playoffs a few times, never winning a championship? But hey, they got close in 2007 and lost in the AFCCG.
I can pretty much guarantee, any Charger's fan would trade all those competitive years for one championship.
let's say the '79 - '90 time frame had a mix of free agents and younger players develop?
Would those two SB wins mean less?
Because that's the new normal in the NFL (and pro sports).
If you bring it into current team terms it sounds like you'd rather the Eli Giants go 12 - 4 every year and lose in the playoffs instead of somewhere between 6 - 10 and 10 - 6 but win two Super Bowls.
That blows my mind.
And I think it's just a different mind set.
yes, I'd love to see home grown players dominate for my teams, but if I have a choice of winning a SB once in 5 years but going 6 - 10 the other 4 or 12 - 4 with no SB's all 5 years it's a no-brainer.
I'm not as old as you, but I remember '86, '90, '07 and '11 vividly and '07 was just as sweet as any of the others. So was '11 for me. they're all special to me.
let's say the '79 - '90 time frame had a mix of free agents and younger players develop?
Would those two SB wins mean less?
Because that's the new normal in the NFL (and pro sports).
If you bring it into current team terms it sounds like you'd rather the Eli Giants go 12 - 4 every year and lose in the playoffs instead of somewhere between 6 - 10 and 10 - 6 but win two Super Bowls.
That blows my mind.
And I think it's just a different mind set.
yes, I'd love to see home grown players dominate for my teams, but if I have a choice of winning a SB once in 5 years but going 6 - 10 the other 4 or 12 - 4 with no SB's all 5 years it's a no-brainer.
I'm not as old as you, but I remember '86, '90, '07 and '11 vividly and '07 was just as sweet as any of the others. So was '11 for me. they're all special to me.
PJ, I just finished posting that your prior post about a non-competitive team with Lawrence Taylor made me reflect about my feelings... because my reaction is that I absolutely would not be satisfied watching every snap LT played at the expense of being forced to watch a non-competitive team every Sunday.
But, I would absolutely choose to watch a dominating Giants team for a decade - every Sunday week in and week out - over a decade of pathetic turnover, with no great players, with 1-2 SBs by shocking out of the blue SB runs. The short term joy of 2 games would not be worth the decade of misery every Sunday.
I still look back fondly at both championships and maybe because i live in metro-Boston I enjoy them more and longer than other fans (I doubt I'm unique though in this regard).
The regular seasons were not dominant, but I loved watching those teams evolve and hit peak form come playoff time and those were some of the most riveting playoff games I've seen.
In fact knowing there was a little bit of David vs Goliath being on the road so much against opponents with better records for those games made it even a little sweeter.
in 1986 if the Giants lost it would have been a disappointment, a let down. they were the best team in the league.
in 2007 if the Giants lost no one would have been surprised, it's one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
Regardless for a variety of reasons I root for laundry and i do not get emotionally invested in players.
So, to me it doesn't matter how we get there (and I don't mean cheating so don't be obtuse), but my goal is for the teams I like to win championships. Period.
I still look back fondly at both championships and maybe because i live in metro-Boston I enjoy them more and longer than other fans (I doubt I'm unique though in this regard).
The regular seasons were not dominant, but I loved watching those teams evolve and hit peak form come playoff time and those were some of the most riveting playoff games I've seen.
In fact knowing there was a little bit of David vs Goliath being on the road so much against opponents with better records for those games made it even a little sweeter.
in 1986 if the Giants lost it would have been a disappointment, a let down. they were the best team in the league.
in 2007 if the Giants lost no one would have been surprised, it's one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
Regardless for a variety of reasons I root for laundry and i do not get emotionally invested in players.
So, to me it doesn't matter how we get there (and I don't mean cheating so don't be obtuse), but my goal is for the teams I like to win championships. Period.
See, I don't get that at all. Using my extreme example to make my point, if the Giants fielded a team of 53 players who had zero connection to the Giants before the season and they played only one season and then every one of them were gone... but they wore the Giants jersey for one year and one year only - and they won the SB - you would enjoy that and consider that a Giants' Super Bowl?
I would hate it. There would be zero connection with the players. It would be completely meaningless.
My point in that example is that the concept of a "team" that I follow has meaning that extends beyond one season and that winning, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless if it is divorced from the building of the team - the slow development of players who ultimately win that championship.
is very unrealistic not just extreme (53 players with zero connection to the team) except in extreme cases like an expansion team. Give me one example of a professional team that won in that situation (not the '94 NYR that's been debunked)
And those Golden Knights fans seemed pretty rabid in the Stanley cup finals.
The example is made to illustrate a point
baadbill : 2:42 pm : link : reply
... championships are meaningless if they are disconnected from the concept of building a winning team over time.
In their second years in the NFL, the Panthers and Jaguars went to the Conference Championship games, with players the fans hadn't seen play more than a year, with a fan base that had spent their lives rooting for other NFL teams.
really shouldn't call it an extreme example. You should call it an impossible one.
Would you have had less joy watching the Giants if they won the SB this year? They turned over the roster by 70% and the starters by 50%.
That's about as much of a non-connection one can have to an NFL team these days.
And I would've enjoyed every minute of a Super Bowl run. Hell, I'd have been estactic to make the playoffs!
Of course not, because they are players who will be playing moving forward. They ARE the NY Giants. The Championship would ONLY have meaning to me if the players that won it were connected to the Giants. The connection of the players to the team matters.
The example is made to illustrate a point
baadbill : 2:42 pm : link : reply
... championships are meaningless if they are disconnected from the concept of building a winning team over time.
In their second years in the NFL, the Panthers and Jaguars went to the Conference Championship games, with players the fans hadn't seen play more than a year, with a fan base that had spent their lives rooting for other NFL teams.
But that's just not accurate. Those fans knew those players were connected to their teams moving forward. Championships only matter to the extent there is a connection between the players who win the Championship and to the team.
And, my point, again, being that I get more joy from a winning team filled with players I had the joy watch develop into stars while playing for MY team
Versus a winning team filled with players who developed into star playing for a different team.
That is ALL I am saying. It may make no difference to you guys. Good for you. But I get more enjoyment watching young guys develop into stars and then win a championship. That is my preference.
And, btw, to repeat ... I LOVED the 1994 Stanely Cup...
Olympic hockey Bill when the NHL was participating?
Slightly different concept since that team is playing for country not "employer" but flies in the face of what brings you joy in sports.
Other than '80, the 1996 Word Cup, the 2010 Olympics and the 2002 Olympics are some of my fondest hockey moments.
Were you able to enjoy them? The players had no connection to each other in most cases other than being fellow countrymen.
Yes. I watched the entirety of the 1980 Olympics. And I was very excited and loved them.
I don't know what defines becoming a fan of a particular team. I know one thing that does not - at least for me - whether they win or lose. For me, I didn't choose my teams, they were natural selections... Yankees, Knicks, Rangers, and the Giants. And the only teams that I watched consistently, the Rangers and the Giants... weren't very good. If wining was all that mattered, we'd all be choosing winning teams to follow.
Most fans have an emotional attachment to the teams they follow. To the team itself and to the players on that team. I know you feel contrary - your post saying you have no emotional attachment to any players - and that the only thing that matters, is winning - surprises me a bit.
I watched the game when Eddie Giacomin played in the Garden as goalie for the Red Wings after being released days earlier by the Rangers... and I can tell you straight up that the Ranger fans were very emotional and emotionally attached to Giacomin.
Quote:
Many fans were angry when he was put on waivers and claimed by the Detroit Red Wings on October 29, 1975 as the result of a youth movement that resulted in John Davidson taking over in goal. The Red Wings' next game was in New York on November 2, and when Giacomin appeared on the ice in a Red Wing jersey, fans gave him a long standing ovation and cheered for him throughout the game. Rangers fans booed their own team when they took shots or scored on Giacomin, and chanted Giacomin's name throughout the match, which he won for the Red Wings. The evening was voted one of the 50 greatest moments in MSG history.
I am a fan of a team much more than I am a fan of a sport. I have watched the majority of Ranger regular season games for the majority of my lifetime ... but in all that time, I don't believe I have ever watched the entirety of a single NHL game that the Rangers weren't playing. I've watched some NFL games that didn't involve the Giants, but not many other than the Super Bowls (I've never watched a full Stanley Cup game other than 1994).
And I tend to buy into the myths I'm fed about the organizations, such as the Giants, being a "class organization". I know it probably isn't true and is a sales gimmick, but somehow I want to believe in it... I want it to be true. And one of the reasons I loved Phil Simms is because of what he meant to the Giants organization off the field ... the class act he was. Same for Manning.
All of those things go into my fandom.
And, when it comes to winning championships, the point of my extreme example of having 100% players from outside the organization for one single year ... is to point out that the origin of the players matter. My example is the most exteme - and would result in me having zero interest in the Championship won by those players.
But it's a continuum ... the 1994 Rangers had 5 players names engraved on the Cup who were drafted by the Rangers. If I could choose, I would have preferred 100% of the names on the Cup were draft picks of the Rangers whom I got to watch develop for years leading to the Cup. Likewise, I would have felt less enthused about the 1994 Cup had there been zero draft picks - or had the draft picks whose names on the Cup been less significant players (rather than the great contributions they all made).
To me - my fandom - encompasses more than winning. If that was all that mattered, I don't know how I could have watched every Giant's game during the 1970s - or the majority of Ranger games all of my life.
My fandom includes following my team season to season ... watching how they draft and watching the young players develop [into stars hopefully] ... getting a feel for where on the slope the ever constant ongoing building process lies ... is the team on the rise or on a downward slide.
Sorry for rambling. But what it means to be a fan of a team is an interesting concept ... and clearly not one I can fully understand even within myself. I've enjoyed this discussion and, since I was basically talking out loud as I thought about it while the discussion progressed, I'm still not entirely sure what motivates me as a fan.
and I kind of simplify it by saying I only root for the "shirt/jersey".
I don't care how much my favorite teams are winning or loosing by and I don't care about the standings.
Every game the Yankees, Giants and Rangers play is an opportunity for me to root for my team to win and I could care less how the players on the team were assembled - via trade, draft or free agent.
Mark Messier is my all time favorite Ranger. The Captain.
isn't because they win for most of us non-bandwagoners, but it is a goal for most fans for their team to win.
When the Giants win a game they don't play particularly well I don't get less of a rush than when they dominate.
I view it all as part of a process to win a championship.
Process to win a championship, I'll repeat that.
Not a process to develop young players or keep a core group together.
A process to build a team to win a championship ... not just to hire a bunch of free agents all of whom became stars on other teams. Again, where the players come from matter. A team comprised 100% from other teams is less enjoyable to most fans than a team with home grown stars that fans enjoyed watching over the years.
Players matter to most fans... that's why Giacomin's return
to the Garden is considered one of the most memorable events in MSG history... I know you said you don't have any emotional attachment to any players... but most fans get emotional about players they like and follow as evidenced by the Eddie Eddie chants in MSG that night.
isn't because they win for most of us non-bandwagoners, but it is a goal for most fans for their team to win.
When the Giants win a game they don't play particularly well I don't get less of a rush than when they dominate.
I view it all as part of a process to win a championship.
Process to win a championship, I'll repeat that.
Not a process to develop young players or keep a core group together.
A process to build a team to win a championship ... not just to hire a bunch of free agents all of whom became stars on other teams. Again, where the players come from matter. A team comprised 100% from other teams is less enjoyable to most fans than a team with home grown stars that fans enjoyed watching over the years.
Ok, I just don't get your perspective.
To me, in this era of sports, its' obviously easiest to win if you have contribution from young players you drafted on initial less expensive contracts but it's rare, if ever that those players provide enough to win so the good GM's surround those youngsters with veteran players (internally developed or externally signed) to help build out areas of your team you haven't developed internally.
It's practically the blue print for every pro champion the past 20 years.
It makes all the sense in the world. Sure, best case you don't need to sign high $$ veterans from outside, but if you do a great job drafting and developing youth eventually you won't be able to pay them.
Look at the Maple Leafs. Not all internal, but they absolutely will not be able to pay Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Hyman, etc. too good too soon all need to get paid around the same time - add to that Tavares, and someone will need to go and be replaced by a lower cost FA.
Winnipeg will face a similar challenge IMO.
It's the economy of sports these days. Nothing wrong with it IMO either.
I get you don't understand... you've made it clear you have zero
emotional attachment to any player... and that's obviously good for you... I'm different... I was upset when Giacomin was released and the hair stood on end when days later the Garden crowd was thunderous in their "Eddie Eddie" chants for a beloved player.
And I enjoy watching young players develop. It's part of the joy I get from following a team.
IF the Leafs make their first run this Spring since 1967... their fans should boycott the Finals and parade.
Tavares
Marleau
F Anderssen
...probably a few more hired mercenaries at the trade deadline too. It's disgusting.
Wait - what the fuck is Bill talking about?
In any event, sure, watching your home grown group build towards something and eventually reach the pinnacle is the best - I wanted nothing more than for Hank and some of our other home-growns to raise a Cup here ...
but almost all Championship teams have supplemented holes via free agency and trades and in any event, its not all or nothing. Your comment at 12:19am this morning thus must have been made while incoherently drunk.
Quote:
Yat. That may turn out to be true. After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940, and why would I think getting a bunch of draft picks is going to change things over the next 3 years?
Yet now you later say you enjoyed those runs immensely. So which is it - did you enjoy them, or do you still pretend they never happened?
IF the Leafs make their first run this Spring since 1967... their fans should boycott the Finals and parade.
Tavares
Marleau
F Anderssen
...probably a few more hired mercenaries at the trade deadline too. It's disgusting.
Wait - what the fuck is Bill talking about?
In any event, sure, watching your home grown group build towards something and eventually reach the pinnacle is the best - I wanted nothing more than for Hank and some of our other home-growns to raise a Cup here ...
but almost all Championship teams have supplemented holes via free agency and trades and in any event, its not all or nothing. Your comment at 12:19am this morning thus must have been made while incoherently drunk.
Quote:
Yat. That may turn out to be true. After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940, and why would I think getting a bunch of draft picks is going to change things over the next 3 years?
Yet now you later say you enjoyed those runs immensely. So which is it - did you enjoy them, or do you still pretend they never happened?
I loved the 1994 run. And I was obviously being sarcastic in saying the Rangers havn't won a Cup since 1940 (after all, I did know they won in 1994). My point stands... having only 5 players drafted by the Rangers qualify for their names on the Cup isn't my preference as a fan. It's a really pretty straight forward statement - and one I would imaging most fans agree with.
RE: I get you don't understand... you've made it clear you have zero
emotional attachment to any player... and that's obviously good for you... I'm different... I was upset when Giacomin was released and the hair stood on end when days later the Garden crowd was thunderous in their "Eddie Eddie" chants for a beloved player.
And I enjoy watching young players develop. It's part of the joy I get from following a team.
Doesn't mean I don't like players. Some more than others. I liked Justin Tuck a lot. Brandon Jacobs. I was sad when PK Subban was traded.
but doesn't mean if my team is 50/50 draft picks and free agents I'm going to enjoy a championship any less.
Even the Rangers team you cite ('94) half that team was 25 years old or under. so even if the Rangers didn't draft the players many of them cut their teeth or developed with the Rangers, so your point seems pretty hollow or impossible.
I brought up the Colts, 21 out of 22 starters drafted by the Colts, but they had a lot of FA's on the team who contributed.
If you want for that your team will never win, might as wll stick to rooting for college football where at least the players need to be juniors before they can leave.
Those 5 players you keep harping on were the backbone of the team
Three of the top four scorers in the playoffs were homegrown - Leetch, Zubov, Kovalev. The fifth was Graves, who may not have been drafted by the Rangers but wasn't really established in either Detroit or Edmonton at the time he signed with the Rangers. To wit, at the start of the '93-94 season (when he was all of 25), he had already played more games as a Ranger (164) than as an Oiler (139) or as a Red Wing (78). And the goalie who backstopped them to a Cup was a draftee, Richter.
The championship was driven by Rangers draftees. The acquisitions were mostly the support guys who filled in the cracks, with the glaring exception of Messier. It wasn't a bunch of mercenary stars. It was mostly grinders like Noonan, Matteau, McTavish, and Wells.
RE: Those 5 players you keep harping on were the backbone of the team
Three of the top four scorers in the playoffs were homegrown - Leetch, Zubov, Kovalev. The fifth was Graves, who may not have been drafted by the Rangers but wasn't really established in either Detroit or Edmonton at the time he signed with the Rangers. To wit, at the start of the '93-94 season (when he was all of 25), he had already played more games as a Ranger (164) than as an Oiler (139) or as a Red Wing (78). And the goalie who backstopped them to a Cup was a draftee, Richter.
The championship was driven by Rangers draftees. The acquisitions were mostly the support guys who filled in the cracks, with the glaring exception of Messier. It wasn't a bunch of mercenary stars. It was mostly grinders like Noonan, Matteau, McTavish, and Wells.
I already acknowledged the importance of the home grown Rangers Greg. As an aside, if I recall, McTavish was heroic on face off wins, Noonan brought some much needed physicality, and Matthau had a pretty string offensive showing. And I seem to recall Wells being a steadying reliable influence on D ...
Again, all Im saying is that all things being equal, it would have been nice to have had more Ranger draft picks other than 5 ... Id be willing to bet that Edmonton had more than 5 when they won their cups...
... meanwhile the Rangers have 36 games to go... and with Chicago being one of the teams at the bottom, this is a game I'd like to see the Rangers win on the ice but would be nice to give the two points to Chicago.
Id be pissed about yet another offsides challenge going against us that had nothing to do with the actual play. Pretty goal taken off the board. Good job NHL, just what the fans want
strong games... DeAngelo too ... I just find it difficult to root for DeAngelo, but he's been making a really very strong showing to stay in the lineup moving forward
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
Another strong game since the slump... they are starting to put
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
Please educate me. He's 23 years old now and since he's been a Ranger ... I haven't heard a bad thing.
Having conservative beliefs doesn't make one 'despicable' -- unless one is an intolerant piece of shit judging. He had some issues in 2014... by my math that put him at 18-19 years old.
We are going to judge his life by actions in his late teens?
Pre Twitter and internet era no one knows of his fuck ups as a teenager to begin with.
RE: RE: RE: Oh Jesus with the holier than thou shit
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
Please educate me. He's 23 years old now and since he's been a Ranger ... I haven't heard a bad thing.
Having conservative beliefs doesn't make one 'despicable' -- unless one is an intolerant piece of shit judging. He had some issues in 2014... by my math that put him at 18-19 years old.
We are going to judge his life by actions in his late teens?
Pre Twitter and internet era no one knows of his fuck ups as a teenager to begin with.
Conservative beliefs? Hating people because they are gay or black are conservative beliefs?
He is on his third NHL team because of his beliefs. He is a pig and a piece of dog shit.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Oh Jesus with the holier than thou shit
He is on his third NHL team because of his beliefs. He is a pig and a piece of dog shit.
Arizona didn't dump him because of his dumb twitter or teammate comments as a 16 year old. I hope your kids didn't do anything stupid in their teen years. You're a real piece of work.
to say the least, in the past has used extremely poor judgment with some of the things he's done and said on the ice. See the link below. Abuse of officials, suspension for racist comments, etc. No defense there for those incidents. That said, there hasn't seemed to be issues of those sorts since he's been in the NHL. So maybe he's grown up a bit? I'm aware of his politics. Agree or disagree there, that doesn't make him a piece of shit for that alone.
I don't know, let's stick to sports. Probably didn't need to be brought up in the first place. Link - ( New Window )
but I dont agree with sticking to sports. Being a decent human being takes precedence over pretty much anything else. And racist and anti-gay rants would get my attention if he was spouting them now, no matter what uniform he was wearing.
but I dont agree with sticking to sports. Being a decent human being takes precedence over pretty much anything else. And racist and anti-gay rants would get my attention if he was spouting them now, no matter what uniform he was wearing.
Completely agree, but has there been an incident recently that I'm not aware of?
but I dont agree with sticking to sports. Being a decent human being takes precedence over pretty much anything else. And racist and anti-gay rants would get my attention if he was spouting them now, no matter what uniform he was wearing.
That's the point. He hasn't spotted them now or in the last 3 years (when he turned 21)
He's not the first highly talented kid to do and say stupid shit at age 16. Apparently that makes him a piece of shit for life though in baadbill's fucked up world of not rooting for free agents or anyone with different political views than him.
Of course, if he did or said something bigoted here, in his mid 20s now... but all means cut his ass. But for now I have no problem forgiving and giving him second chance, etc
I've not read any posts subsequent to my last post and this post is therefore obviously not in response to such posts.
I have been outspoken in my praise of DeAngelo's hockey play this year. That doesn't change the fact that he has been an outspoken racist/homophobe. The initial comment I made on this thread about his past was that "I found it hard to root for him".
Is he still a racist pig or has he learned to keep his voice shut with a potential multi-million dollar future on the line? He's the one who has chosen a career that makes him a public figure and, as such, as far as I am concerned it is his burden to persuade good people of conscience that he has changed and his past doesn't entitle him to any presumption that the hatred of minorities that defined him previously no longer remains in his heart.
He doesn't owe me shit. Nor do the Rangers or the NHL. But, as a fan, if DeAngelo doesn't want me periodically speaking my mind about who is he and what he stands for, then he can convince me he is a changed man.
How might he do that? Well, let's take a look at someone who did exactly that. Michael Vick. I love animals and I have grown own with a dog as a part of my family my entire life. I hated Michael Vick with a burning intensity that was hard to describe. But he did the one thing that he possibly could to change my mind: He came out of prison and publicly owned his past and put it out there for everyone to judge. He answered the tough questions (not to my satisfaction, but enough that I was willing to let my hatred go.
As an aside, Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice are two people who have not convinced me they have truly changed in their hearts and I remain convinced they would both repeat their past behaviors so long as they were convinced they would not be caught.
So, Tony DeAngelo was - and until he does something to persuade me otherwise, remains the ugly, vile human being he has always been. And until I am convinced he has changed in his heart, I will find it difficult to root for him.
RE: RE: Beat guys are saying Zucc and Fast are not at practice
keeps playing the way he is playing the past few games. Strong positional/tactical D, the ability to pass and carry the puck up the ice with relative ease and control the puck on his stick.
The kid is a an improving player.
RE: RE: RE: Beat guys are saying Zucc and Fast are not at practice
That is if DeAngelo can stay out of his own way. Despite all the talent, he fell to 19th overall in the 2014 NHL Draft. Then, despite posting tremendous numbers in the OHL, Tampa Bay traded him a year later for the 37th overall pick. Now his move to the Rangers is his third NHL team already. The not-so-secret concern about DeAngelo is his attitude.
A few incidents became widespread news because of severity and circumstance. DeAngelo was suspended in the OHL for abuse of an official in 2014, and then again this past season in the NHL for the same thing. Also in 2014, he was suspended for eight games for directing bigoted remarks towards his own teammate. There seems to be this spreading notion that DeAngelo is being smeared for a few teenage incidents in the heat of the moment; kids will be kids. These instances are tremendous red flags even when viewed in isolation. Even still, the problems with DeAngelo run way deeper than these three particular incidents.
There is plenty more that hasnt reached the mainstream. I spoke to a well-connected OHL employee, and he remarked that coaches across the league went through a daily struggle dealing with DeAngelo; the words gong show were used. The way it was described to me, DeAngelo is fine when things are going well. Hes highly competitive, and so when the team is winning, hes at his best. Otherwise, hes a ticking time bomb.
Furthermore, I spoke to multiple people with knowledge of DeAngelo back to his days in youth hockey in New Jersey. Nobody was willing to go on the record with specifics, but the message was uniform across the board.
Theres plenty out there for anyone with a brain to figure out the kind of guy he is, was one way one person put it to me.
As I said... not someone I find it easy to root for... especially since he hasn't stepped up to the plate and owned (disavowed)his past... until he does, he is nothing but someone who knows his racism may cost him potentially millions of dollars, so he keeps his mouth shut.
His non-existent NHL career thus far isn't because of lack of talent. I'd love to give him a second chance - but he hasn't given me anything... no signs of remorse or ownership of his past ... nothing... nada.
Bigotry is something that deserves being fought - very aggressively - wherever it is found ... and bigots do not "deserve" second chances, they have to earn them. DeAngelo has done exactly nothing to earn anything from the public.
but I always hope for them to beat the Bruins, especially in Boston. I almost bought tickets for this game, but in retrospect between the Rangers' terrible play and tonight's snowstorm it's probably best that the wife and I aren't trudging to TD Garden tonight. I'll be watching on NESN with the mute on to avoid their horrible announcers.
but I am still pretty amazed how this team has the grit to climb out of the dark hole they were in... I don't completely get how they seem to outplay their talent level... and doing it without Hayes
Huge factor tonight was the PK... and the KZZ line which has been on fire.
Already getting depressed there won't be Rangers hockey for 10 days... ugh
asslickers and sheep will excuse and defend any behavior as long as the idol wears their favorite clothes. You've stirred one of the sheep and the head asslicker on this thread. Anyone that excuses that kind of bigotry for any reason is someone to be leery of and question too.
asslickers and sheep will excuse and defend any behavior as long as the idol wears their favorite clothes. You've stirred one of the sheep and the head asslicker on this thread. Anyone that excuses that kind of bigotry for any reason is someone to be leery of and question too.
Agree. And the thing is, I love the Rangers ... I have all of my life ... and I enjoy discussing them ... and all I said is that DeAngelo is really coming on strong with his talent but that I struggle (inside of myself) with his history. Not exactly a strident or revolutionary comment. But it sure hit way too close to home for some people, which is just sad.
But Id really like to move on. I never intended it to get so personal for some.
With Feb 25th quickly approaching and the Rangers on a 3 game
winning streak, Id like to see the Rangers pull the trigger on some major trade sooner rather than later. This is especially true if the team ends up trading guys like Hayes, Kreider, Vesey, Fast, Namestikov, and Zucc as suggested by Bluesheet Banter.
If they move a significant portion of that group, then do it now and not after they accumulate more wins. Ill still enjoy watching the kids fight and scratch,but why hold onto guys if youve already determined they arent going to be here in 30 days (or in 3 years)?
Interesting article ... and I agree with their selections for their three categories ... DeAngelo, Kreider, and Zibanejad... I dont know what category Id create,and I didnt look at his stats, but Fast is having a great year and is having a huge impact on the team imo. Link - ( New Window )
Zucc out with a foot infection ... Hayes back ... and the fucking
and help themselves in the draft race... not a bad result... but Howden knee sprain has to be a concern... hopefully it really is only a sprain without any internal damage
asslickers and sheep will excuse and defend any behavior as long as the idol wears their favorite clothes. You've stirred one of the sheep and the head asslicker on this thread. Anyone that excuses that kind of bigotry for any reason is someone to be leery of and question too.
Asslicker? No, I just don't take teenager verbal comments too seriously. If he fucks up as an adult - i'll be the first to want him shipped out.
Tough loss - looked ok but almost 2 weeks off. Anyway, Rangers threads have become baadbill personal blogs much like mets are DMM/ZG debates so I think I'll focus elsewhere
There is was no clear play that Howden seemed to be favoring his knee.
Idiot. Watch the game please. Howden ran right into the butt of one of the Flyers against the boards. He immediately went off the ice and was seen by the trainer and it was immediately the subject of the in game discussion. How can you write an article and literally make shit up? Link - ( New Window )
Fraction of an inch offsides has nothing to do with a goal. Obviously. League can't get out of its own way on this
Nope... another fucking goal taken away because a player was offsides by 2 inches.
Making this reviewable was one of the worst decisions the league has made. So stupid.
Makes sense?
Also, Wuinn has to realize Rangers have to stay aggressive. Cant sit on leads. And the young guys have to learn
But what does it really matter? This is s rebuilding year
He is 36. Father Time is an opponent that nobody can ultimately beat
Quote:
Henrik made some nice saves tonight but I think he should've stopped each of the first two CBJ goals. The defense is just not good enough when he's not at the top of his game.
He is 36. Father Time is an opponent that nobody can ultimately beat
Sadly true.
Any offside penalty egregious enough to actually impact a play will be virtually impossible to miss. It blows my fucking mind that the league felt this was something that needed to be reviewed.
There are spots where review is good for the sport. This is not one of them.
From a game that should have been won in regulation to another blown lead to an OT loss.
So fucking typical and annoying.
Keep at it, let the kids continue to get experience and play it out.
Keep at it, let the kids continue to get experience and play it out.
Hayes having a break out year. The trade deadline is going to be very interesting.
And he's watched about 40 minutes of games this season - all while eating after practice or whatever.
He asked why it happens all the time and i told him losing teams do a lot of loser stuff. Between the Rangers and Giants this year, lots of losing going on.
I haven't listened to a radio called hockey game in years. Unfortunately, I believe it was the MSG TV feed with Albert and Maloney. Still fun and a welcome change. Makes the ride seem to go quicker too.
Listened to the ESPN feed of the Miami/Wisconsin Pinstripe Bowl too. They did a great job.
Quote:
Resign Hayes immediately, he is playing at a very high level and is a 1C.
Keep at it, let the kids continue to get experience and play it out.
Hayes having a break out year. The trade deadline is going to be very interesting.
I think both Hayes and Kreider are going to be guys teams call about.
Kreider and Hayes are doing their damnedest to maximize their trade value, and I salute them for it.
Sorry, I don't know how to embed a GIF...
Sorry, I don't know how to embed a GIF...
Undressed McDonagh
Quote:
Clip
Sorry, I don't know how to embed a GIF...
Undressed McDonagh
Watched again... didn't realize it was McDonagh... was quite the move by Giroux. Maybe one day we'll see someone in a Rangers uniform doing shit like that, but I'm not holding my breath.
And for some reason I always thought playing with a broken stick was a game misconduct.
And Rangers are 13-5 when McLeod is in the lineup.
And Rangers are 13-5 when McLeod is in the lineup.
Which is utterly bizarre because McLeod is one of the worst hockey players I've ever seen. He makes Tanner Glass look like an All-Star.
And based upon the commentary during the games, he is apparently widely loved on the team
think about it this way... if skill was the only thing that mattered, you could take the three best players and put them on one line and that line would always be the best line on your team... but in fact we know that isn't true... there is some unknown force that exists that we refer to as "chemistry" that results in a combination of 3 guys just playing well as a unit versus other groups of 3
Well, take that same concept and apply it to an entire team... and there are certain guys (in football we often refer to them as "a real football player") that may not have the best skills, but somehow and for some reason, when they are added to the mix, the team chemistry goes up. I argue that there is no analytic that can identify it in advance.... it is simply something that happens and you can become aware of it after it happens (but even then it is difficult to identify or measure, but I know from playing team sports all of my life, it exists, because I've experienced it)
... (but even then it is difficult to identify or measure, but I know from playing team sports all of my life, it exists, because I've experienced it)
But no goals. And I dint see how the Rangers can continue with thi# pace. And Pittsburgh can score in bunches out of nowhere. But it has been an eye-opener this period to see what this team is capable of with high energy and effort. Great fun so far to watch!
And the score was 30 seconds or so after Howden was all over a loose puck in front of Pittsburgh's net and he was literally tackled while the puck was loose - with not a glance by the officials (nor a word from the announcers).
Why embarrass your HOF goalie when he's having an off night... should have removed him after the 2nd period
solid move by Crosby (still hate him though)
I like the Malkin would have more cups if better supporting cast one the best... - ( New Window )
solid move by Crosby (still hate him though) I like the Malkin would have more cups if better supporting cast one the best... - ( New Window )
Damn it... that's pretty cool. But he's still a cry baby.
Yeah it was. It was the perfect time. I don't get that whole "well, we're not going to put out a skeleton squad." Everyone knew that this team would suck this year so the point was to suck a little less and then trade him at the deadline when we'd be seen as desperate?
Im going to guess he still has a wickedly accurate shot, incredible passing instincts, and great on the shootouts - but just isnt getting the attempts... but who wouldve known that last summer?
Verified account
@IgorEronko
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
Dec 14th? That's not good.
Link - ( New Window )
Verified account
@IgorEronko
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
I thought he looked great. Incredibly skilled. Looked to be a bit weak along the boards. That's my only critique so far.
Verified account
@IgorEronko
Per @Boogaard_2 Vitali Kravtsov played with a torn triceps in #WJC playoffs. He started to play C in November. Never played there before. Being a bronze medalist as a 1st line C with 12 games experience at the position is quite an achievement #NYR
maybe the torn triceps is why he couldn't finish his scoring chances.
otherwise he looked fine to me, he was all over the ice.
I can see triceps limiting your shooting ability.
Ugly stuff
Ugly stuff
That was the AZ 4th line that kept the puck in the Rangers' zone for over 2 minutes 5x5 ... I agree, really ugly
And now Kreider taking a really dumb penalty - from frustration ... but, dumb
Oh yea, I forgot they gave up 7 to Pittsburgh... yikes
Except all those damned loser points mean that they have to continue to play like this for quite a while to have even a so-so chance to move into the top 5.
As always, I really hope they end up with a very high draft pick... but meanwhile I'll still be watching each game... something that has suddenly been very difficult to do. I'm going to be very interested to see if Quinn is able to get them back to playing high intensity and focused hockey or if he's lost them and they've just given up (and what the ramifications of that would be next year and beyond).
of course it's hard to try and lose in the NHL and even finishing in last doesn't guarantee the top pick, but they'll get a good pick regardless in a good draft.
Im fully aware of their lack of talent. Thats out of their immediate control. Whats inexplicable is going from playing their best period of hockey of the season to giving up 18 goals in the subsequent 8 periods of undisciplined, uninspired, lack of effort hockey.
Well said. I mean we knew it going in. I mean when Pavel Buchnevich is considered your one and only scoring and sniping threat on the wing, you're gonna have a bad year.
Way negative on shot differential even 5v5
neutral puck luck (so not lucky or unlucky)
and tends to the undisciplined side:
I think the author is Canadian, they butcher the English language. I love his charts though.
Kakko was mostly not noticeable until, and not minimizing it, the gold medal winning goal. And you score that goal and people over weight your performance.
Hughes was asked before the tournament how he felt going in and he said (my paraphrasing) I can't wait to play against mostly my own level, it's not easy playing Western Michigan and 23 year old Canadian kids every night (the USNTDP plays a lot of NCAA teams).
Hughes looked electric with the puck in space, but man he was knocked off the puck way to easily and too often. He did miss 3 games with injury, and he set up goals against Russia and Finland, but it's his size (against his own level) that worried me.
He's still 17 years old, but Kakko for comparison at the same age is 6' 2" and almost 200 pounds. Hughes is 5' 10" (maybe) and 165 pounds. Hughes speed wasn't enough to counter the physicality at this level and that concerned me.
I hope he was injured.
Kakko got raves from his teammates. Tolvanen said he has to be the #1 pick.
I thought Kravstov had a great tournament and K'Andre Miller looked exactly as advertised, big, athletic, raw.
Miller played more defensive than offensive, which is good to see for a converted forward, and he flashed offensive skills on a couple rushes, but lost his man defensively a few times. One led to a Russia goal (I think - not going to re-watch it - I'm pretty sure it was Miller with net-front coverage).
overall I don't think Hughes moved off #1, but I'm going to back off Patrick Kane comps for now. and with my preference for bigger players, I wouldn't mind having the #2 pick and getting Kakko.
I do wonder if we see these two at the U18 worlds this April.
I know Hughes is still 17 for the tourney, I think Kakko turns 18 just before it, not sure who can be in it and if they will or not.
it was bound to happen...
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
Quote:
it was bound to happen...
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
I didn't see what you saw Bill.
I saw a lower-talent, team, losing games because of a talent gap. With elite goal-tending and msx effort and a great system that players all buy into some talent gap can be closed IMO, but not a huge one in the NHL< and not consistently. that 9 - 1 - 1 stretch or whatever it was earlier in the year maybe was fool's gold for some people because it fit that mode.
Do you mean to say you never saw this Rangers team being a high effort, motivated team?
Or do you mean you don't see any difference in their play over the last 3 games?
Because I see both. What I saw before the last three games was a team lacking in talent who was never going to be able to compete with teams with higher level talent - but who skated their butts off with high energy and effort.
And what I've seen over the last 2 games in particular is a team playing without direction, taking lazy penalties, with zero jump in their legs, not scrambling to the puck, and just not making the same effort they made earlier.
We all agree there is a big drop-off in talent. That's no big surprise and is a big "DUH". What is a surprise is going up against mediocre talent the last two games and being outworked.
Maybe you have a point on their effort, I don't know, but I did not find the Rangers fun to watch.
I found them lacking talent, lacking zone time, lack shots (most of the time), lacking puck control. they have a few bright spots and I said before if Hayes and Kreider played 2 - 3 years ago like they're playing now they'd have their name on the cup, but mostly it's old Hank, awful D, and a group of grinders at F.
While I like the grit game, that's not what the Rangers have.
I watch them when there isn't a conflict with something else because they used to have the most concentration of American players and guys I'd followed from their youth hockey/juniors days like Stepan, Miller, Kreider, McDonagh, Skjei, etc. and because there are a lot of Rangers fans on here who like to talk hockey.
If you found the Rangers were a max effort team and now they're not than we differ slightly in our evaluation, but my point with the charts was, their puck luck had been high (shooting percentage inflated as well as save percent), both have normalized along with their record.
You watch them more closely than me to see if the effort tailed off too, but the other stats indicate they're playing equal to their record right now.
That is probably because you aren't a Rangers fan. I have watched the Rangers for close to 60 years and in all that time I do not believe I have ever watched an entire game that didn't include the Rangers.
This team was a fun team to watch (and I think will probably once again become a fun team to watch) precisely because they were a team without high end talent who kept games close solely because of their high energy and effort (and Hank playing out of his mind).
What I don't completely understand is what has caused the sudden change over the last 8 periods of ice time. It has been a dramatic change. It probably isn't a big deal but is a tad worrisome to me because I believe effort (or more precisely lack thereof) usually relates to some form of coaching issue.
If I needed high talent to watch the Rangers for the last 60 years, I'd have given up a loooong time ago. I loved playing hockey (including street hockey into my 40s). I think it is the best team sport to play of all the sports. But from a fan perspective, I am all about one thing and one thing only - the Rangers as a long term organization - the process as an organization from season to season - and enjoying watching that one team and only that team.
It's a very odd thing that I can't honestly rationally explain. Football is close to being the same for me (no interest if the Giants are involved, although I have certainly watched the SB and other complete games that haven't included the Giants).
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
I don't know, but I found the Rangers boring all year, only reasons I watched now were to see Chytil and Andersson and to a lesser extent Pionk. I was really impressed with him in the World Cup.
But...as much as I enjoy effort, even more I enjoy watching a player like Gaudreau, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc, - those guys have talent, effort, and IQ. My favorite player to watch though is Crosby, as hated as he is, he thinks the game 2 or 3 plays ahead of everyone else. I can't tell you how many clips I've sent my kids of Crosby to show them how to anticipate the play instead of following it.
The little things we do in practice over and over again that become so repetitive, he does them in games so obviously he's the best training tool I've seen.
Anyway, I like some of the Rangers youth, and prospects, but they have some work to do that waving the coaching magic wand won't fix. Like Quinn or not, he's given Hayes and Kreider trade value (or they gave it to themselves) I don't think they had before the season.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I don't agree with that at all. Hell, anyone that watches hockey long term can see differences in effort between periods of the same game. How quick they are to chase loose pucks and how quick they are on top of the guy with the puck.
As far as rebuilding and needing to find some young talent... well a big "duh".
...
PJ, I get that. I do. But I watch (and have always watched) almost all Ranger games every year - year in and year out. And, as you well can imagine, those were some long, lonely years. I mean, it's one thing to be a long term Giants fan through the 60s and 70s, but to be a Rangers fan is a different level.
And as I just posted, I do think effort is something you can see. As I said, you can see it in different periods of the same game. In most hockey games, one team usually has the better jump to the puck (whether a loose puck or getting to the puck handler) than the other team. And Quinn obviously preaches skating downhill in the offensive zone - being the first to loose pucks - or pressuring the puck handler by jumping all over him as soon as he gets his stick on the puck.
And that is precisely what the Rangers had been doing - and which has suddenly stopped over the past two games. They are losing the battles for the puck - they are being consistently beaten to the puck over the last two games. And, to go with that, the other team has been able to set up in the Ranger's zone 5 on 5 as though they were on a power play. Something has dramatically changed in their effort over the past two games.
Against Pittsburgh? I get it. I knew what was going to happen after that scoreless first period against Pittsburgh. But the inability to win the race to the puck over these last two games? Not so much.
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Yes, the clock and everything else goes back to when the first (and now only) goal was scored, and play continues from there.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
Yea, it's a difficult time... probably a few things all contributing... disillusionment and worries about the almost certain changes coming up as the trade deadline draws closer... it will certainly help with draft position but it was much more fun watching them when they had jump in their game... hopefully we get to see some of 2018's draft picks getting a shot next year
I didn't get to really see the replay - want to see it again - but what I did see, seemed to be they got their skates caught up - but without any attempt to stick out his leg/foot, without which how can that be a trip?
Like I said!
But oh well, another loss toward a pick. Whatever.
(my wife says I talk to myself more and more anyway)
I imagine yes but just checking.
I imagine yes but just checking.
Sure. The rule is that there is no icing when your team has one fewer players on the ice due to penalty. What positions those players play is irrelevant (i.e. goalie or no goalie).
I imagine yes but just checking.
Any time you're on a penalty kill you can ice the puck without a whistle. goalie in or not.
It is interesting to know though that USA Hockey just changed this rule and short-handed youth hockey teams are no longer allowed to ice the puck. They did this in an attempt to get kids to learn to be creative and find ways to exit the zone without icing it. 1 man down, 2 men down, doesn't matter. You cannot ice it.
I read they are considering adopting this rule in upper levels (NCAA, juniors, AHL, etc.) as a trial for NHL adoption.
I think it would lead to more scoring or more icing face-offs during penalty times, or both. I hated it at first for my kids I coach, but I understand it, not sure I like it at the upper levels.
I think the league would weigh the off-set of slowing the game down with a ton of extra whistles and play stoppages vs more scoring and vote against it.
but if they could somehow trade removing offsides review for no short-handed icing I'd consider it. offsides review is hurting not helping and probably takes as long as all these whistles would.
Note: there is a legal concept known as proximate cause... that takes into account proximity in time and remoteness... for example, assume John gets into an accident in NJ at 10:00 PM ... if it can be demonstrated that John ran a red light in Maryland at 5:00 PM on his way to NJ, it can be said that his negligence in running the red light had a causal link to his accident in NJ at 10:00 because had he stopped for the red light he almost certainly would not have arrived at the location at 10:00 and the accident would have been avoided.
But the law rejects such arguments and requires that the connection be a more direct and efficient cause of the harm. I would argue that the same concept is why so many of us hate allowing an offsides review to invalidate a subsequent scoring play.
my point about the time it takes was not indicating the time it takes as the reason it sucks.
my point about the time it takes was that if the NHL would remove short-handed icing, it would likely increase game time and sports are hesitant to do that these days.
If that were an issue that became a sticking point I'd say to remove offsides review thinking that might be something the NHL would consider to even out the time it added by removing short-handed icing.
NHL offsides review should not exist, but it does and the league so far has shown no interest in removing it.
but my point about the time it takes was not my opinion of why it sucks.
sorry I confused you.
They had a pre-game ceremony for him... he was out at mid ice with his wife and little girl ... but I missed the actual face-off... that is pretty awesome though
I really don't know where he stands statistically, but during his time with the Rangers, I was really impressed by how he developed his defensive game. So many goal scorers accomplish that by cheating on their zone responsibilities and always looking to get a jump on a break out, but Nash's game was solid in all areas.
Shattenkirk is Fucking Atrocious.
Stayed 2-2 through most of the 2nd... Columbus made it 3-2 with around 5 minutes to go ...
Then in the last 2 minutes of the 2nd, the game got out of control with 3 goals scored, 2 of them by Columbus... to end the 2nd 5-3 and the game was over (and the Rangers played a much a weaker 3rd period)
Bless your soul... 10 days without the Rangers feels more like a vacation to me.
Quote:
followed by 10 days off... I'm already going through withdrawal
Bless your soul... 10 days without the Rangers feels more like a vacation to me.
lol ... hey, I only watch the Giants and the Rangers... Ranger games are all I have until the draft
Quote:
followed by 10 days off... I'm already going through withdrawal
Bless your soul... 10 days without the Rangers feels more like a vacation to me.
Just waiting for pitchers and catchers at this point
Link - ( New Window )
Saw that earlier today - I was really pissed that we took him over Wahlstrom that night, but it's starting to look like it was actually a pretty darn good pick and I've warmed up to it exponentially since.
He was playing hurt during Juniors, and every time I watched, it looked like he was in the middle of everything or making a play. I was pretty impressed with him.
Igor is on there too. @ 10, IIRC.
I bet we haven't done it since the game we shut out NYI a few weeks back. I've grown conditioned to expect that every goal we score will be answered with a goal by the other team.
I bet we haven't done it since the game we shut out NYI a few weeks back. I've grown conditioned to expect that every goal we score will be answered with a goal by the other team.
Yea, good point. So far, this seems to be their strongest game since the losing streak started. Let's see them do it for 60 minutes.
That is now 16 straight - 16! - at home over Carolina
That is now 16 straight - 16! - at home over Carolina
That's incredible
It is the Hurricanes, so... take it with a grain of salt.
But it was still nice to see them put together an effort like that and put a bunch of pucks in the net.
Nice night for Tony DeAngelo.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
Last year they were easily a playoff team if they had even league average or slightly subpar goaltending - instead we saw them dominate the Rangers 5x5 but Darling was giving up goals high schoolers don't give up.
Is it more of the same in net for them this year? I cant believe they still suck... kind of Edmonton east at this point but at least McDavid had the one good quarterfinals Game 7 year...
Quote:
Also, Mika might have played his best game last night. He was everywhere.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
I'm not arguing the merits of that trade, but is 41 points in 46 games good for a #1 C?
Quote:
In comment 14265370 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Also, Mika might have played his best game last night. He was everywhere.
Brassard looks to be on the verge of getting traded by Pittsburgh. Mixed record for Gorton so far but he absolutely nailed that trade. Timed it perfectly. Mika still only 25 and locked up for three more seasons. 41 points in 46 games now
I'm not arguing the merits of that trade, but is 41 points in 46 games good for a #1 C?
Yes. What does that pace extrapolate to for a whole season? 75 points?
That's usually a top 10 - 15 center.
doesn't factor in defense which obviously is important for a C, but that's a great pace.
Of course, a better analysis would be on 5x5 scoring, etc... just saying he's a nice player, but I'd be looking to accumulate assets from one of him or Hayes this trade deadline since cost effective Centers unlike a vet expiring wing like Zuccarello ... will get us a nice haul in return.
So I think 70+ point pace is pretty good. Maybe not an upper tier 1C, but still solid. Ideally you get a true elite talent soon and Mika slots in on the second line. But you could do worse.
The debate went on for years about whether Stepan was a 1C and he never broke 60. So I'm happy with the progress shown by Zib and Kreider this season. Advanced stats on Mika are excellent as well.
Rangers haven't had a player hit 70 points since Gaborik in 2012. Just a random observation
Link - ( New Window )
NYR is not so far off.
Regardless, the Rangers have the fewest non shootout wins in the league. I like some of what they've shown offensively. Kreider and Zib have taken a step forward. And Chytil shows promise. But they are not close to contending. Hayes has given them exactly what they needed, a career year to boost his trade value. Take advantage.
You don't trade 26 year old players away like that, you build on top of them.
Andersson does not impress me at all, never did. Chytil is going to be a big time player - in the Hayes mold.
He will be a good player.
and I think he's an NHL center.
Chytil, also a good player, I think may wind up at wing.
but people expecting every NHL 1st round pick to be Auston Matthews are in for a let down.
these are 17/18 year old kids who are drafted, not 22/23 years old kids like in the NFL or NBA.
Even MLB (with similar ages for high school draftees) is pretty hit or miss in the 1st round.
It's hard to project a 17/18 year old playing against other 17/18 year old players to play against players much older and players more developed physically - a lot of projection for most of these guys.
but in the case of Andersson I think he'll be a good player.
And I'd probably trade Hayes and Zucarello if there was a good return though I can see Hayes sticking around now that he's playing like most people expected him to play.
NYR is not so far off.
They are most certainly far off and the guys you listed will soon a) require bigger cap hits and b) by the time we are hopefully ready to contend again (3 years minimum unless we draft like Boston did), they will past their primes and older/expensive.
Rebuilding is a multi year effort. It wasn't - trade Nash, Grabner,
McDonaugh and now Zuccs - and call it a day. If aren't anywhere closer to competing today than we were last year and we traded our captain then - so hopefully one of Hayes or Ziba is dealt for mutiple assets. We have plenty of centers next year anyway assuming Lias moves to a depth C slot.
I don't buy the 3 years away mantra for this Rangers team.
So what kind of contract would it cost to re-sign him in season? He would only accept a one year deal over the summer because he wanted to get to UFA as quick as possible. So there's no discount to be had here. JT Miller got 5 years and 5.2 per from Tampa. Start there but increase when factoring in Hayes being a natural center, IMO now a better player, and no Florida state income tax. 5 year and 6 million? I don't know, that may be too rich for me.
I don't buy the 3 years away mantra for this Rangers team.
No idea how far away the Rangers are, partly because Hank is 37 this year and partly because they have 1 top 4 D IMO.
but Vegas was an anomaly IMO due to the expansion draft.
almost all of their 12 forwards all capable of being 3rd line forwards or better and many had career years (Karlsson for one).
6 very solid D, all would be top 4 on most teams.
stellar goalie play
and 100% buy-in on a high press forecheck.
In many ways even though they had no super stars, it was/is easier for Vegas to contend from expansion than teams like the Rangers from blowing it up.
I'm going to leave it there...
At the moment we are wondering as aimlessly as Detroit and Philly as far as getting back to prominence. Last years sell off was a good start and maybe Zuccs was kept this summer for leadership -- but it's time to stop winning games and accumulate assets and hopefully a top 5 pick!!
But they're close. I'll leave it at that!
Let some of these kids continue to get PT and develop plus add a few high end FA players (Panarin, etc) in the off season and we are contenders with Hank.
19 wins, 27 losses
One of 8 teams in hockey (31 teams) with fewer wins than regulation losses - so not even .500 under the little league mentality of determining .500 which makes everyone feel like a winner (i.e. Participation trophy)
13 regulation wins all year against 20 regulation losses
But yes, better last 4 games. Hard to look worse than that stretch vs Pittsburgh - Colorado - Arizona
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
This team has warts all over the place, I get it - but I think they have a solid foundation of players to build on now. I'm not into the whole tank thing, but I respect those that are and it's not a point to debate.
The draft is a crap shoot - I prefer to keep guy's like Hayes, Zib, Kreids...
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
The problem I have with that Bill is there is no guarantee you are going to get players like Kreids and Hayes in the draft or in trade return. These guys now are in their prime years, why deal them?
Quote:
and should consider trading both Kreider, Hayes & Zucc this year because none are likely to go up in value between now and the 2020/21 season... and I hate saying that because I love all 3 players.
But this team needs some top tier talent. I'm content watching them rebuild so long as they are willing to pay the price (exchanging fan favorite players in return for sufficient draft value to enable them to position for truly premium draft talent)
The problem I have with that Bill is there is no guarantee you are going to get players like Kreids and Hayes in the draft or in trade return. These guys now are in their prime years, why deal them?
Because I want the Rangers to be at the beginning of their real upswing in the 2020/21 season with their prime assets doing nothing but growing in talent for the following 5 years... and I don't see Kreider, Hayes or Zucc meeting that definition. Kreider and Hayes will probably be at the height of their talent for the next 3 years culminating in 2020/21. I think the Rangers need talent that extends from 2020/21, not talent that falls off after 2020/21.
Well done, Bill. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The good news is unlike Buffalo, Florida and Carolina which are stuck in what seems like eternal hell... when we are ready to contend again in 3 years, we can actually recruit to build around young drafted players ... better than Hayes, Kreisler, Zibanejad and Shattenkirk for that matter... and get back quickly.
I also think its a fantasy to assume that were gong to contend in 2-3 years if we unload players like Kreider and Hayes. How long was Edmonton crap, even with all their top picks? Us having a ton of picks guarantees us nothing.
Well done, Bill. Couldn't have said it better myself.
The good news is unlike Buffalo, Florida and Carolina which are stuck in what seems like eternal hell... when we are ready to contend again in 3 years, we can actually recruit to build around young drafted players ... better than Hayes, Kreisler, Zibanejad and Shattenkirk for that matter... and get back quickly.
I've never felt otherwise. We've simply disagreed on my getting enjoyment from watching them play.
I also think its a fantasy to assume that were gong to contend in 2-3 years if we unload players like Kreider and Hayes. How long was Edmonton crap, even with all their top picks? Us having a ton of picks guarantees us nothing.
Yat. That may turn out to be true. After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940, and why would I think getting a bunch of draft picks is going to change things over the next 3 years?
But, as much as I've loved watching Kreider, I just don't see his upside being much more than what it is now. And the bottom line is the Rangers don't have a guy you build a franchise around... a LT or Barkley. I want to see them be patient and try to build through the draft... and hope they develop enough talent internally so they can finally win a Cup without having to import another team - wholesale - to do it.
I don't buy the 3 years away mantra for this Rangers team.
They also had an opportunity to build from scratch and they did a great job of sticking to a game plan.
There was an excellent article (sorry don't remember where) that in many ways this isn't Quinn's type of team.
As for Kreider, he is what he will be, a fine power forward with exceptional speed. Wed be lucky to land a kid with that talent level in the middle of the 1st round, which is essentially what a trade would yield.
The difference between us and Edmonton or Buffalo or Carolina... is when we are ready to compete again with a good young nucleus (all of the recent draft picks plus hopefully two years picking in the top 5 or at least top 10 plus picks from other teams acquired in future trades) -- the Rangers have proven they can recruit better than most if not all the other franchises.
Lets say Tampa wins the Cup. Great, we get their #1 again, at the bottom of the round. Not a great asset.
Did the Rangers not earn the Cup in 1994?
I'm going to guess he'll say it's because they brought in a bunch of mercenaries, as if anyone but him gives a shit about that.
For all of the "NY Oilers", the Conn Smythe winner was the homegrown Brian Leetch.
Quote:
After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940
Did the Rangers not earn the Cup in 1994?
Five members of that team were Rangers... unlike the Giants of 1986 who legitimately brought a SB to the team without having to go out and "buy" a SB ... the Rangers were not much more than "Edmonton lite" ... I watched... I was excited and thrilled... but it isn't as though 1994 purged the wait from 1940 by the organization finally figuring out how to build a team through the draft ... they did a great job importing a team from the outside. I'm still waiting for the "real Rangers'" to win a Cup.
Quote:
background on this??
Quote:
After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940
Did the Rangers not earn the Cup in 1994?
Five members of that team were Rangers... unlike the Giants of 1986 who legitimately brought a SB to the team without having to go out and "buy" a SB ... the Rangers were not much more than "Edmonton lite" ... I watched... I was excited and thrilled... but it isn't as though 1994 purged the wait from 1940 by the organization finally figuring out how to build a team through the draft ... they did a great job importing a team from the outside. I'm still waiting for the "real Rangers'" to win a Cup.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but man that's a brutal take.
I don't know many people who look at the 1994 Rangers as being one that bought a cup, but maybe that was so long ago, message boards with bizarre opinions didn't exist.
Good Lord.
This is really spectacular. You should carry insight and logic like this everywhere you go in life.
Richter was the goalie.
But - the bottom line is - I enjoyed how the Giants built their team leading to the 1986 SB 1000x more than the way the Rangers built their team leading to the 1994 Cup. It felt cheap and still feels cheap.
Maybe it's just me, but to this day I feel a much stronger attachment to draft picks than I do towards imports - both Giants and Rangers.
Richter was the goalie.
Graves was technically an ex-Oiler, although he had been a Ranger for several years at that point.
Richter was the goalie.
I'm talking draft picks versus external imports. Graves was an import (love him obviously, but he wasn't a draft pick).
Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the Giants of the 1980s and their Super Bowls 1000x more than I enjoyed the Rangers of the 1990s.
That's a heck of a lot more than 5 players. There might even be a few more
Likely sabotaged future cup runs.
Weight, Amonte, Marchant, Domi, King, Patrick, Turcotte and those picks were all drafted assets that went on to have pretty good careers to varying degrees.
That's a heck of a lot more than 5 players. There might even be a few more
Only 5 of the names that were inscribed on the Cup were Ranger draft picks.
Link - ( New Window )
Now I'm on to lamenting that I used to root for OJ Anderson, Everson Walls - a Cowboy!!, Matt Bahr, Steve DeOssie, and USFL traitors like Carson, Risenburg, Oates and Landeta!!
Likely sabotaged future cup runs.
Weight, Amonte, Marchant, Domi, King, Patrick, Turcotte and those picks were all drafted assets that went on to have pretty good careers to varying degrees.
I am not ignoring the homegrown talent. That was the currency they used to buy the cup.
I also hate free agency. Probably for the same reason.
I love OJ Anderson and cheered him like crazy. I think what he did in the 1990 SB was incredible.
I love Messier. And Graves. I think what they did for the 1994 Cup was incredible.
But I absolutely, positively, enjoyed the slow but steady building of the Giants from 1979 to 1986 by George Young's drafts over anything the Rangers have ever done - and it isn't even close. Those years - the steady increasing dominance of the Giants as the direct result of the draft - is by far my favorite memory in sports and always will be. And it is because of the draft.
I have no clue why I enjoy players who are home grown draft picks more than I do external imports... but I do. By a lot.
But I guess Penguins fans should be put an asterisk next to their Cups too since Kessel, Hagelin, Schultz, Hornquist, etc. -- all hired mercenaries.
Not to mention better to tank for a few years, draft Crosby and Malkin by sheer luck -- then win with those players... much more noble than acquiring Oilers the way the Rangers did!
I don't give a fuck if the next Rangers title comes because the Florida Panthers team went bankrupt and the league awarded us Barkov and Ekblad... just Win.
But I guess Penguins fans should be put an asterisk next to their Cups too since Kessel, Hagelin, Schultz, Hornquist, etc. -- all hired mercenaries.
Not to mention better to tank for a few years, draft Crosby and Malkin by sheer luck -- then win with those players... much more noble than acquiring Oilers the way the Rangers did!
I don't give a fuck if the next Rangers title comes because the Florida Panthers team went bankrupt and the league awarded us Barkov and Ekblad... just Win.
Well, of course. It's become pretty obvious that buying a Cup is the only way long suffering Ranger fans like me will ever celebrate one. Duh.
I think he disliked Patrick even more, but yes, he didn't try to hide that he didn't like either of them. And he really wanted Larmer.
the 2009 Colts had 21 out of 22 starters as draft picks.
but they had free agents.
Why watch sports if you're more interested in seeing your draft picks develop than you are with winning a title.
Last year's Capitals had 8 - 10 free agents out of 22 players and I think that's a good mix - somewhere between 12 and 14 draft picks.
The 1994 NY Rangers were one of my all time favorite teams - bar none in sports.
Probably the best playoff run and excitement I ever took as a fan, that team captivated the entire city and surrounding burbs. It was a magical run, once in a lifetime. I feel sorry for any Ranger fan not taking the same joy in the 1994 team.
Why watch sports if you're more interested in seeing your draft picks develop than you are with winning a title.
Huh? What should I watch instead?
Thinking about it, I enjoy watching younger guys grow and establish themselves while they are members of the teams I follow - rather than seeing them bring in established talent who I never got the chance to watch them develop.
but its not mutually exclusive from enjoying... or giving full credit to/acknowledging... a team that won a Stanley Cup in 1994
I LOVED the 1994 Cup. It was exciting as hell. And likely the only Cup Rangers will win during my lifetime.
But I would have loved it 1000x more had Messier and the Oiler players on that team all been drafted by the Rangers.
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
Quote:
of watching Filip Chytil become the next Gretzky or trading him for Patrick Kane and winning the 2020 Stanley Cup, which would you choose?
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
That's a unique opinion and sort of misses the goal of team sports.
but whatever, you have a right to your unique opinion.
Quote:
In comment 14266582 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
of watching Filip Chytil become the next Gretzky or trading him for Patrick Kane and winning the 2020 Stanley Cup, which would you choose?
I too prefer home grown players becoming stars, but it's secondary to winning a cup.
and it's not a close secondary.
Chytil. By a long shot.
I loved watching LT and every play he made and would choose to watch LT for his entire career over the two SB the Giants won in the 1980s. Those were two wonderful games. But LT gave me so much more enjoyment over a much longer time span than those two games.
That's a unique opinion and sort of misses the goal of team sports.
but whatever, you have a right to your unique opinion.
I don't know the basis for your statement that it is a unique opinion.
I suspect lots of Giants fans who watched every snap Lawrence Taylor play - if they had to choose between:
1. The Giants of the 1980s being exactly the same as they were except they lost both SBs ;
or
2. The Giants win both SBs but Lawrence Taylor never played for the Giants
would choose the memories of getting to watch Lawrence Taylor game after game for a decade.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
The joy most fans take in sports is seeing their team win. I'd take two SB's without ever seeing LT than watch LT and win nothing, but we were able to have both.
Ask how happy Saint fans were to get to watch Archie Manning. Or Bills fans for watching Jim Kelly. You don't think those guys would trade in the whole team for titles??
At the end of the season you would be more content with your choice of:
the Rangers were awful, didn't make the playoffs, but man that Filip Chytil is a hell of a player. I got a lot of enjoyment from watching him.
vs
Holy shit, the Rangers won the cup, Patick Kane was lights out. Conn Smythe winner. but I didn't enjoy it. I miss Chytil.
That's the unique perspective IMO, I gave you a choice of one or the other - watching a prospect develop (and implied not winning a cup) or trading that prospect and winning a cup and you chose you'd prefer to watch the prospect develop.
I infinitely liked winning more. I played adult baseball up until I was 45. I was on teams where I was good friends with guys and we lost and I was on teams with some people I hardly knew at first and we won. While commiserating in a group might be therapeutic, I liked the championship teams, especially the part where we had fun winning, and got to know a bunch of people I didn't previously.
I ended up playing with a few guys who made it up to high levels. Learning about them and their stories was priceless.
The joy most fans take in sports is seeing their team win. I'd take two SB's without ever seeing LT than watch LT and win nothing, but we were able to have both.
Ask how happy Saint fans were to get to watch Archie Manning. Or Bills fans for watching Jim Kelly. You don't think those guys would trade in the whole team for titles??
So in theory you choose a 2020 SB Championship won by 53 Giants players who never had any connection to the Giants before and who never had any connection to the Giants again.
What possible meaning could that have? It would be totally boring and might as well just watch some all star game. I wouldn't even watch. At all. Because it would be devoid of meaning. But, hey, to each his own.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I never said it was a goal of fans, I said it was a goal of team sports (professional).
And you sound like my father. that's old school way of thinking.
Winning is all that matters in team professional sports.
There is no "did it the right way" anymore.
Athletes are not role models and there are no moral victories.
Winning = good, losing = bad, even if you try really really hard.
Otherwise he needs a talk with Sonny from Bronx Tale.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
Quote:
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I infinitely liked winning more. I played adult baseball up until I was 45. I was on teams where I was good friends with guys and we lost and I was on teams with some people I hardly knew at first and we won. While commiserating in a group might be therapeutic, I liked the championship teams, especially the part where we had fun winning, and got to know a bunch of people I didn't previously.
I ended up playing with a few guys who made it up to high levels. Learning about them and their stories was priceless.
I played fast pitch softball into my 40s. Two different leagues... one an open and very competitive league which we won 3 years in a row (you had to pay your pitcher if you wanted to win) ... and another a resident based fast pitch town league that, while competitive, was on a lower level...
And while I enjoyed both - competing with my friends was, in the end, much more enjoyable to me.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
Quote:
I played team sports all my life ... and even then, I don't think winning is the most important thing for team sports... I think competing is. It matters HOW you play the game. Winning isn't everything.
And that is from a player's perspective.
But I'm no longer a player. I am a fan looking for entertainment. And, I get my entertainment by following two teams (Giants and Rangers) and their long term development - year after year - as an organization. As such, my "goal" as a fan is to bring me joy. And that can come from competing.
If my choice is:
1. See the Giants win 2 championships in the 1980s but with NONE of the players that actually played - but instead they were able to "buy" non-Giants for one season in 1986 and "buy" another set of strangers for 1990
versus
2. All the great Giant players who actually played in the 1980s - watch them get drafted and watch the team be built year after year - and then dominate during the 1980s as they did - with the only change being they played in, but lost, the two super bowls ... it isn't even a close call ... not even a little bit.
As an extreme concept to make the point ... I am not interested in having a bunch of strangers (all stars but no prior or subsequent connection to the Giants) put on the Giants uniform for one season watch them win the SB ... I just have no emotional connection to such a thing, nor would I understand anyone who would.
So, no, winning isn't everything in team sports. Either as a player or a fan.
And, as a player, I would rather have played for the teams I played for - with the guys I got to know and went to battle with - without our championships - and given the choice to leave my friends and go play for a championship team, I'd stay and fight with "my guys on my team"
I never said it was a goal of fans, I said it was a goal of team sports (professional).
And you sound like my father. that's old school way of thinking.
Winning is all that matters in team professional sports.
There is no "did it the right way" anymore.
Athletes are not role models and there are no moral victories.
Winning = good, losing = bad, even if you try really really hard.
PJ, that is what led to the Patriots cheating... more than once. But I guess for you, that's all good. Do anything because winning is everything. Even if you cheat to do it. Not for me.
Quote:
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
Greg, I don't know why you say that. I made it clear I've enjoyed all the championships my teams have won. It's just that I find building teams in a manner in which I get to follow the development of the players much more enjoyable than 1 year rentals.
But, hey, if you identify with and prefer one year rentals, go for it. I enjoy one year rentals but, unlike you apparently, I happen to prefer home grown guys who win after I get to see them develop over the years. If you don't care where they come from, they just watch all star games.
The point I'm making is pretty straight forward. Where players come from matter. If they didn't matter, then fans would be just as happy watching 53 players who never played for the Giants before - and who would never play for them again - complete strangers to the Giants - put on the uniform and play in 2020 and win the SB
I am confident fans would not be happy with that. Fans enjoy following their team from year to year ... watching the team develop ... and that where players come from matter ... that under my extreme example, not many fans would find any emotional bond to a group of strangers putting on the uniform (sort of similar to the 1987 strike season)
All I am saying is... that being a fan is more than just winning... it is watching and following a team being built... season after season growth and development
If it was solely about winning - then fans would actually welcome and be happy about winning with 53 strangers with zero connection to the team before or after... and, as I said, I have zero interest in any such situation and I am confident such a league would die a very quick death from lack of interest.
Don Mattingly was my #1 childhood hero, but the Yankees never won while he was on the team. I preferred when they were winning.
Quote:
we don't have situations where an entire team were rentals - including the Rangers, so I'm not sure the point you are making.
Look - in a best case scenario, you only are with the same guys for a few years at any level in sports. In HS and college, your max is 4e years based on structure, and in the pros it is likely less.
Honestly, while watching 1994, I didn't even look at it as buying a Cup. I enjoyed Richter and Leetch just as much as Messier.
I guess he really hated the 2007 NFC title game, what with that import Plax dominating the game and that other import Pierce making an incredible, game saving tackle against three blockers on that screen pass.
Don't forget 2 time SB MVP and import Eli Manning.
It would have been much better to win with Rivers, Merriman and Kaeding.
I'm not even sure how that Rangers team is a good example. Richter and Leetch were prominent guys. Zubov was their top point guy. I remember how exciting Kovalev was. Like I joked about above, the 1940 Rangers had all but 2 Canadians on their team. Who wants to root for guys from a different country!!
They put gravy on French Fries for fuck's sake!
It is a really odd take.
Don Mattingly was my #1 childhood hero, but the Yankees never won while he was on the team. I preferred when they were winning.
If the choice is to watch the Giants dominate in the 1980s with all the same players but lose the two SB
versus
Watch the Giants be mediocre with no dominating players but WIN the 1986 and 1990 super bowls
I pick #1 every single time.
Now, I see PJ in a post I missed above ... said watch LT but the Giants are not competitive ... or watch Chytil develop but the Rangers are not competitive... that is a much more difficult thing for me... and I'd have to go with watching a competitive team
But - here is the real point for me ... I choose long term competitive teams with no championships than I would choose long term lousy teams with two lucky championships. In other words, championships are not everything for me... I much rather have enjoyment every game for a decade except 2 lost super bowls ... than be bored for a decade except for winning 2 outliers Super Bowls
Quote:
The point I'm making is pretty straight forward. Where players come from matter
I'm not even sure how that Rangers team is a good example. Richter and Leetch were prominent guys. Zubov was their top point guy. I remember how exciting Kovalev was. Like I joked about above, the 1940 Rangers had all but 2 Canadians on their team. Who wants to root for guys from a different country!!
They put gravy on French Fries for fuck's sake!
It is a really odd take.
FatMan... c'mon ... I loved the Cup in 1994... I'm a fucking Rangers fan for over 50 years... how could I NOT love it?
All I'm saying is that in theory I would have loved it a lot more if the Cup contained the names of more than 5 Ranger draft picks. That is literally all I am saying.
You think Vikings fans preferred to root for the Purple People Eaters and grizzly Bud Grant instead of having SB's?? It basically ruined Jim Marshall's life!
Don't forget 2 time SB MVP and import Eli Manning.
Haha... but, as I have been thinking out loud as I post, I made the point earlier that I think it isn't so much being a draft pick as it is getting to watch and follow a young player develop into a star ... versus a player join the Giants/Rangers after they had already developed into a star with some other team.
Are you sure you aren't an Islanders fan? I am sure they were so happy to watch Tavares develop all those years and never winning play off series'. Because, ya know, he was home grown...
But hey, they had that dynasty from the 80s to reflect back on.
Are you sure you aren't an Islanders fan? I am sure they were so happy to watch Tavares develop all those years and never winning play off series'. Because, ya know, he was home grown...
But hey, they had that dynasty from the 80s to reflect back on.
Thinking on it as we've been discussing it ... actually PJ's post about a lousy Giants team versus a SB winning team ... clarified my thoughts ... watching a long term competitive team is my #1 goal that, for me, trumps championships or individual players.
Neil Smith used/gambled his assets to go for a run.
Mark Messier - trade - Steven Rice was a highly touted prospect, DeBrusk and Bernie Nicholls (Jeff Beukeboom was the future considerations part with Dave Shaw eventually heading out).
Adam Graves was an RFA and Troy Mallette was the compensation. Mallette was an underrated Ranger who was a personal favorite.
Esa Tikkanen cost the Rangers Doug Weight
Kevin Lowe was a trade (late December that year in 92?)
Craig MacTavish was Todd Marchant
Glenn Anderson came from Toronto and Mike Gartner went the other way.
Edmonton was certainly salary dumping but we did risk some good players and yes I acknowledge that the Rangers, financially were a few teams that could have afforded the contracts.
I don't feel guilty at all - I love the Giants but that was my all time favorite championship.
...
and the only change is that in the 1979 period the Giants lose the two Super Bowls
I would choose the 1979-1990 time frame without hesitation... those 11 years brought me more joy from the week in and week out Giants domination than the 11 very long years from 2004-2015 (with the most exciting and best SB in my lifetime being the 2006 win over the assholes)
But, from the view of my happiness season after season, I have to go with the dominance of the greatest Giants football squad in Giants history - the teams put together by George Young over the 11 years starting in 1979. That was the best period of time in my lifetime as a fan.
Link - ( New Window )
Separate yourself from being a Giants fan for a second and lets say you are SD/LA Chargers fan. You would be content with the team since 2004, with having the homegrown talent of Rivers, Tomlinson, etc...going to the playoffs a few times, never winning a championship? But hey, they got close in 2007 and lost in the AFCCG.
I can pretty much guarantee, any Charger's fan would trade all those competitive years for one championship.
Would those two SB wins mean less?
Because that's the new normal in the NFL (and pro sports).
If you bring it into current team terms it sounds like you'd rather the Eli Giants go 12 - 4 every year and lose in the playoffs instead of somewhere between 6 - 10 and 10 - 6 but win two Super Bowls.
That blows my mind.
And I think it's just a different mind set.
yes, I'd love to see home grown players dominate for my teams, but if I have a choice of winning a SB once in 5 years but going 6 - 10 the other 4 or 12 - 4 with no SB's all 5 years it's a no-brainer.
I'm not as old as you, but I remember '86, '90, '07 and '11 vividly and '07 was just as sweet as any of the others. So was '11 for me. they're all special to me.
Would those two SB wins mean less?
Because that's the new normal in the NFL (and pro sports).
If you bring it into current team terms it sounds like you'd rather the Eli Giants go 12 - 4 every year and lose in the playoffs instead of somewhere between 6 - 10 and 10 - 6 but win two Super Bowls.
That blows my mind.
And I think it's just a different mind set.
yes, I'd love to see home grown players dominate for my teams, but if I have a choice of winning a SB once in 5 years but going 6 - 10 the other 4 or 12 - 4 with no SB's all 5 years it's a no-brainer.
I'm not as old as you, but I remember '86, '90, '07 and '11 vividly and '07 was just as sweet as any of the others. So was '11 for me. they're all special to me.
PJ, I just finished posting that your prior post about a non-competitive team with Lawrence Taylor made me reflect about my feelings... because my reaction is that I absolutely would not be satisfied watching every snap LT played at the expense of being forced to watch a non-competitive team every Sunday.
But, I would absolutely choose to watch a dominating Giants team for a decade - every Sunday week in and week out - over a decade of pathetic turnover, with no great players, with 1-2 SBs by shocking out of the blue SB runs. The short term joy of 2 games would not be worth the decade of misery every Sunday.
I still look back fondly at both championships and maybe because i live in metro-Boston I enjoy them more and longer than other fans (I doubt I'm unique though in this regard).
The regular seasons were not dominant, but I loved watching those teams evolve and hit peak form come playoff time and those were some of the most riveting playoff games I've seen.
In fact knowing there was a little bit of David vs Goliath being on the road so much against opponents with better records for those games made it even a little sweeter.
in 1986 if the Giants lost it would have been a disappointment, a let down. they were the best team in the league.
in 2007 if the Giants lost no one would have been surprised, it's one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
Regardless for a variety of reasons I root for laundry and i do not get emotionally invested in players.
So, to me it doesn't matter how we get there (and I don't mean cheating so don't be obtuse), but my goal is for the teams I like to win championships. Period.
I still look back fondly at both championships and maybe because i live in metro-Boston I enjoy them more and longer than other fans (I doubt I'm unique though in this regard).
The regular seasons were not dominant, but I loved watching those teams evolve and hit peak form come playoff time and those were some of the most riveting playoff games I've seen.
In fact knowing there was a little bit of David vs Goliath being on the road so much against opponents with better records for those games made it even a little sweeter.
in 1986 if the Giants lost it would have been a disappointment, a let down. they were the best team in the league.
in 2007 if the Giants lost no one would have been surprised, it's one of the biggest upsets in sports history.
Regardless for a variety of reasons I root for laundry and i do not get emotionally invested in players.
So, to me it doesn't matter how we get there (and I don't mean cheating so don't be obtuse), but my goal is for the teams I like to win championships. Period.
See, I don't get that at all. Using my extreme example to make my point, if the Giants fielded a team of 53 players who had zero connection to the Giants before the season and they played only one season and then every one of them were gone... but they wore the Giants jersey for one year and one year only - and they won the SB - you would enjoy that and consider that a Giants' Super Bowl?
I would hate it. There would be zero connection with the players. It would be completely meaningless.
My point in that example is that the concept of a "team" that I follow has meaning that extends beyond one season and that winning, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless if it is divorced from the building of the team - the slow development of players who ultimately win that championship.
Would you have had less joy watching the Giants if they won the SB this year? They turned over the roster by 70% and the starters by 50%.
That's about as much of a non-connection one can have to an NFL team these days.
And I would've enjoyed every minute of a Super Bowl run. Hell, I'd have been estactic to make the playoffs!
And those Golden Knights fans seemed pretty rabid in the Stanley cup finals.
baadbill : 2:42 pm : link : reply
... championships are meaningless if they are disconnected from the concept of building a winning team over time.
In their second years in the NFL, the Panthers and Jaguars went to the Conference Championship games, with players the fans hadn't seen play more than a year, with a fan base that had spent their lives rooting for other NFL teams.
Would you have had less joy watching the Giants if they won the SB this year? They turned over the roster by 70% and the starters by 50%.
That's about as much of a non-connection one can have to an NFL team these days.
And I would've enjoyed every minute of a Super Bowl run. Hell, I'd have been estactic to make the playoffs!
Of course not, because they are players who will be playing moving forward. They ARE the NY Giants. The Championship would ONLY have meaning to me if the players that won it were connected to the Giants. The connection of the players to the team matters.
Quote:
The example is made to illustrate a point
baadbill : 2:42 pm : link : reply
... championships are meaningless if they are disconnected from the concept of building a winning team over time.
In their second years in the NFL, the Panthers and Jaguars went to the Conference Championship games, with players the fans hadn't seen play more than a year, with a fan base that had spent their lives rooting for other NFL teams.
But that's just not accurate. Those fans knew those players were connected to their teams moving forward. Championships only matter to the extent there is a connection between the players who win the Championship and to the team.
And, my point, again, being that I get more joy from a winning team filled with players I had the joy watch develop into stars while playing for MY team
Versus a winning team filled with players who developed into star playing for a different team.
That is ALL I am saying. It may make no difference to you guys. Good for you. But I get more enjoyment watching young guys develop into stars and then win a championship. That is my preference.
Slightly different concept since that team is playing for country not "employer" but flies in the face of what brings you joy in sports.
Other than '80, the 1996 Word Cup, the 2010 Olympics and the 2002 Olympics are some of my fondest hockey moments.
Were you able to enjoy them? The players had no connection to each other in most cases other than being fellow countrymen.
Slightly different concept since that team is playing for country not "employer" but flies in the face of what brings you joy in sports.
Other than '80, the 1996 Word Cup, the 2010 Olympics and the 2002 Olympics are some of my fondest hockey moments.
Were you able to enjoy them? The players had no connection to each other in most cases other than being fellow countrymen.
Yes. I watched the entirety of the 1980 Olympics. And I was very excited and loved them.
I don't know what defines becoming a fan of a particular team. I know one thing that does not - at least for me - whether they win or lose. For me, I didn't choose my teams, they were natural selections... Yankees, Knicks, Rangers, and the Giants. And the only teams that I watched consistently, the Rangers and the Giants... weren't very good. If wining was all that mattered, we'd all be choosing winning teams to follow.
Most fans have an emotional attachment to the teams they follow. To the team itself and to the players on that team. I know you feel contrary - your post saying you have no emotional attachment to any players - and that the only thing that matters, is winning - surprises me a bit.
I watched the game when Eddie Giacomin played in the Garden as goalie for the Red Wings after being released days earlier by the Rangers... and I can tell you straight up that the Ranger fans were very emotional and emotionally attached to Giacomin.
Many fans were angry when he was put on waivers and claimed by the Detroit Red Wings on October 29, 1975 as the result of a youth movement that resulted in John Davidson taking over in goal. The Red Wings' next game was in New York on November 2, and when Giacomin appeared on the ice in a Red Wing jersey, fans gave him a long standing ovation and cheered for him throughout the game. Rangers fans booed their own team when they took shots or scored on Giacomin, and chanted Giacomin's name throughout the match, which he won for the Red Wings. The evening was voted one of the 50 greatest moments in MSG history.
I am a fan of a team much more than I am a fan of a sport. I have watched the majority of Ranger regular season games for the majority of my lifetime ... but in all that time, I don't believe I have ever watched the entirety of a single NHL game that the Rangers weren't playing. I've watched some NFL games that didn't involve the Giants, but not many other than the Super Bowls (I've never watched a full Stanley Cup game other than 1994).
And I tend to buy into the myths I'm fed about the organizations, such as the Giants, being a "class organization". I know it probably isn't true and is a sales gimmick, but somehow I want to believe in it... I want it to be true. And one of the reasons I loved Phil Simms is because of what he meant to the Giants organization off the field ... the class act he was. Same for Manning.
All of those things go into my fandom.
And, when it comes to winning championships, the point of my extreme example of having 100% players from outside the organization for one single year ... is to point out that the origin of the players matter. My example is the most exteme - and would result in me having zero interest in the Championship won by those players.
But it's a continuum ... the 1994 Rangers had 5 players names engraved on the Cup who were drafted by the Rangers. If I could choose, I would have preferred 100% of the names on the Cup were draft picks of the Rangers whom I got to watch develop for years leading to the Cup. Likewise, I would have felt less enthused about the 1994 Cup had there been zero draft picks - or had the draft picks whose names on the Cup been less significant players (rather than the great contributions they all made).
To me - my fandom - encompasses more than winning. If that was all that mattered, I don't know how I could have watched every Giant's game during the 1970s - or the majority of Ranger games all of my life.
My fandom includes following my team season to season ... watching how they draft and watching the young players develop [into stars hopefully] ... getting a feel for where on the slope the ever constant ongoing building process lies ... is the team on the rise or on a downward slide.
Sorry for rambling. But what it means to be a fan of a team is an interesting concept ... and clearly not one I can fully understand even within myself. I've enjoyed this discussion and, since I was basically talking out loud as I thought about it while the discussion progressed, I'm still not entirely sure what motivates me as a fan.
When the Giants win a game they don't play particularly well I don't get less of a rush than when they dominate.
I view it all as part of a process to win a championship.
Process to win a championship, I'll repeat that.
Not a process to develop young players or keep a core group together.
I don't care how much my favorite teams are winning or loosing by and I don't care about the standings.
Every game the Yankees, Giants and Rangers play is an opportunity for me to root for my team to win and I could care less how the players on the team were assembled - via trade, draft or free agent.
Mark Messier is my all time favorite Ranger. The Captain.
When the Giants win a game they don't play particularly well I don't get less of a rush than when they dominate.
I view it all as part of a process to win a championship.
Process to win a championship, I'll repeat that.
Not a process to develop young players or keep a core group together.
A process to build a team to win a championship ... not just to hire a bunch of free agents all of whom became stars on other teams. Again, where the players come from matter. A team comprised 100% from other teams is less enjoyable to most fans than a team with home grown stars that fans enjoyed watching over the years.
Quote:
isn't because they win for most of us non-bandwagoners, but it is a goal for most fans for their team to win.
When the Giants win a game they don't play particularly well I don't get less of a rush than when they dominate.
I view it all as part of a process to win a championship.
Process to win a championship, I'll repeat that.
Not a process to develop young players or keep a core group together.
A process to build a team to win a championship ... not just to hire a bunch of free agents all of whom became stars on other teams. Again, where the players come from matter. A team comprised 100% from other teams is less enjoyable to most fans than a team with home grown stars that fans enjoyed watching over the years.
Ok, I just don't get your perspective.
To me, in this era of sports, its' obviously easiest to win if you have contribution from young players you drafted on initial less expensive contracts but it's rare, if ever that those players provide enough to win so the good GM's surround those youngsters with veteran players (internally developed or externally signed) to help build out areas of your team you haven't developed internally.
It's practically the blue print for every pro champion the past 20 years.
It makes all the sense in the world. Sure, best case you don't need to sign high $$ veterans from outside, but if you do a great job drafting and developing youth eventually you won't be able to pay them.
Look at the Maple Leafs. Not all internal, but they absolutely will not be able to pay Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Hyman, etc. too good too soon all need to get paid around the same time - add to that Tavares, and someone will need to go and be replaced by a lower cost FA.
Winnipeg will face a similar challenge IMO.
It's the economy of sports these days. Nothing wrong with it IMO either.
And I enjoy watching young players develop. It's part of the joy I get from following a team.
Tavares
Marleau
F Anderssen
...probably a few more hired mercenaries at the trade deadline too. It's disgusting.
Wait - what the fuck is Bill talking about?
In any event, sure, watching your home grown group build towards something and eventually reach the pinnacle is the best - I wanted nothing more than for Hank and some of our other home-growns to raise a Cup here ...
but almost all Championship teams have supplemented holes via free agency and trades and in any event, its not all or nothing. Your comment at 12:19am this morning thus must have been made while incoherently drunk.
Yet now you later say you enjoyed those runs immensely. So which is it - did you enjoy them, or do you still pretend they never happened?
Tavares
Marleau
F Anderssen
...probably a few more hired mercenaries at the trade deadline too. It's disgusting.
Wait - what the fuck is Bill talking about?
In any event, sure, watching your home grown group build towards something and eventually reach the pinnacle is the best - I wanted nothing more than for Hank and some of our other home-growns to raise a Cup here ...
but almost all Championship teams have supplemented holes via free agency and trades and in any event, its not all or nothing. Your comment at 12:19am this morning thus must have been made while incoherently drunk.
Quote:
Yat. That may turn out to be true. After all, in my book the Rangers have still not won a Cup since 1940, and why would I think getting a bunch of draft picks is going to change things over the next 3 years?
Yet now you later say you enjoyed those runs immensely. So which is it - did you enjoy them, or do you still pretend they never happened?
I loved the 1994 run. And I was obviously being sarcastic in saying the Rangers havn't won a Cup since 1940 (after all, I did know they won in 1994). My point stands... having only 5 players drafted by the Rangers qualify for their names on the Cup isn't my preference as a fan. It's a really pretty straight forward statement - and one I would imaging most fans agree with.
And I enjoy watching young players develop. It's part of the joy I get from following a team.
Doesn't mean I don't like players. Some more than others. I liked Justin Tuck a lot. Brandon Jacobs. I was sad when PK Subban was traded.
but doesn't mean if my team is 50/50 draft picks and free agents I'm going to enjoy a championship any less.
Even the Rangers team you cite ('94) half that team was 25 years old or under. so even if the Rangers didn't draft the players many of them cut their teeth or developed with the Rangers, so your point seems pretty hollow or impossible.
I brought up the Colts, 21 out of 22 starters drafted by the Colts, but they had a lot of FA's on the team who contributed.
If you want for that your team will never win, might as wll stick to rooting for college football where at least the players need to be juniors before they can leave.
The championship was driven by Rangers draftees. The acquisitions were mostly the support guys who filled in the cracks, with the glaring exception of Messier. It wasn't a bunch of mercenary stars. It was mostly grinders like Noonan, Matteau, McTavish, and Wells.
The championship was driven by Rangers draftees. The acquisitions were mostly the support guys who filled in the cracks, with the glaring exception of Messier. It wasn't a bunch of mercenary stars. It was mostly grinders like Noonan, Matteau, McTavish, and Wells.
I already acknowledged the importance of the home grown Rangers Greg. As an aside, if I recall, McTavish was heroic on face off wins, Noonan brought some much needed physicality, and Matthau had a pretty string offensive showing. And I seem to recall Wells being a steadying reliable influence on D ...
Again, all Im saying is that all things being equal, it would have been nice to have had more Ranger draft picks other than 5 ... Id be willing to bet that Edmonton had more than 5 when they won their cups...
I'm pretty sure they don't feel worse about the cups they won when he was there.
LGR!
I'm pretty sure they don't feel worse about the cups they won when he was there.
+1 - The Indianapolis Racers of the WHA were the first professional teams for both Gretzky and Messier.
Zucc had absolutely nothing to do with the goal
He's having trouble keeping the puck on screen... wtf
The team looks strong tonight - Zib, Kreids and Nieves all playing strong hockey.
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
I mean one line getting all 3 stars of the game
Quote:
How old was TDA when he offended you?
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
Please educate me. He's 23 years old now and since he's been a Ranger ... I haven't heard a bad thing.
Having conservative beliefs doesn't make one 'despicable' -- unless one is an intolerant piece of shit judging. He had some issues in 2014... by my math that put him at 18-19 years old.
We are going to judge his life by actions in his late teens?
Pre Twitter and internet era no one knows of his fuck ups as a teenager to begin with.
Quote:
In comment 14267246 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
How old was TDA when he offended you?
Anyway I'm still embracing the tank but would like to see Hank get to 6th in wins tonight. CuJo would be next in the cross hairs
He is a despicable human being. He was one all his life in south jersey. He has been one as an adult in the NHL. Utterly, completely and entirely a piece of trash.
I'm not being holier than thou. Maybe you are fine with people who hate other people just because of who they are, but I will never tolerate such trash.
Please educate me. He's 23 years old now and since he's been a Ranger ... I haven't heard a bad thing.
Having conservative beliefs doesn't make one 'despicable' -- unless one is an intolerant piece of shit judging. He had some issues in 2014... by my math that put him at 18-19 years old.
We are going to judge his life by actions in his late teens?
Pre Twitter and internet era no one knows of his fuck ups as a teenager to begin with.
Conservative beliefs? Hating people because they are gay or black are conservative beliefs?
He is on his third NHL team because of his beliefs. He is a pig and a piece of dog shit.
He is on his third NHL team because of his beliefs. He is a pig and a piece of dog shit.
Arizona didn't dump him because of his dumb twitter or teammate comments as a 16 year old. I hope your kids didn't do anything stupid in their teen years. You're a real piece of work.
Probably hoping to get moved at the deadline to a team baadbill doesn't root for, so they can enjoy a cup run.
I don't know, let's stick to sports. Probably didn't need to be brought up in the first place.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
coaching the Blackhawks now? Geez what a mess that team has become. Wonder what Toews and Kane are thinking
Probably hoping to get moved at the deadline to a team baadbill doesn't root for, so they can enjoy a cup run.
And this is the team who traded away Panarin and then fired the coach.
Quote:
In comment 14267259 Kyle in NY said:
Quote:
coaching the Blackhawks now? Geez what a mess that team has become. Wonder what Toews and Kane are thinking
Probably hoping to get moved at the deadline to a team baadbill doesn't root for, so they can enjoy a cup run.
And this is the team who traded away Panarin and then fired the coach.
Joel Q is without question the top coach on the market. No clue why they got rid of him.
Completely agree, but has there been an incident recently that I'm not aware of?
Someone please feel free to start a NY Rangers 2019 thread when they feel can and let this negative stuff stay here and go to the archives....
That's the point. He hasn't spotted them now or in the last 3 years (when he turned 21)
He's not the first highly talented kid to do and say stupid shit at age 16. Apparently that makes him a piece of shit for life though in baadbill's fucked up world of not rooting for free agents or anyone with different political views than him.
Of course, if he did or said something bigoted here, in his mid 20s now... but all means cut his ass. But for now I have no problem forgiving and giving him second chance, etc
Maybe we can start another generic Rangers thread, so we don't have to sift though all the BS?
I am trying not to be rude Figgy...
Maybe we can start another generic Rangers thread, so we don't have to sift though all the BS?
Generic seems too ... generic. Maybe one for homegrown Rangers and one for acquired. (Do we need to segment acquired into trades vs. FA signings)?
It can be tons of fun.
Trade? Or could be a possible rest day...
Quote:
.
Trade? Or could be a possible rest day...
Correct. One or the other
The vets do tend to take maintenance days. Staal is also not on the ice.
I have been outspoken in my praise of DeAngelo's hockey play this year. That doesn't change the fact that he has been an outspoken racist/homophobe. The initial comment I made on this thread about his past was that "I found it hard to root for him".
Is he still a racist pig or has he learned to keep his voice shut with a potential multi-million dollar future on the line? He's the one who has chosen a career that makes him a public figure and, as such, as far as I am concerned it is his burden to persuade good people of conscience that he has changed and his past doesn't entitle him to any presumption that the hatred of minorities that defined him previously no longer remains in his heart.
He doesn't owe me shit. Nor do the Rangers or the NHL. But, as a fan, if DeAngelo doesn't want me periodically speaking my mind about who is he and what he stands for, then he can convince me he is a changed man.
How might he do that? Well, let's take a look at someone who did exactly that. Michael Vick. I love animals and I have grown own with a dog as a part of my family my entire life. I hated Michael Vick with a burning intensity that was hard to describe. But he did the one thing that he possibly could to change my mind: He came out of prison and publicly owned his past and put it out there for everyone to judge. He answered the tough questions (not to my satisfaction, but enough that I was willing to let my hatred go.
As an aside, Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice are two people who have not convinced me they have truly changed in their hearts and I remain convinced they would both repeat their past behaviors so long as they were convinced they would not be caught.
So, Tony DeAngelo was - and until he does something to persuade me otherwise, remains the ugly, vile human being he has always been. And until I am convinced he has changed in his heart, I will find it difficult to root for him.
Quote:
.
Trade? Or could be a possible rest day...
Brian Heyman
@bheyman99
David Quinn says just maintenance days today for Zucc, Fast, Staal, will be playing tomorrow vs the #Bruins. #nyr #nhl
The kid is a an improving player.
Quote:
In comment 14267737 Anakim said:
Quote:
.
Trade? Or could be a possible rest day...
Brian Heyman
@bheyman99
David Quinn says just maintenance days today for Zucc, Fast, Staal, will be playing tomorrow vs the #Bruins. #nyr #nhl
Thanks Anak
Except Im also gonna be a few liters of Spottd Cow in so itll be boiled down to four letter words and superlatives
Except Im also gonna be a few liters of Spottd Cow in so itll be boiled down to four letter words and superlatives
A few incidents became widespread news because of severity and circumstance. DeAngelo was suspended in the OHL for abuse of an official in 2014, and then again this past season in the NHL for the same thing. Also in 2014, he was suspended for eight games for directing bigoted remarks towards his own teammate. There seems to be this spreading notion that DeAngelo is being smeared for a few teenage incidents in the heat of the moment; kids will be kids. These instances are tremendous red flags even when viewed in isolation. Even still, the problems with DeAngelo run way deeper than these three particular incidents.
There is plenty more that hasnt reached the mainstream. I spoke to a well-connected OHL employee, and he remarked that coaches across the league went through a daily struggle dealing with DeAngelo; the words gong show were used. The way it was described to me, DeAngelo is fine when things are going well. Hes highly competitive, and so when the team is winning, hes at his best. Otherwise, hes a ticking time bomb.
Furthermore, I spoke to multiple people with knowledge of DeAngelo back to his days in youth hockey in New Jersey. Nobody was willing to go on the record with specifics, but the message was uniform across the board.
Theres plenty out there for anyone with a brain to figure out the kind of guy he is, was one way one person put it to me.
As I said... not someone I find it easy to root for... especially since he hasn't stepped up to the plate and owned (disavowed)his past... until he does, he is nothing but someone who knows his racism may cost him potentially millions of dollars, so he keeps his mouth shut.
His non-existent NHL career thus far isn't because of lack of talent. I'd love to give him a second chance - but he hasn't given me anything... no signs of remorse or ownership of his past ... nothing... nada.
Bigotry is something that deserves being fought - very aggressively - wherever it is found ... and bigots do not "deserve" second chances, they have to earn them. DeAngelo has done exactly nothing to earn anything from the public.
Link
Link - ( New Window )
He was suspended for the bigoted remarks so he paid the price already.
TDA doesn't owe you anything. Feel however you like about him - I could give a fuck less what you think.
Horrendous call.
Nah... I just refuse to tolerate bigots, wherever they can be found... nor will I give an inch to people who support them.
Huge factor tonight was the PK... and the KZZ line which has been on fire.
Already getting depressed there won't be Rangers hockey for 10 days... ugh
Wow. I obviously struck a nerve and your defense of DeAngelo has become way too personal. Ill step back and meanwhile suggest you chill.
Agree. And the thing is, I love the Rangers ... I have all of my life ... and I enjoy discussing them ... and all I said is that DeAngelo is really coming on strong with his talent but that I struggle (inside of myself) with his history. Not exactly a strident or revolutionary comment. But it sure hit way too close to home for some people, which is just sad.
But Id really like to move on. I never intended it to get so personal for some.
If they move a significant portion of that group, then do it now and not after they accumulate more wins. Ill still enjoy watching the kids fight and scratch,but why hold onto guys if youve already determined they arent going to be here in 30 days (or in 3 years)?
Link - ( New Window )
Asslicker? No, I just don't take teenager verbal comments too seriously. If he fucks up as an adult - i'll be the first to want him shipped out.
Tough loss - looked ok but almost 2 weeks off. Anyway, Rangers threads have become baadbill personal blogs much like mets are DMM/ZG debates so I think I'll focus elsewhere
There is was no clear play that Howden seemed to be favoring his knee.
Idiot. Watch the game please. Howden ran right into the butt of one of the Flyers against the boards. He immediately went off the ice and was seen by the trainer and it was immediately the subject of the in game discussion. How can you write an article and literally make shit up?
Link - ( New Window )