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.
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.