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... Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 I’m saying is that all things being equal, it would have been nice to have had more Ranger draft picks other than 5 ... I’d 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.
I’d 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 Â
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 I’m saying is that all things being equal, it would have been nice to have had more Ranger draft picks other than 5 ... I’d 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