View Poll Results: Who wins?

Voters
12. This poll is closed
  • Bruins in 4

    0 0%
  • Bruins in 5

    1 8.33%
  • Bruins in 6

    5 41.67%
  • Bruins in 7

    2 16.67%
  • Isles in 4

    0 0%
  • Isles in 5

    0 0%
  • Isles in 6

    0 0%
  • Isles in 7

    4 33.33%
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 216

Thread: 2020-21 | EDSR | (E3) Boston Bruins vs. (E4) New York Islanders

  1. #81
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Sharpshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3,758
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by RodrigueGabriel View Post
    All that did affect the season, but not as much as the fact that, as of February, the Rangers had roughly 1/2 of the regular season game experience of the four teams ahead of them and closer to 1/3 of the (much more salient) playoff game experience. You can't wave a magic wand and give a team - where more than half of their players have less than 3 NHL seasons and virtually no playoff games - the combat experience to fight through Boston and Pittsburgh. Yet they competed until near the end and would have made the playoffs in other divisions.

    A few role players might have made a difference in the final outcome, but it was a year to "play the kids" and get them the game experience they MUST HAVE to develop. It's not like Gorton was going to stand pat this summer.

    IMO, the chronic inability of NY fans (including Dolan here) to endure, withstand, stomach, or otherwise deal with any amount of adversity without dissolving into angry calls to blow it all up is a huge and historic obstacle to building a Cup caliber team here. It's not new. It's always been this way. It's the dynamic that allowed and encouraged a Rick Middleton for Ken Hodge trade and a trail of tears of other bad deals. And here we go again.

    You can't just jump to step 6. You have to go through 3, 4, and 5. And sometimes that requires facing tough stretches and losing important battles along the way - and dealing with it. But we're always looking for short cuts and 'win faster" snake oil. It's the Ranger way. One Cup in 80 years speaks for itself.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Yeah, great mic drop post. Things were going so well. Gorton and JD put this team in very good shape overall going forward and Dolan just had to stick his nose back in. I really hope he didn't just hire Drury to be a puppet on a string, even if I think he can be a good GM. This team has needs and plenty of assets to trade, so I'm not totally doom and gloom, but it's just who and how much they trade to fill holes is what may worry some. As you said, overpaying for the "quick fix" has been the way for a very long time.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,323
    Rep Power
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by RodrigueGabriel View Post
    All that did affect the season, but not as much as the fact that, as of February, the Rangers had roughly 1/2 of the regular season game experience of the four teams ahead of them and closer to 1/3 of the (much more salient) playoff game experience. You can't wave a magic wand and give a team - where more than half of their players have less than 3 NHL seasons and virtually no playoff games - the combat experience to fight through Boston and Pittsburgh. Yet they competed until near the end and would have made the playoffs in other divisions.

    A few role players might have made a difference in the final outcome, but it was a year to "play the kids" and get them the game experience they MUST HAVE to develop. It's not like Gorton was going to stand pat this summer.

    IMO, the chronic inability of NY fans (including Dolan here) to endure, withstand, stomach, or otherwise deal with any amount of adversity without dissolving into angry calls to blow it all up is a huge and historic obstacle to building a Cup caliber team here. It's not new. It's always been this way. It's the dynamic that allowed and encouraged a Rick Middleton for Ken Hodge trade and a trail of tears of other bad deals. And here we go again.

    You can't just jump to step 6. You have to go through 3, 4, and 5. And sometimes that requires facing tough stretches and losing important battles along the way - and dealing with it. But we're always looking for short cuts and 'win faster" snake oil. It's the Ranger way. One Cup in 80 years speaks for itself.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    I agree with your post in theory, but I don't feel the bold actually happened. I don't think the kids really got the necessary ice time that would allow for growth. Kakko averaged the same amount of ice time as his rookie year, despite playing a much more responsible brand of hockey. Lafreniere got even less than Kakko. Gauthier got nothing. Short sample, but Kravtsov got next to nothing. Chytil got nothing. None of these guys got any meaningful PP time. The only kid who got meaningful time was Miller, and that was born out of necessity rather than choice. We can say it was a "play the kids" year, but it doesn't mean anything if it didn't actually happen. We had PP1 chunking 90% of the PP time, which in practice may be fine if the goal is "win now", but again, not as much in a "play the kids" year. We had Blackwell on PP1 for a stretch over any of the kids, and on PP2 over kids. We had Jack Johnson, Anthony Bitetto, and Brendan Smith chunking ice time instead of seeing what a guy like Reunanen has to offer. We can say "oh, it's only Reunanen, he won't amount to anything", but that's what this year was about. Nobody thought Lindgren would be quite as good as he has been either.

    So while I agree it should have been a "play the kids" year, it really wasn't. This, for me, is where frustration stems from. It's an inaccurate narrative of what actually happened.

  3. #83
    Senior Member BSBH Prospect
    siddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    12,856
    Rep Power
    161
    I suddenly realize why the rangers have never ďrebuiltĒ before. Ny fans have 0 patience.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #84
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    I agree with your post in theory, but I don't feel the bold actually happened. I don't think the kids really got the necessary ice time that would allow for growth. Kakko averaged the same amount of ice time as his rookie year, despite playing a much more responsible brand of hockey. Lafreniere got even less than Kakko. Gauthier got nothing. Short sample, but Kravtsov got next to nothing. Chytil got nothing. None of these guys got any meaningful PP time. The only kid who got meaningful time was Miller, and that was born out of necessity rather than choice. We can say it was a "play the kids" year, but it doesn't mean anything if it didn't actually happen. We had PP1 chunking 90% of the PP time, which in practice may be fine if the goal is "win now", but again, not as much in a "play the kids" year. We had Blackwell on PP1 for a stretch over any of the kids, and on PP2 over kids. We had Jack Johnson, Anthony Bitetto, and Brendan Smith chunking ice time instead of seeing what a guy like Reunanen has to offer. We can say "oh, it's only Reunanen, he won't amount to anything", but that's what this year was about. Nobody thought Lindgren would be quite as good as he has been either.

    So while I agree it should have been a "play the kids" year, it really wasn't. This, for me, is where frustration stems from. It's an inaccurate narrative of what actually happened.
    Kakko was 2nd in TOI among RWs behind Buch. Laf was 3rd among LWs behind Panarin and only 40 seconds less than Kreider. Laf's TOI increased and Kreider's decreased as the season went on. Chytil was 3rd among centers.

    On D, Fox Lindgren, and Miller are all kids. That's 3 of the top 4. Hajek played 44 of 56 games. Jones was thrown in there right out of college.

    Reunanen and Gauthier have no future here. The kids that are part of the future played alot. I guess you can complain about PP time if you want, but the Rangers have one of the best PP's in the league.

  5. #85
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by RodrigueGabriel View Post
    All that did affect the season, but not as much as the fact that, as of February, the Rangers had roughly 1/2 of the regular season game experience of the four teams ahead of them and closer to 1/3 of the (much more salient) playoff game experience. You can't wave a magic wand and give a team - where more than half of their players have less than 3 NHL seasons and virtually no playoff games - the combat experience to fight through Boston and Pittsburgh. Yet they competed until near the end and would have made the playoffs in other divisions.

    A few role players might have made a difference in the final outcome, but it was a year to "play the kids" and get them the game experience they MUST HAVE to develop. It's not like Gorton was going to stand pat this summer.

    IMO, the chronic inability of NY fans (including Dolan here) to endure, withstand, stomach, or otherwise deal with any amount of adversity without dissolving into angry calls to blow it all up is a huge and historic obstacle to building a Cup caliber team here. It's not new. It's always been this way. It's the dynamic that allowed and encouraged a Rick Middleton for Ken Hodge trade and a trail of tears of other bad deals. And here we go again.

    You can't just jump to step 6. You have to go through 3, 4, and 5. And sometimes that requires facing tough stretches and losing important battles along the way - and dealing with it. But we're always looking for short cuts and 'win faster" snake oil. It's the Ranger way. One Cup in 80 years speaks for itself.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    I understand alll of that with some disagreements. However, I also think there needs to be progress, not just a repetition of in inconsistency. I donít agree this year was ďplay the kidsĒ type of year because the guys with top ice time were not the kids at all. The top forwards in terms of ice time are
    Ziby
    Panarin
    Buch
    Strome
    Kreider
    Defense is a little trickier since obviously guys go out in pairs but yes it is a more youthful showing
    Fox
    Trouba
    Miller
    Lindgren
    Smith
    Hodgepodge of others

    This idea of it being so difficult to rebuild in NY is just something we make up. The Knicks have been rebuilding for 50 years. The Jets for the same. Hell, we have one cup in 80 years as you said and since 1926 we have only appeared in the finals 11 times. While I get that isnít exactly the same as tearing it down to the studs and starting over, we arenít remotely close to a team with a winning tradition like the Yankees. The fans are plenty plenty patient. Thank god for the Leafs because without them we would have the most pathetic franchise in terms of winning anything in the last 60 or so years. We upped them by 1. Yay us !

    The problem is we have a legit dominant top 6 but one we overuse. The bottom 6 is made up of hopeful top 6 guys. Now Iím not remotely suggesting getting rid of Kakko or ALF but I am suggesting that itís 100% time to cut ties with he likes of Gauthier and Howden. Bring in guys for set roles because right now this roster is made up very very one dimensionally. Free up the top 6 to rest instead of being out there always. The ďplay the kidsĒ notion is fine but we donít exactly do that.

    If you want to say we canít jump to step 6 then why did we bring in Panarin? Why retain Kreider? Why Trouba if he was going to cost that much? Those are three big money deals on a team saying ďwe have to go through a long process.Ē While no one could have predicted a flat cap, we all still could have said tying up 26m for three guys pretty unmovable until 2024 probably isnít the greatest idea if you believe your drafted talent will take the next step eventually and also need to be paid.
    Kravtsov, Lundqvist, Miller, Buch, Chytil, Shesh, Barron and Iím sure others were all drafted before. While Iím not saying they were NHL ready straight out, if you believed in them, why bring in or retain others that will be obstacles they have to try and hurdle if they want to take the next step? How are they going to take the next step if they canít even get the playing time at all? Honestly if we were doing the long haul type rebuild in the first place some of those signings and re-ups shouldnít really have happened at all. Chytil needs to play a hell of a lot more. Kakko, ALF. Krav, etc all the same.

  6. #86
    A-hee-ahee ha-hee BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    15,914
    Rep Power
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    Well that also completely ignores losing Tavares and not missing a beat. Itís also conveniently missing that we also were a playoff team prior as well and only a few years removed from the finals and semis. We tore down to hire a coach that didnít know wtf he was doing. ďDevelopmentalĒ is being very generous for someone that had extremely minimal nhl coaching experience. Iím not sure there is no point in rehashing the past. Wtf else are we to do this summer? Talk s out how amazing itíll be when we are one cog away from a cup with a 34 year old Panarin that gives less of a fuck to what whoever the coach is at the time asks?
    The Rangers were depleted by those playoff runs. They had leveraged any youth and picks to compete and were left with almost none by the time of the letter. And just about anyone who was meaningful in those runs was shipped off to try and recoup assets. They literally said they were rebuilding. Would you rather they have kept at the can unsuccessfully? The Islanders had plenty of time to cultivate youth and assets. The Rangers are doing it for the first time in decades.

    The Islanders may not have been a playoff team at the time, but they kept their roster mostly intact, added in youth drafted from when the Rangers didn't have picks (Pulock, Barzal, Beaulivier, etc.), and then signed a bunch of overpaid veterans we lampooned them for. Turns out those veteran signings weren't such a bad idea because they had the space to work with because of youth, and those veterans help power their bottom six.

    And, yes, Quinn was hired as a developmental coach. We can go back-and-forth now about what he is, but he was regarded as a development coach at the time. He had a great reputation at BU, he was slated to be the head coach of the US at the WJC that winter. We didn't have a crystal ball to tell us that he was imperfect.

    I'm sorry, but this discussion feels jealousy-based as opposed to being rational. Yeah, it sucks that the Islanders are doing well and the Rangers aren't, but it's not as though the Rangers are a decade behind them.

  7. #87
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by siddious View Post
    I suddenly realize why the rangers have never “rebuilt” before. Ny fans have 0 patience.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Really? Waiting 54 years for a cup and another nearly 30 years for a second isn’t patience? If you were fortunate enough to see two Rangers cup wins you likely are someone’s great grandfather.

  8. #88
    A-hee-ahee ha-hee BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    15,914
    Rep Power
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    Really? Waiting 54 years for a cup and another nearly 30 years for a second isn’t patience? If you were fortunate enough to see two Rangers cup wins you likely are someone’s great grandfather.
    A lack of success isn't equal to patience. The team was repeatedly unsuccessful for 54 years, and subsequently another 27 because of its lack of patience. A refusal to build up gradually has always been circumvented by trying to buy a way into competitiveness which hasn't worked.

    The Rangers don't have one Stanley Cup in 81 years because of patience. It's lack thereof.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    I understand alll of that with some disagreements. However, I also think there needs to be progress, not just a repetition of in inconsistency. I don’t agree this year was “play the kids” type of year because the guys with top ice time were not the kids at all. The top forwards in terms of ice time are
    Ziby
    Panarin
    Buch
    Strome
    Kreider
    Defense is a little trickier since obviously guys go out in pairs but yes it is a more youthful showing
    Fox
    Trouba
    Miller
    Lindgren
    Smith
    Hodgepodge of others

    This idea of it being so difficult to rebuild in NY is just something we make up. The Knicks have been rebuilding for 50 years. The Jets for the same. Hell, we have one cup in 80 years as you said and since 1926 we have only appeared in the finals 11 times. While I get that isn’t exactly the same as tearing it down to the studs and starting over, we aren’t remotely close to a team with a winning tradition like the Yankees. The fans are plenty plenty patient. Thank god for the Leafs because without them we would have the most pathetic franchise in terms of winning anything in the last 60 or so years. We upped them by 1. Yay us !

    The problem is we have a legit dominant top 6 but one we overuse. The bottom 6 is made up of hopeful top 6 guys. Now I’m not remotely suggesting getting rid of Kakko or ALF but I am suggesting that it’s 100% time to cut ties with he likes of Gauthier and Howden. Bring in guys for set roles because right now this roster is made up very very one dimensionally. Free up the top 6 to rest instead of being out there always. The “play the kids” notion is fine but we don’t exactly do that.

    If you want to say we can’t jump to step 6 then why did we bring in Panarin? Why retain Kreider? Why Trouba if he was going to cost that much? Those are three big money deals on a team saying “we have to go through a long process.” While no one could have predicted a flat cap, we all still could have said tying up 26m for three guys pretty unmovable until 2024 probably isn’t the greatest idea if you believe your drafted talent will take the next step eventually and also need to be paid.
    Kravtsov, Lundqvist, Miller, Buch, Chytil, Shesh, Barron and I’m sure others were all drafted before. While I’m not saying they were NHL ready straight out, if you believed in them, why bring in or retain others that will be obstacles they have to try and hurdle if they want to take the next step? How are they going to take the next step if they can’t even get the playing time at all? Honestly if we were doing the long haul type rebuild in the first place some of those signings and re-ups shouldn’t really have happened at all. Chytil needs to play a hell of a lot more. Kakko, ALF. Krav, etc all the same.

    Couple things. When they signed Panarin and resigned Kreider, drafting Laf wasn't a consideration. I'd imagine the original plan was to sign a veteran 3rd line LW to slot in behind Panarin and Kreider but the changed with the lottery. That being said, by the end of his rookie year Laf replaced Kreider on the 1st line. I imagine that continues next season. Kreider will have 2 options. Accept a role as a heavy forechecking forward or waive the NMC to try and earn a 1st line spot next year.

    In regard to Trouba, I can't be that mad about signing him. It's a pretty incredible string of drafting over the last 3 years to have Miller, Lundkvist, Robertson, Jones, Skinner, and Schneider all develop so well.

    There is a ton to cap space to fortify the bottom 6.

    Also nothing that happened 30+ years ago or in other sports is relevant to this rebuild.

  10. #90
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    The Rangers were depleted by those playoff runs. They had leveraged any youth and picks to compete and were left with almost none by the time of the letter. And just about anyone who was meaningful in those runs was shipped off to try and recoup assets. They literally said they were rebuilding. Would you rather they have kept at the can unsuccessfully? The Islanders had plenty of time to cultivate youth and assets. The Rangers are doing it for the first time in decades.

    The Islanders may not have been a playoff team at the time, but they kept their roster mostly intact, added in youth drafted from when the Rangers didn't have picks (Pulock, Barzal, Beaulivier, etc.), and then signed a bunch of overpaid veterans we lampooned them for. Turns out those veteran signings weren't such a bad idea because they had the space to work with because of youth, and those veterans help power their bottom six.

    And, yes, Quinn was hired as a developmental coach. We can go back-and-forth now about what he is, but he was regarded as a development coach at the time. He had a great reputation at BU, he was slated to be the head coach of the US at the WJC that winter. We didn't have a crystal ball to tell us that he was imperfect.

    I'm sorry, but this discussion feels jealousy-based as opposed to being rational. Yeah, it sucks that the Islanders are doing well and the Rangers aren't, but it's not as though the Rangers are a decade behind them.
    It’s not jealousy based. It’s based on how horrible of a coaching decision we made for a guy with very little NHL experience along with a few head scratching signings for big money, buyouts, or retainings when we publicly are saying it’s a long process.

    It’s not like this is the first time I’m even remotely saying this.

  11. #91
    A-hee-ahee ha-hee BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    15,914
    Rep Power
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    It’s not jealousy based. It’s based on how horrible of a coaching decision we made for a guy with very little NHL experience along with a few head scratching signings for big money, buyouts, or retainings when we publicly are saying it’s a long process.

    It’s not like this is the first time I’m even remotely saying this.
    Which is why you should be even more hesitant about having a team play beyond its capability. We're all abundantly aware Quinn wasn't a great coach, but aside from this season were we expecting more wins? A rebuilding team isn't going to have the structure of a veteran team with a veteran coach.

    If you wanted to keep competing then all you would have gotten are more "signings for big money, buyouts, and retention." That's the only way you "improve" a team that doesn't have any youth to build off of.

    Sorry, but I'd rather have a team set itself up for years than luck into a cup and have another long wait.

  12. #92
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Couple things. When they signed Panarin and resigned Kreider, drafting Laf wasn't a consideration. I'd imagine the original plan was to sign a veteran 3rd line LW to slot in behind Panarin and Kreider but the changed with the lottery. That being said, by the end of his rookie year Laf replaced Kreider on the 1st line. I imagine that continues next season. Kreider will have 2 options. Accept a role as a heavy forechecking forward or waive the NMC to try and earn a 1st line spot next year.

    In regard to Trouba, I can't be that mad about signing him. It's a pretty incredible string of drafting over the last 3 years to have Miller, Lundkvist, Robertson, Jones, Skinner, and Schneider all develop so well.

    There is a ton to cap space to fortify the bottom 6.

    Also nothing that happened 30+ years ago or in other sports is relevant to this rebuild.
    Well if you notice I didn’t put laf in the convo part of saying drafted before. I know that wasn’t something they could predict. Kreider just shouldn’t have been retained because, well, the 10 or so reason many say all season long. A deadline deal pre covid Kreider would have brought back a good amount. He had a long enough run here filled with inconsistency to see who he really is.

    As for the cap space. I’m not so sure. There are quite a few big guys on our team that are going to be ready for pay increases. Even if you assume Strome leaves, you still have Buch rfa now, ufa the following year, ziby ufa, Fox and Kakko bridge deals and obviously have to leave room for laf as well the year after. Flat cap really hurts a lot.

  13. #93
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    Really? Waiting 54 years for a cup and another nearly 30 years for a second isn’t patience? If you were fortunate enough to see two Rangers cup wins you likely are someone’s great grandfather.
    Arizona (w/old Winnipeg): 0 cups in 41 years
    Buffalo: 0 cups in 50 years
    Calgary: 1 cup in 48 years
    Carolina: 1 cup in 41 years
    Columbus: 0 cups in 20 years
    Dallas: 1 cup in 53 years
    Florida: 0 cups in 27 years
    Minnesota: 0 cups in 20 years
    Nashville: 0 cups in 22 years
    Ottawa: 0 cups in 28 years
    San Jose: 0 cups in 29 years
    St. Louis: 1 cup in 53 years
    Vancouver: 0 cups in 50 years
    Washington: 1 cup in 46 years
    Winnipeg (w/Trashers): 0 cups in 21 years

    Leafs in a 53 year drought. 45 years for the Flyers. 36 possibly 37 for the Isles. 30 for the Oilers. 26 possibly 27 for the Habs.

    That's 2/3 of the league that has seen their team win 1 cup in the last 30 or more years. Half those teams have never won it.

  14. #94
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Arizona (w/old Winnipeg): 0 cups in 41 years
    Buffalo: 0 cups in 50 years
    Calgary: 1 cup in 48 years
    Carolina: 1 cup in 41 years
    Columbus: 0 cups in 20 years
    Dallas: 1 cup in 53 years
    Florida: 0 cups in 27 years
    Minnesota: 0 cups in 20 years
    Nashville: 0 cups in 22 years
    Ottawa: 0 cups in 28 years
    San Jose: 0 cups in 29 years
    St. Louis: 1 cup in 53 years
    Vancouver: 0 cups in 50 years
    Washington: 1 cup in 46 years
    Winnipeg (w/Trashers): 0 cups in 21 years

    Leafs in a 53 year drought. 45 years for the Flyers. 36 possibly 37 for the Isles. 30 for the Oilers. 26 possibly 27 for the Habs.

    That's 2/3 of the league that has seen their team win 1 cup in the last 30 or more years. Half those teams have never won it.
    Come on. We have been around since 1926 and we have 2 cups since 1940 lol. I don’t know how old you are exactly but the 1940 chants were very rough for a very long time. Bringing up the Canadians in that list is just silly too lol

    All those teams on your list pale in comparison to us having one 54 year drought and a second of now 27 year drought that isn’t exactly on the verge of being ended.

  15. #95
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    Come on. We have been around since 1926 and we have 2 cups since 1940 lol. I don’t know how old you are exactly but the 1940 chants were very rough for a very long time. Bringing up the Canadians in that list is just silly too lol

    All those teams on your list pale in comparison to us having one 54 year drought and a second of now 27 year drought that isn’t exactly on the verge of being ended.
    Would you feel different if the Rangers won 4 cups in the 60's like the Leafs?

    Boston has been around forever too. They won in 39 and 41, then 70 and 72, then 2011. Seems 30 and 40 year droughts are a common thing.

    I just find it a weird thing that people harp on. The league was completely different in the 60's than the 40's. Completely different again in the 80's. Different again today.

    If I were a Leafs fan I wouldn't give 2 fucks about having the 2nd most cups all-time.

  16. #96
    Moderator Bantam Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    1,740
    Rep Power
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    I agree with your post in theory, but I don't feel the bold actually happened. I don't think the kids really got the necessary ice time that would allow for growth. Kakko averaged the same amount of ice time as his rookie year, despite playing a much more responsible brand of hockey. Lafreniere got even less than Kakko. Gauthier got nothing. Short sample, but Kravtsov got next to nothing. Chytil got nothing. None of these guys got any meaningful PP time. The only kid who got meaningful time was Miller, and that was born out of necessity rather than choice. We can say it was a "play the kids" year, but it doesn't mean anything if it didn't actually happen. We had PP1 chunking 90% of the PP time, which in practice may be fine if the goal is "win now", but again, not as much in a "play the kids" year. We had Blackwell on PP1 for a stretch over any of the kids, and on PP2 over kids. We had Jack Johnson, Anthony Bitetto, and Brendan Smith chunking ice time instead of seeing what a guy like Reunanen has to offer. We can say "oh, it's only Reunanen, he won't amount to anything", but that's what this year was about. Nobody thought Lindgren would be quite as good as he has been either.

    So while I agree it should have been a "play the kids" year, it really wasn't. This, for me, is where frustration stems from. It's an inaccurate narrative of what actually happened.
    The counter-argument against your lack of playing time narrative was given by Long Live the King, but if the premise is that the young players need real game playing time in order to ultimately compete - and they didn't get that playing time - how are they now taking too long to develop and the whole thing needs to be declared a failure? We can argue whether they got enough time or not. But that wasn't my central point.

  17. #97
    (╯?□?)╯︵ ┻━┻ BSBH Prospect
    Keirik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,772
    Rep Power
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Would you feel different if the Rangers won 4 cups in the 60's like the Leafs?

    Boston has been around forever too. They won in 39 and 41, then 70 and 72, then 2011. Seems 30 and 40 year droughts are a common thing.

    I just find it a weird thing that people harp on. The league was completely different in the 60's than the 40's. Completely different again in the 80's. Different again today.

    If I were a Leafs fan I wouldn't give 2 fucks about having the 2nd most cups all-time.
    I’m not exactly sure where you are going with this to be honest. I was a young adult when 1940 chants were actively going and talks of curses by burning the mortgage in the cup. And yes At that time in 94 I didn’t give a shit that we won several cups from the late 20s- 1940. While I certainly don’t believe in voodoo curses, I do believe in futility. I believed we were a piss poor managed team for decades resulting in a 54 year drought. Then we win. Once. Then still not again for 27 more years and are in the midst of our second nice extended drought.

    Those lists you provide just prove that it has nothing to do with it being so hard to rebuild in NY and everything to do with piss poor management made by us and many other teams. The difference is, while some teams fanbase will discuss a cup drought, we can discuss two cup droughts that bookend one damn cup. ONE. In 82 years +. It’s pathetic. Why are we discussing it here? Because one of the shittiest fanbases in the entire NHL are coached and managed by a top tier duo and look damn close to ending their own drought while we are all over the place.



    Since I’ve been alive I’ve watched 15 cups be handed out directly to our real rivals to our one. I think it’s justified to vent a little frustration about that.

  18. #98
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    I’m not exactly sure where you are going with this to be honest. I was a young adult when 1940 chants were actively going and talks of curses by burning the mortgage in the cup. And yes At that time in 94 I didn’t give a shit that we won several cups from the late 20s- 1940. While I certainly don’t believe in voodoo curses, I do believe in futility. I believed we were a piss poor managed team for decades resulting in a 54 year drought. Then we win. Once. Then still not again for 27 more years and are in the midst of our second nice extended drought.

    Those lists you provide just prove that it has nothing to do with it being so hard to rebuild in NY and everything to do with piss poor management made by us and many other teams. The difference is, while some teams fanbase will discuss a cup drought, we can discuss two cup droughts that bookend one damn cup. ONE. In 82 years +. It’s pathetic. Why are we discussing it here? Because one of the shittiest fanbases in the entire NHL are coached and managed by a top tier duo and look damn close to ending their own drought while we are all over the place.



    Since I’ve been alive I’ve watched 15 cups be handed out directly to our real rivals to our one. I think it’s justified to vent a little frustration about that.
    The list proves that it's hard to win the cup, especially as more teams get added to the league. The Rangers were the best team to not win the cup from 2010 - 2015. Doesn't have anything to do with bad management. Winning the cup isn't easy.

  19. #99
    Moderator Bantam Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    1,740
    Rep Power
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Keirik View Post
    I understand alll of that with some disagreements. However, I also think there needs to be progress, not just a repetition of in inconsistency. I don’t agree this year was “play the kids” type of year because the guys with top ice time were not the kids at all. The top forwards in terms of ice time are
    Ziby
    Panarin
    Buch
    Strome
    Kreider
    Defense is a little trickier since obviously guys go out in pairs but yes it is a more youthful showing
    Fox
    Trouba
    Miller
    Lindgren
    Smith
    Hodgepodge of others

    This idea of it being so difficult to rebuild in NY is just something we make up. The Knicks have been rebuilding for 50 years. The Jets for the same. Hell, we have one cup in 80 years as you said and since 1926 we have only appeared in the finals 11 times. While I get that isn’t exactly the same as tearing it down to the studs and starting over, we aren’t remotely close to a team with a winning tradition like the Yankees. The fans are plenty plenty patient. Thank god for the Leafs because without them we would have the most pathetic franchise in terms of winning anything in the last 60 or so years. We upped them by 1. Yay us !

    The problem is we have a legit dominant top 6 but one we overuse. The bottom 6 is made up of hopeful top 6 guys. Now I’m not remotely suggesting getting rid of Kakko or ALF but I am suggesting that it’s 100% time to cut ties with he likes of Gauthier and Howden. Bring in guys for set roles because right now this roster is made up very very one dimensionally. Free up the top 6 to rest instead of being out there always. The “play the kids” notion is fine but we don’t exactly do that.

    If you want to say we can’t jump to step 6 then why did we bring in Panarin? Why retain Kreider? Why Trouba if he was going to cost that much? Those are three big money deals on a team saying “we have to go through a long process.” While no one could have predicted a flat cap, we all still could have said tying up 26m for three guys pretty unmovable until 2024 probably isn’t the greatest idea if you believe your drafted talent will take the next step eventually and also need to be paid.
    Kravtsov, Lundqvist, Miller, Buch, Chytil, Shesh, Barron and I’m sure others were all drafted before. While I’m not saying they were NHL ready straight out, if you believed in them, why bring in or retain others that will be obstacles they have to try and hurdle if they want to take the next step? How are they going to take the next step if they can’t even get the playing time at all? Honestly if we were doing the long haul type rebuild in the first place some of those signings and re-ups shouldn’t really have happened at all. Chytil needs to play a hell of a lot more. Kakko, ALF. Krav, etc all the same.
    I'm just numbering these to take the arguments separately:

    1. If they had JUST played the kids above the the guys that you listed, they would have lost 45 games and you would have gone completely nuts by the end of February. There was always the balancing act of trying to win at the same time you're getting the kids the mileage they need, which I would argue they were legit successful at doing both things in a whacked out year like this one. How were they supposed to get the time, when people were demanding that the Rangers make the playoffs of bust?
    2. Um, I've been watching the Rangers for a half fucking century and the fans are never patient. It's part of the culture. And sometimes that has been completely justifiable. My argument is that the impatience impedes their success because we repeated trade draft picks and younger players rather than give them the time and stability they need to develop. Because it is never fast enough.
    3. I think your prescription is probably not that much different than Gorton's was. We amassed a huge stable of younger players. At some level we needed to see which horses could run and which couldn't. That was also an important part of this year. But the playoffs!
    4. They brought in Trouba and Panarin to be foundational blocks around which they could build the rest of the team and have lead the team through the steps. They ultimately decided to add Kreider to that group. It was not a statement, IMO, that they were trying to jump to step 6. Gorton likely did not anticipate the lockdown of the cap. Who did 3 years ago?

    You're trying to argue both sides of this - that they should have been better at both developing the kids and winning now- and the math doesn't really work for me. Are you saying they should have chosen winning over rebuilding? Or rebuilding over winning?

  20. #100
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    7,323
    Rep Power
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Kakko was 2nd in TOI among RWs behind Buch. Laf was 3rd among LWs behind Panarin and only 40 seconds less than Kreider. Laf's TOI increased and Kreider's decreased as the season went on. Chytil was 3rd among centers.

    On D, Fox Lindgren, and Miller are all kids. That's 3 of the top 4. Hajek played 44 of 56 games. Jones was thrown in there right out of college.

    Reunanen and Gauthier have no future here. The kids that are part of the future played alot. I guess you can complain about PP time if you want, but the Rangers have one of the best PP's in the league.
    Kakko had 14:21, in a year after getting 14:17. Blackwell had 14. So while "2nd in RW TOI" sounds great, it misses a whole lot of context. If this year was "develop the kids", a healthy 16-17 minutes a game should have been the goal. Again, he was playing responsible hockey. Why were we playing Blackwell so much, is he the future? That's not a knock on Blackwell. He played well, but that doesn't support the kids narrative.

    Lafreniere averaged 13:53 in ice time. Kreider averaged 17:24. I'm not sure where you are getting 40 second difference? Lafreniere's ice time was the lowest for a #1 overall pick in..well..I don't know how long. I went back to 2010 and all were significantly higher in ice time except Nail Yakupov. So, again, was this year about the kids, or about playing vets? Seemed more like the latter.

    Chytil got 13 minutes of ice time in his 4th year in the league. Zibanejad had 20. Strome 18. 3rd amongst centers sounds great, until you look at the details and want to make the claim this was a year about the kids.

    Already covered defensemen. Ice time was borne out of necessity, weirdly except for the reluctance to give Reunanen any real look at all...in favor of the trash I mentioned already.

    Dismissing or writing off young players (Reunanen, Gauthier) is a poor practice to get in the habit of when developing talent. Usually it makes more sense to see what they can offer, rather than give out minutes to Jack Johnson, Anthony Bitetto, Brendan Smith, Colin Blackwell, Kevin Rooney, and PDG. It's a good thing Lindgren wasn't written off without a legitimate shot because he's not part of whatever is prematurely deemed as the future by fans.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •