Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Do the Rangers Still Win in '94 if They Got Lindros in '92?


Rangers1994

LIndros 1992  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. If the Rangers had gotten Lindros in 1992, would they still have won at least won Stanley Cup?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

A better hypothetical might actually be… what if Air Force One hadn’t done as well at the box office, and Colorado couldn’t match The Rangers offer sheet. 

Yep, that changes a lot too. The stink around the Rangers was brutal in the days after Messier left. It was like an event no one could actually believe happened. But once the murmurs on us and Sakic began to start, it seemed that order was restored. Sakic was obviously younger and established star in this league. No disrespect to LaFontaine, who was actually really good here until he ran into Mike Keane and KO’d himself for good, but there were questions with him and the injuries.

 

Sakic would have given us a lot of what we lost in Messier. He probably would have walked in, wore the ‘C’ from Day 1 and been a big piece of the now and a big piece of the later too. I also think having him aboard would have pushed Smith to be a little bit more aggressive the following year when Pavel Bure was holding out and begging to come to the Rangers. Having both those guys together here, in their primes? Don’t think the Dark Years would have really existed. I know a lot of what if’s go into it, but a lot of these stars we eventually got came here straight for money grabs. Sakic would have been coming because of a good offer, sure, but the Rangers were, up to that point, looked upon as a perennial Cup contender. It wasn’t like he was selling his soul to come to a lousy team; we were 3 wins away from the Finals, had the reigning Norris Trophy winner who was still in his 20s, the Great One and one of the best goalies in the league. And a talented roster surrounding them. Plus, we were only 3 short years removed from being Stanley Cup Champions.

 

Sakic would have meant Bure. And those 2 would have meant the Dark Years never happened. Very interesting side step in Ranger history.

Edited by RichieNextel305
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said:

Bure held out one offseason hoping to come here? That I do not remember. Damn! lol

Bure made it known he wanted out of Vancouver and wanted to come to the Rangers. Smith was hesitant to deal with what Brian Burke wanted, which was a combination of Malhotra, Sundstrom, Cloutier, 1st Rounders, money, etc. Smith offered a lot of different packages featuring a lot of those pieces but not every single one, so Burke held out, and actually took what was considered a weaker deal from Florida at the time almost in spite of Bure.

 

If Sakic was here, the idea of having and building around Sakic, Leetch and Bure may have pushed Smith to relinquish the assets needed to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Let’s remember how bad they truly were in 97-98. It was over.


Awful.

 

Roster was so thin.

 

Kevin Stevens was a top-6 forward on that team.

He was smoking crack. 

 

It's one of the worst Rangers teams of those dark ages. An old Gretzky still put up over 90 points with that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

Bure made it known he wanted out of Vancouver and wanted to come to the Rangers. Smith was hesitant to deal with what Brian Burke wanted, which was a combination of Malhotra, Sundstrom, Cloutier, 1st Rounders, money, etc. Smith offered a lot of different packages featuring a lot of those pieces but not every single one, so Burke held out, and actually took what was considered a weaker deal from Florida at the time almost in spite of Bure.

 

If Sakic was here, the idea of having and building around Sakic, Leetch and Bure may have pushed Smith to relinquish the assets needed to get him.

From a Rangers point of view, that's a steal for Sakic looking at what those players wound up amounting to. Again I say, 'damn.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Sakic could have been the game changer.

 

But they would’ve still had to rebuild some on the fly.

That team was getting old and shallow… fast.

 

 

Nah.  They still would have missed the playoffs.  The team was so upset over the exile of Messier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rangers1994 said:

 

Nah.  They still would have missed the playoffs.  The team was so upset over the exile of Messier.

They're professionals who want to win. They don't pout over players leaving in free agency. It's a business. And they are competitive pro athletes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Rangers probably would have still won in 1994.

- Messier and Lindros down the middle would have been unbeatable

- The Rangers still would have gotten Kevin Lowe.

- The Rangers still would have traded Darren Turcotte and James Patrick for Steve Larmer.

- The Rangers probably still would have gotten Esa Tikkanen.

- The Rangers probably still could have traded Mike Gartner to get Matteau and Noonan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...