What is your most unpopular Rangers opinion?

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

1000 posts can't come soon enough.

 

[Thirty One]

I'll need an arbitrator here, because I'm sure I missed stuff and at the same time I'm certain you did.

I can still see the playoffs soviet style avatar you were rocking back then. I'd even understand that part, those playoffs avatars were the ****.

I think you're mixing up Machinehead with Callyfan. Machinehead was cheering against the Lightning when we could get a first out of them winning.

 

[Maximus]

I think the Rangers might have one of the more respected histories and reputations in hockey, but they wouldn't be viewed as one of the more successful ventures in terms of accomplishments.

And there's a difference between those concepts.

Frankly, a lot of the original six teams have struggled with success for prolonged periods of time. I would say one of the differences is that teams like Detroit and Chicago changed that narrative quite a bit with their success in the late 90s/early 2000s, and then 2010s respectively.

The Rangers haven't had that prolonged success window, though that's what they're shooting for in the 2020s.

Not sure what you are eluding too when you say this and so maybe some more clarity is needed but I'd argue that the Rangers from 1965 to 2017 have had two quite long prolonged success windows.

From the 65-66 season till the 96-97 season(the year before the Dark Ages began), the Rangers made the playoffs 26 of those 30 years. They won at least a round in those 26 playoff appearances 16 times, made it to 2 ECF's and 3 Cup finals including the Cup win in '94.

That's some pretty dang good success right there. I gotta be honest as I was actually surprised at how few times we missed the the playoffs during those years. But those are the facts as the Rangers were very competitive for a very long stretch of time.

Than you have that 7 year Dark Ages window as discussed followed by the lockout which it can be argued, was the best thing that ever happend for the Rangers seeing it calmed Sather down from spending money like a sailor on shore leave and so a cap was implemented.

The 2nd prolonged success window than commences the year after the lockout as from 2005-06 till 2016-17 where the Rangers make the playoffs 11 times missing once on a BS shootout vs Flyers in '10. Rangers win multiple rounds 7 of those 11 playoff years with 2 ECF losses and 1 Cup final loss to the Kings obviously.

Once again we are talking another very long sustained period of success. Now if Cups only is your criteria well than I guess we are an abjunct failure of a franchise. But I'm not like that. I don't measure my teams success by just Cup wins. If so that would be pretty narrow minded. Sure the goal is a Cup every year but only one team gets to the promised land.

If my team makes the playoffs, wins a round at least, considering the enjoyment I got from that successful quest to make the playoffs and the fact there is hope that a Cup is not just a pipe dream , I'm a happy camper. I want to be entertained and I want my team to make the playoffs every year. You do that, I am not going to bitch and moan like some that the team sucks cause they weren't able to win the Cup that year.

Bottom line is if you told me that my team from 1965 till current day, made the playoffs 38 times in 50 years with 17 of those playoff years being multiple round or more playoff years, I'd be hard pressed to not think that tho the team had just one Cup win and 3 other Cup final appearances, I'd dare say that the Rangers are easily in the Top 10 most successful franchises in hockey the past 40+ years.

And I'd also say that before the letter from Gorton hit the public two years ago, since the lockout, the only teams I'd say were more successful than the Rangers were the Kings, Black Hawks, Penguins and probably Boston but that's about it. That's a pretty dang nice run and window we had.

Now we hope that beginning next year or 2022 at the absolute latest, if this rebuild goes according to plan another 7-10 year window begins where we should be so lucky to have as good a run as those 2005-2017 Ranger teams had only this time with a Cup or two parades added too it!.

 

[Machinehead]

I think you're mixing up Machinehead with Callyfan. Machinehead was cheering against the Lightning when we could get a first out of them winning.

f*** them and their first.

I would take that first and slap Tyler Johnson over the head with it.

 

[Thirty One]

**** them and their first.

I would take that first and slap Tyler Johnson over the head with it.

ok.

 

[Machinehead]

ok.

I'm also not that excited about Rangers first round picks.

But maybe I should be considering we're one of the top 10 most successful franchises.

 

[SA16]

If you don't enjoy watching the team then just don't watch the team. Not that complicated.

 

[Machinehead]

If you don't enjoy watching the team then just don't watch the team. Not that complicated.

It's not about that.

Just don't insult my intelligence by telling me this team has been successful.

 

[Edge]

Not sure what you are eluding too when you say this and so maybe some more clarity is needed but I'd argue that the Rangers from 1965 to 2017 have had two quite long prolonged success windows.

From the 65-66 season till the 96-97 season(the year before the Dark Ages began), the Rangers made the playoffs 26 of those 30 years. They won at least a round in those 26 playoff appearances 16 times, made it to 2 ECF's and 3 Cup finals including the Cup win in '94.

That's some pretty dang good success right there. I gotta be honest as I was actually surprised at how few times we missed the the playoffs during those years. But those are the facts as the Rangers were very competitive for a very long stretch of time.

Than you have that 7 year Dark Ages window as discussed followed by the lockout which it can be argued, was the best thing that ever happend for the Rangers seeing it calmed Sather down from spending money like a sailor on shore leave and so a cap was implemented.

The 2nd prolonged success window than commences the year after the lockout as from 2005-06 till 2016-17 where the Rangers make the playoffs 11 times missing once on a BS shootout vs Flyers in '10. Rangers win multiple rounds 7 of those 11 playoff years with 2 ECF losses and 1 Cup final loss to the Kings obviously.

Once again we are talking another very long sustained period of success. Now if Cups only is your criteria well than I guess we are an abjunct failure of a franchise. But I'm not like that. I don't measure my teams success by just Cup wins. If so that would be pretty narrow minded. Sure the goal is a Cup every year but only one team gets to the promised land.

If my team makes the playoffs, wins a round at least, considering the enjoyment I got from that successful quest to make the playoffs and the fact there is hope that a Cup is not just a pipe dream , I'm a happy camper. I want to be entertained and I want my team to make the playoffs every year. You do that, I am not going to ***** and moan like some that the team sucks cause they weren't able to win the Cup that year.

Bottom line is if you told me that my team from 1965 till current day, made the playoffs 30 times in 42 years with 17 of those playoff years being multiple round or more playoff years, I'd be hard pressed to not think that tho the team had just one Cup win and 3 other Cup final appearances, I'd dare say that the Rangers are easily in the Top 10 most successful franchises in hockey the past 40+ years.

And I'd also say that before the letter from Gorton hit the public two years ago, since the lockout, the only teams I'd say were more successful than the Rangers were the Kings, Black Hawks, Penguins and probably Boston but that's about it. That's a pretty dang nice run and window we had.

Now we hope that beginning next year or 2022 at the absolute latest, if this rebuild goes according to plan another 7-10 year window begins where we should be so lucky to have as good a run as those 2005-2017 Rangers had only this time with a Cup or two parades added too it!.

I was responding to MH's criteria of measuring success by hardware. My point was the Rangers rank 7th, but dropped a couple of places since 1994 because there were two dynasties that took place.

In that sense, the Rangers haven't had a dynasty since the earliest days of the league. Meaning, if they build one, suddenly you have a team that could be tied for third in championships, and have recent success. They aren't very far removed from that, it's a matter of when you take the picture.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

If you don't enjoy watching the team then just don't watch the team. Not that complicated.

Maybe he lost the remote.

 

[I Eat Crow]

If you don't enjoy watching the team then just don't watch the team. Not that complicated.

Yeah, back to lurking for me. Haven't posted much lately, not that anyone cares. The place in general hasn't been enjoyable to read lately.

See everyone on deadline day!

 

[Machinehead]

I was responding to MH's criteria of measuring success by hardware. My point was the Rangers rank 7th, but dropped a couple of places since 1994 because there were two dynasties that took place.

In that sense, the Rangers haven't had a dynasty since the earliest days of the league. Meaning, if they build one, suddenly you have a team that could be tied for third in championships, and have recent success. They aren't very far removed from that, it's a matter of when you take the picture.

Ok, but "if we have a dynasty" is like "if I hit lotto."

 

[Edge]

It's not about that.

Just don't insult my intelligence by telling me this team has been successful.

Again, I think that's somewhat subjective. You have a set of criteria, and that drives your perspective. There are other criteria that says otherwise.

But not agreeing with that criteria doesn't make any more or less intelligent; it's just a matter of opinion. Which is essentially what this thread is about and something we should all remember and take into consideration.

 

[Machinehead]

Again, I think that's somewhat subjective. You have a set of criteria, and that drives your perspective. There are other criteria that says otherwise.

But not agreeing with that criteria doesn't make any more or less intelligent; it's just a matter of opinion. Which is essentially what this thread is about and something we should all remember and take into consideration.

There's one criteria and it's not subjective.

That's the harsh reality.

 

[Machinehead]

I've had some hot takes in my day and I freely admit that.

I really didn't think "the Rangers aren't good at hockey" would be one.

 

[JohnC]

My deepest condolences to Machinehead for having to personally live through only (1) Rangers Stanley Cup in 80 years.

 

[Maximus]

It's not about that.

Just don't insult my intelligence by telling me this team has been successful.

Huh? You were the one who compared the Rangers to the Knicks...no one else did.

Your use of the word "intelligence" is no offense a bit questionable hoss!

 

[Edge]

Ok, but "if we have a dynasty" is like "if I hit lotto."

Not really, it's essentially the same criteria you're using to give other teams the edge.

They are more successful, in your eyes, because they hit the lotto and had a dynasty.

Which was one of my earlier questions - how does one gauge that?

Generally speaking, if a 50 year old team wins four championships in five years, but is in the lower half of the league for 70 percent of their seasons, plays to empty arenas and nearly moves, does that make them better than a team with 4 championships in twice as many seasons,but who plays to large crowds and maybe finishes in the top half of the league for 70 percent of their seasons?

Where do we put that cut-off?

Is a team that makes 10 Stanley Cup finals, but only wins twice, less successful than a team that makes 3 Stanley Cup finals and wins all three of them? What about if they don't even make the playoffs the other 7 seasons?

Does the team that wins the lottery and gets two generational talents score higher than the team who never picks first overall?

Where do we draw those lines?

 

[Thirty One]

Eric Staal was a good trade that happened to not work out.

 

[007]

Do fans actually like Greg McKegg?

I think I read that we do in the Post during preseason.

 

[Machinehead]

Not really, it's essentially the same criteria you're using to give other teams the edge.

They are more successful, in your eyes, because they hit the lotto and had a dynasty.

Which was one of my earlier questions - how does one gauge that?

Generally speaking, if a 50 year old team wins four championships in five years, but is in the lower half of the league for 70 percent of their seasons, plays to empty arenas and nearly moves, does that make them better than a team with 4 championships in twice as many seasons,but who plays to large crowds and maybe finishes in the top half of the league for 70 percent of their seasons?

Where do we put that cut-off?

Is a team that makes 10 Stanley Cup finals, but only wins twice, less successful than a team that makes 3 Stanley Cup finals and wins all three of them? What about if they don't even make the playoffs the other 7 seasons?

Does the team that wins the lottery and gets two generational talents score higher than the team who never picks first overall?

Where do we draw those lines?

Idk we have 1 Cup in 80 years and you keep asking me where we're drawing lines as if we're trying to interpret advanced theory.

It's not great. It is objectively not great.

Again, I never anticipated that I would have to explain let alone defend this point.

 

[BKGooner]

Is it wrong for part of me to want Henrik and maybe Skjei or Kreider to come out for warm-ups with with fake stubble, skate over the center line and pull off their jerseys to reveal Leafs jerseys under them tomorrow night? They can throw in making fun of Ranger players (especially Kapanen or Nylander if they are the return) and fans while standing on the crest if it makes them feel better.

 

[Edge]

Idk we have 1 Cup in 80 years and you keep asking me where we're drawing lines as if we're trying to interpret advanced theory.

It's not great. It is objectively not great.

Again, I never anticipated that I would have to explain let alone defend this point.

But you're actually not defending it.

If it's not great, what are we comparing it to? What is great? What criteria are we using?

Someone who is 5'8 is not objectively considered tall.

That's especially true if they're standing next to a male basketball team.

That's less true if they're standing next to female gymnasts.

So that's where the questions of criteria are coming from. How are we weighing some of the factors I presented? What peer group are we using? What context and criteria?

 

[Machinehead]

But you're actually not defending it.

If it's not great, what are we comparing it to? What is great? What criteria are we using?

Someone who is 5'8 is not objectively considered tall.

That's especially true if they're standing next to a male basketball team.

That's less true if they're standing next to female gymnasts.

So that's where the questions of criteria are coming from. How are we weighing some of the factors I presented? What peer group are we using? What context and criteria?

So, like an exact cutoff point?

I don't know.

Not 1 in 80!

 

[haveandare]

There's one criteria and it's not subjective.

That's the harsh reality.

People have different criteria for what they consider success for the teams they follow. Your criteria isn’t the only one just because you say it is. It’s not that you can accept “harsh reality” and others can’t - you’re trying to make an objective fact out of your opinion.