Eastern Conf. Finals: Tampa Bay Lightning v New York Rangers

[Oaklandblue]

Solid effort, can't be mad. Hell of a series. Lightning are taking the Cup.

[goon attack]

The Rangers are losers! Hang the coach! Gut the team!

[Oaklandblue]

The Rangers are losers! Hang the coach! Gut the team!

Yup! Cause you know they only made the Finals once and the Conference Finals twice in the last four years. Went seven games in this one, so yeah, definently a failure.

It would probably hurt more if it wasn't for those Cups the Rags own.

So, how about them Blues?

[goon attack]

They are playing golf today.... just like all but two teams. Lundqvist: CHOKER! GUT TEH TEAM LEERY

[STLADOGG]

There is a God! G'bye Rangers, don't let the door hit ya!

Thank God those guys lost, TB all the way! Now if the Blackhawks could just lose tonight...

[glen a richter]

Well, three Cups. The 4th belongs to the New York Oilers.

Everyone but one team is a loser, it doesn't matter how far you go or how good your team is on paper. If you lose, you lose. The Rangers lost, I'm ecstatic about that. One of the highlights of today was taking my son for a walk and seeing every house (except one, for some reason probably denial) that had been waving their huge ass Ranger flags for the past few months having the flags down and packed away. This may be Rangertown (it's technically Islander town) but it sure ain't Cup town. With a little good fortune, it won't be Cup town again for a very, very long time.

[glen a richter]

The best part of the Rags losing is that they're backed into a corner now. They're not getting any younger, they don't have any 1st rounders for a couple more seasons, and they have a weak farm team.

Actually, in a way we're better off than them because our farm doesn't flat out suck. But the route to get to the same place (loserville) was effectively the same. Army went all in to get Bouwmeester for a playoff run, then he went all in to get Miller for a playoff run. Both failed, both cost us important draft picks. Sather went all in to get Marty St. Louis, then he went all in to get Keith Yandle, both cost picks, prospects and a damn good player in Ryan Callahan, and both trades failed. In fact, the way the St. Louis trade backfired on them was the best thing of all. Conditional 1st rounder dependent on making the SCF, make it, lose AND lose the pick as a result. That couldn't have been scripted any better. Duclair will be cleaning up in Arizona soon, with Dvorak also, and Max Domi. That team has a pretty solid future and when St. Louis either retires or re-ups but proves to be too damn old to be productive, the Rags will be wishing they never dumped all those picks and Duclair.

In short, (Frank) the Rangers.

[ecbm]

Actually, in a way we're better off than them

They won as many playoff series this season as the Blues have won in 14 seasons.

They've still won literally more than a million times as many Stanley Cups as the Blues in my lifetime.

I don't see how the Blues are better off-our farm is also rather shallow and we have no first-rounder this year either.

[glen a richter]

The Rangers are in a heap of trouble, players they'll be losing, the so-so players they'll have coming in to replace them, they're swimming in RFA's they need to re-up. We have Tarasenko and Allen. I also think our system is not that thin. Yeah not having the 1st rounders is the pits, but we lost, they lost, losing is losing no matter when it happens.

Also, I've been thinking about AV a lot. He's not that great a coach. He can squeeze every bit possible out of his players but they can't squeeze anything else. He couldn't get the Sedin sisters to win a Cup, he couldn't get the Rags last year to win a Cup, and this year with a lesser roster, they went just a little less far. He's great at getting every little bit out, but he maximizes the ability of his players and evidently the ability of his players this year was conference finals with two choke jobs in game 5 and game 7.

[theohall]

The Rangers are in a heap of trouble, players they'll be losing, the so-so players they'll have coming in to replace them, they're swimming in RFA's they need to re-up. We have Tarasenko and Allen. I also think our system is not that thin. Yeah not having the 1st rounders is the pits, but we lost, they lost, losing is losing no matter when it happens.

Also, I've been thinking about AV a lot. He's not that great a coach. He can squeeze every bit possible out of his players but they can't squeeze anything else. He couldn't get the Sedin sisters to win a Cup, he couldn't get the Rags last year to win a Cup, and this year with a lesser roster, they went just a little less far. He's great at getting every little bit out, but he maximizes the ability of his players and evidently the ability of his players this year was conference finals with two choke jobs in game 5 and game 7.

Tampa deserves some credit. They adjusted their game slightly in games 5 and 7 taking a little of the aggression out of their offensive zone play. They adjusted when they were aggressive or more defensive in the offensive zone based on puck possession. In their losses, they didn't really play defense at all in the offensive zone, but went balls out trying to get the puck and get it to the front without any regard to helping the D. Game 5 and 7 - if they didn't have possession going in or it looked like they might not get to the puck when it went deep first, they did keep a 3rd-man high to try and prevent breakouts. It worked. They were still balls out aggressive attacking the front of the net when they had possession, though, and almost gave up several odd-man breaks.

[ecbm]

The Rangers are in a heap of trouble, players they'll be losing, the so-so players they'll have coming in to replace them, they're swimming in RFA's they need to re-up. We have Tarasenko and Allen. I also think our system is not that thin. Yeah not having the 1st rounders is the pits, but we lost, they lost, losing is losing no matter when it happens.

Also, I've been thinking about AV a lot. He's not that great a coach. He can squeeze every bit possible out of his players but they can't squeeze anything else. He couldn't get the Sedin sisters to win a Cup, he couldn't get the Rags last year to win a Cup, and this year with a lesser roster, they went just a little less far. He's great at getting every little bit out, but he maximizes the ability of his players and evidently the ability of his players this year was conference finals with two choke jobs in game 5 and game 7.

Well my opinion hasn't changed on AV-he's got a system of play that he gets his squads to adopt that's effective in the modern game and as throw-in, is nice to watch. I think you're subjecting him to a bit of an unfair standard. In NY, he came in and took a flawed and unbalanced roster constructed by someone else and got more out of it than anyone thought possible. This year, he took a roster that included Tanner f'in Glass playing 10 minutes a night to game 7 of the conference finals. I'd die for that sort of "failure".

And as for that Canucks team that, yes, missed out on a cup losing in game 7 of the final to Boston, Tortorella promptly ran them into the ground, missing the playoffs the season after AV's last, in which he won the division.

[Oaklandblue]

The Rangers are in a heap of trouble, players they'll be losing, the so-so players they'll have coming in to replace them, they're swimming in RFA's they need to re-up. We have Tarasenko and Allen. I also think our system is not that thin. Yeah not having the 1st rounders is the pits, but we lost, they lost, losing is losing no matter when it happens.

Also, I've been thinking about AV a lot. He's not that great a coach. He can squeeze every bit possible out of his players but they can't squeeze anything else. He couldn't get the Sedin sisters to win a Cup, he couldn't get the Rags last year to win a Cup, and this year with a lesser roster, they went just a little less far. He's great at getting every little bit out, but he maximizes the ability of his players and evidently the ability of his players this year was conference finals with two choke jobs in game 5 and game 7.

Well my opinion hasn't changed on AV-he's got a system of play that he gets his squads to adopt that's effective in the modern game and as throw-in, is nice to watch. I think you're subjecting him to a bit of an unfair standard. In NY, he came in and took a flawed and unbalanced roster constructed by someone else and got more out of it than anyone thought possible. This year, he took a roster that included Tanner f'in Glass playing 10 minutes a night to game 7 of the conference finals. I'd die for that sort of "failure".

And as for that Canucks team that, yes, missed out on a cup losing in game 7 of the final to Boston, Tortorella promptly ran them into the ground, missing the playoffs the season after AV's last, in which he won the division.

And yet Ken Hitchcock is one of the best hockey minds out there, or so alot of people here say as much. If that's the case, where's his multiple Cups? If you're that good, you're winning or constantly knocking at the door. This team with it's on-paper loaded up firepower that it brings can't even make it across the front lawn.

AV is badass, no matter what team he coaches. Hitch, I don't think is bad or dumb by any means, he's just horribly outdated.

[glen a richter]

I may have not articulated myself well enough. Vigneault is a fine coach if he has a team of very good players. Given the Sedins, he went to SCF 7, given a very talented Rangers squad, he went to SCF 5, and given a lesser squad, he went to ECF 7. I don't know if he has what it takes to get a team that's not positively stacked to win the Cup. I mean the team he had in Vancouver was pretty damn good top to bottom and he came as close as he's come yet.

Francesa was talking about this today though, and I tend to agree, which I don't usually agree with Mike Francesa because he's a moron. The Rangers are a good team with a great goalie. The Lightning and Blackhawks (and Ducks, for that matter) are great teams with good goalies. It seems to be the secret to sustained playoff success these days: have a great bunch of skaters and a goalie who's good enough to keep the other team to fewer goals most of the time. I knew when the Rags signed Lundqvist to that long term deal they'd regret it someday. It's not because Hank is bad, he's not bad at all. It's because the team in front of him isn't as good as everyone makes them out to be. Really, Hagelin, Kreider, Zuccarello, Brassard, these guys are good but they're not world beaters. Tarasenko, Steen, Schwartz and Backes are statistically every bit as good as those four, or better. The difference is the Rangers make so much crap happen by being a fast team that they give off the impression of being better than they are. If it wasn't for Cam Talbot going nuts when Lundqvist was out, this team would have been the 6 or 7 seed. Now when push comes to shove, they'll end up trading him because they're tethered to Lundqvist and can't afford what he and all their other RFA's will demand. They should have traded Lundqvist last season, who would get a huge haul, an absolutely huge haul, and rode Talbot as the #1 this season. The haul they'd get for Lundqvist would have been enough to give them what the Lightning and Hawks both have... a great team with a good goalie.

As far as the Blues go, we have a good team with a good goalie. That's why it's not getting done in the playoffs. The mental block doesn't help--these guys are capable of being great but they fall flat when it counts. So until they can improve on the offensive aspect of the game, they'll be one step behind the Rangers. Neither team is capable of winning a Cup, as is. There's simply too many powerhouse offensive teams out there that they can't keep up with.

[WaukeeBlues]

They were discussing on NHL network radio today and I totally agree... the Rangers have some decisions to make.

As the Bruins have done in recent years, they've made considerable trades that have cost them a lot of future draft picks and assets to "win now." Well it's catching up to them in an awful hurry.

Depending on what they do with Yandle, I don't know that they could even afford to bring back St. Louis if they wanted to which I would doubt they would want to. They have no draft picks higher than the 3rd round IIRC for the next several seasons. Spending to the cap.

They've taken their shots and it didn't work. They've mortgaged the farm to do it. That's why I hate it when we trade 1st round picks. There's no quicker way to hit a total rebuild in this league than to become incapable of replacing older players with cheap, but talented, younger ones. The Rangers are just about at that cusp.

They may be able to make another go at it next season depending on how creative they can get with their cap situation but this season and last was "all in" and it didn't work.

[ecbm]

I don't usually agree with Mike Francesa because he's a moron.

Well alright, let's start with a point of agreement.

I don't know if he has what it takes to get a team that's not positively stacked to win the Cup.

You could say this about almost all NHL coaches. Babcock has the best track record of getting a team to outperform its individual parts but even he hasn't won it all since '08.

Really, Hagelin, Kreider, Zuccarello, Brassard, these guys are good but they're not world beaters. Tarasenko, Steen, Schwartz and Backes are statistically every bit as good as those four, or better.

A couple things: the Blues are stacked, as are most cap teams. There will be some weak links for sure (Ott for STL v Glass for NYR for example) but think about it: for a cap team not to be stacked with talent, you would have to have serious overpayment going on. Who are the Blues overpaying? Stastny a little, sure and Berglund and maybe Ott. Pie gets market rate, we've had Tank and Schwartz for virtually nothing and Steen, Backes and Bouwmeester probably all get more money on the open market. Lehtera is a bargain if his production holds up. Consider relatively: Brad Richards is CHI's second line center; the Blues' third center is Paul Stastny. So if the difference between all the cap teams clustered atop the standings isn't talent, what is it? Actually, you kinda answered that:

The difference is the Rangers make so much crap happen by being a fast team that they give off the impression of being better than they are.

I don't think it makes them seem better than they are-the system makes them capable as a collective in ways you wouldn't guess considering the players as individuals. Illusion won't get you to the SCF and game 7 of the ECF in consecutive seasons while dealing with a cap crisis.

This is part of my final verdict on KH in today's NHL: the Blues, to me, seem less capable than you'd guess looking at the players as individuals. In a cap-regulated league that's death because you can't improve by just importing better players.

[theohall]

This is part of my final verdict on KH in today's NHL: the Blues, to me, seem less capable than you'd guess looking at the players as individuals. In a cap-regulated league that's death because you can't improve by just importing better players.

Well said!

[glen a richter]

The Rangers are what they are because they have great goaltending. Such is the case with Lundqvist and such was the case when Talbot had to take the reigns.

They could barely score against a Pittsburgh team that limped into the playoffs with an atrociously hurting defense and a goalie who has always been suspect in the playoffs, in spite of his Cups. In fact, the fact that Fleury has won a Cup at all is more proof that it takes a great team and a good goalie, not the other way around.

[ecbm]

it takes a great team and a good goalie, not the other way around.

Winning the cup is difficult-there is more than one way to do it.

The Avs in '96 had had a great team, but only won after acquiring an elite goaltender.

Crawford, indeed, is an average goalie who may well retire with a handful of rings-yes, because he is surrounded by players more talented than him.

Jonathan Quick, I once upon a time thought he was superhuman. Whereas now I realize he's just a good goalie with a tendency to get hot at the right time.

Marc-Andre Fleury: an average goalie on a very talented team who doesn't have a great playoff record but who has had a few good years there in which he didn't win a cup but then did win a cup in what was statistically his most average playoff year.

The Blues have had, in my lifetime, average/bad teams with a great goalie (Liut), good teams with a good goalie (Joseph & Fuhr years) and great teams with average-to-below goalies (Brent Johnson era). None of it has worked. Unfortunately, there is no formula. Which is why it's illegitimate to ask people asking for change "but who's better?" I really don't claim to know. But I do know that if the Blues do next season what they've done for the last three, it's most reasonable to expect the same result.

[gaijin]

But I do know that if the Blues do next season what they've done for the last three, it's most reasonable to expect the same result.

Unfortunately, that seems to be shaping up to be the case. Who knows? The results could be different. That's why they play the games, as they say.

But like you (and others) have mentioned, lather-rinse-repeat doesn't usually lead to different results.