Jump to content

2022 Stanley Cup playoffs thread


MadDog2020
 Share

Recommended Posts

The cap was supposed to level the playing field where teams like the Rangers couldn't get every free agent that wanted to go there because they couldn't fit them all.  The problem is that there are way too many teams in the league who are willing to do them a favor by taking on their bad contracts and their GM's tend to be pretty good at trades in terms of value (Gomez for McD, Brassard for Zib, etc).  Teams that are always predicted to be in a cap crunch always seem to find a way around them and that's why I don't worry about the cap nearly as much as I did years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

The cap was supposed to level the playing field where teams like the Rangers couldn't get every free agent that wanted to go there because they couldn't fit them all.  The problem is that there are way too many teams in the league who are willing to do them a favor by taking on their bad contracts and their GM's tend to be pretty good at trades in terms of value (Gomez for McD, Brassard for Zib, etc).  Teams that are always predicted to be in a cap crunch always seem to find a way around them and that's why I don't worry about the cap nearly as much as I did years ago.

It’s gonna happen again soon. Fox’s 9 million will kick in next year and someone will take a contract off their hands for them so they can go spend money, guaranteed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MB3 said:

if the rangers shared even the smallest resemblance of success as the yankees i’d very likely quit watching hockey 

This 👆🏼 I forget who it was but someone who posted here had in there signature something along the lines of:

"The New York Rangers are a franchise who believe themselves to be like the New York Yankees; with the winning record of the Chicago Cubs"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

It’s gonna happen again soon. Fox’s 9 million will kick in next year and someone will take a contract off their hands for them so they can go spend money, guaranteed. 

And someone will or they will LTIR someone.  I cannot remember a team falling apart due to a cap crunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RunninWithTheDevil said:

This 👆🏼 I forget who it was but someone who posted here had in there signature something along the lines of:

"The New York Rangers are a franchise who believe themselves to be like the New York Yankees; with the winning record of the Chicago Cubs"

hahahaha that’s my go to line: 

rangers; yankee bravado, mets history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

The cap was supposed to level the playing field where teams like the Rangers couldn't get every free agent that wanted to go there because they couldn't fit them all.  The problem is that there are way too many teams in the league who are willing to do them a favor by taking on their bad contracts and their GM's tend to be pretty good at trades in terms of value (Gomez for McD, Brassard for Zib, etc).  Teams that are always predicted to be in a cap crunch always seem to find a way around them and that's why I don't worry about the cap nearly as much as I did years ago.

I wouldn't have taken on Gomer's hit myself, but in a way you could kinda-sorta understand the thinking; Montreal's approach was probably, "OK, he's overpaid, but cost-controlled, and we should be able to get 60-70 points out of him (he had averaged about 67 points per 82 GP for his career to that point)...he's still only 29...he doesn't miss many games...has a good chance to turn in at least three Gomez-like seasons, right now...let's get him, at least we know what we're getting."

The problem was that they pretty much got one season of typical Gomez (his first with the Canadiens), and then his production fell off a cliff, even though he was still relatively young.  With some of these guys, they hit 30 and either right then or shortly thereafter, their production just plummets.

And of course we went over it, but that was a bad deal the second it was signed...it was based on Gomez being able to suddenly become a much more productive player that he'd been to that point.  Outside of a fluke 33-goal season two years before getting that deal, nothing suggested that Gomer was suddenly going to become a 90+ point guy.  The first four seasons of his deal were 100% typical Gomez years...but suddenly that wasn't good enough, due to being overpaid as much as he was.

4 minutes ago, RunninWithTheDevil said:

This 👆🏼 I forget who it was but someone who posted here had in there signature something along the lines of:

"The New York Rangers are a franchise who believe themselves to be like the New York Yankees; with the winning record of the Chicago Cubs"

I've pointed out the whole Rangers-Yankees thing a bunch of times (and how as far as hockey-baseball comparisons go, their history is far closer to the Cubs).  It's their fanbase that carries themselves that way...they think by playing in New York, they're somehow the Yankees of the NHL, with the same rich and "proud" traditions...they've won one fvcking Cup since 1940, at that time mostly by mortgaging a ton of the future and by recruiting a lot of another teams' dynasty players to do it (but to be fair, when you actually win the whole thing, you'll live with whatever crap comes after, at least for 5 years or so...especially when it's been multi-generational futility).  The Ranger faithful pretty much act like there should be an Original 6 trophy given every year, just because.  It's the most annoying fanbase that I've ever dealt with...with Yankee fans, you get entitlement and the feeling that they think should be able to help themselves to any other teams' superstars whenever the mood strikes, but at least they've actually GOT a history of success, even when they're not necessarily winning championships.  But as we know, Ranger fans will happily dial up 1994 whenever it's convenient.  Because no other Cup before or since matters as much.  Just 1994.    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MB3 said:

hahahaha that’s my go to line: 

rangers; yankee bravado, mets history.

As a Met fan, I'll readily admit that the Mets history is mostly not good, and at times completely embarrassing (and of course they're in New York, so there's that too), but the only reason I think Cubs more is because like them, the Rangers have been around for so damned long (with a similiar lack of success).  Even though they've been around since 1962 and are playing their 60th season (not exactly chump change), the Mets almost feel too "new" for them to be mentioned with the Rangers.  But not like your joke doesn't work.  It more or less does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

As a Met fan, I'll readily admit that the Mets history is mostly not good, and at times completely embarrassing (and of course they're in New York, so there's that too), but the only reason I think Cubs more is because like them, the Rangers have been around for so damned long (with a similiar lack of success).  Even though they've been around since 1962 and are playing their 60th season (not exactly chump change), the Mets almost feel too "new" for them to be mentioned with the Rangers.  But not like your joke doesn't work.  It more or less does.

Mets and Rangers both have 1 title since 1962. Works better for the joke too, since they’re both in New York. 

If you asked a rangers fan “who is the rangers equivalent in baseball?” 90% will say the Yankees. Which is, ya know, laugh out loud funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MB3 said:

Mets and Rangers both have 1 title since 1962. Works better for the joke too, since they’re both in New York. 

If you asked a rangers fan “who is the rangers equivalent in baseball?” 90% will say the Yankees. Which is, ya know, laugh out loud funny.

Mets have two:  1969 and 1986.  Not like that's much more to crow about, especially when the Yankees doubled that during a five-year period. 

And yeah, re:  the bolded, that's one of many reasons that I despise the dummy New York Rangers fanbase.  They really do believe this.  Just like they believe that Devils fans are still hung up over and mourning 1994.  They really do believe this too.    

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Mets have two:  1969 and 1986.  Not like that's much more to crow about, especially when the Yankees doubled that during a five-year period. 

And yeah, re:  the bolded, that's one of many reasons that I despise the dummy New York Rangers fanbase.  They really do believe this.  Just like they believe that Devils fans are still hung up over and mourning 1994.  They really do believe this too.    

The same ones who say 2003 is ancient history, with a profile picture of Messier holding the cup and a 1994 SCF Starter Cap with the sticker still on it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Mets have two:  1969 and 1986.  Not like that's much more to crow about, especially when the Yankees doubled that during a five-year period. 

And yeah, re:  the bolded, that's one of many reasons that I despise the dummy New York Rangers fanbase.  They really do believe this.  Just like they believe that Devils fans are still hung up over and mourning 1994.  They really do believe this too.    

Love when they say Matteau like nothing happened since. To be fair though, they get egged on by the NHL. Watch these Stanley cup commercials. Plenty of shots of messier shaking the cup like a dunce and ‘wE wiLL wIn tOnIgHt” , Bourque with Gary Thorne foaming at the mouth with joy, but either no mention of 95, 2000, 2003, or maybe one blink and you miss it shot of Stevens

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Love when they say Matteau like nothing happened since. To be fair though, they get egged on by the NHL. Watch these Stanley cup commercials. Plenty of shots of messier shaking the cup like a dunce and ‘wE wiLL wIn tOnIgHt” , Bourque with Gary Thorne foaming at the mouth with joy, but either no mention of 95, 2000, 2003, or maybe one blink and you miss it shot of Stevens

When you don't win a whole lot of championships, certain teams definitely winding up gaining a lot more mystique than they otherwise would have...for the Ranger fans, the 1994 team has that, and I can definitely understand why in that as much as I hate all things Rangers, there's clearly compelling stories from that team (and because I hate the Rangers I won't get into those stories, but many here are familiar with most of them).

For the Mets, it's the 1986 team.  For the Yanks, even though they've won a ton, in recent memory I'd have to say it's the 1998 team, simply because they were just so damned good at baseball...so much better at it than everyone else that season...absurdly so.  I never saw a team that had such a universal "We can beat every single team we play" approach...they had one stretch where they went 45-9 and another when they went 41-11.  Most teams would kill just to have ONE unconscious run like that within a season, that somehow lasts over 50 games.  To do that TWICE?!  

Somewhat ironically, with the Devils, I think most of the real mystique revolves around the 2000-01 team, the one that DIDN'T get it done...the one that was so electric and deep and could do it all and was almost unbeatable heading into the playoffs...we'll always wonder how that team missed out on a Cup.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MB3 said:

Mets and Rangers both have 1 title since 1962. Works better for the joke too, since they’re both in New York. 

If you asked a rangers fan “who is the rangers equivalent in baseball?” 90% will say the Yankees. Which is, ya know, laugh out loud funny.

Being from NY the way 98% of sport fans break down are;

Islanders/mets/jets

Rangers/yanks/ giants

Most li devils fans I know, including myself, are mets and jets fans.

Yankee fan base sucks bc they're mostly rangers fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobilly45 said:

Being from NY the way 98% of sport fans break down are;

Islanders/mets/jets

Rangers/yanks/ giants

Most li devils fans I know, including myself, are mets and jets fans.

Yankee fan base sucks bc they're mostly rangers fans.

I’m Devils/Jets/Yankees only because as a kid, my best friend and his family loved the Yankees. I loved hockey and the Devils. I started following the Yanks with him and he started playing street hockey with me.

Now he’s a Ranger fan. Oh well. I tried. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StarDew said:

Trouble selling out????   🤣  These writers are nuts. 

 

The Canes have had NO trouble selling out. The fvcktard NY media and Rag fans just try and apply the same tired bullsh!t narratives they pull with us and Islander fans. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like Malkin and Letang are likely done in Pittsburgh. It’s honestly pretty crazy they were able to keep that core together as long as they did. 

Edited by Nicomo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Sounds like Malkin and Letang are likely done in Pittsburgh. It’s honestly pretty crazy they were able to keep that core together as long as they did. 

Had to be almost 15 years right? It’ll be very interesting to see where those 2 end up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Sounds like Malkin and Letang are likely done in Pittsburgh. It’s honestly pretty crazy they were able to keep that core together as long as they did. 

Where are you seeing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Where are you seeing that?

I'm not Nicomo but if you listen to penguins fans / insiders it sounds like they've made that pretty clear, this would be the last dance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malkin’s always missed his fair share of games for several years now, and that trend has only gotten worse in recent seasons.  I wouldn’t be all that eager to sign up for his Age 36-38 seasons either.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.