Quoting: Kap97
It seems you've made up your mind about the Rangers before this conversation began. I don't want to keep talking in circles and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I'll leave you with this - when the Lightning lost to CBJ in 2019, Stamkos and Hedman were 29. Their front office didn't pack it in and say "this it it for us." They went to three straight ECFs and won two straight Stanley Cups along the way.
And let's not forget that that same year, your Bruins went to the SCF with a 33 year old 1C in Bergeron and 33 year old 2C in Krejci, not to mention a 42 year old top Dman. And the Bruins STILL committed to their core after that, signing Hall to a long term contract just last year.
The Rangers are not past their prime. They literally just started. And I don't think Chris Drury is going into teardown mode and rebuilding again because his veterans are just under 30.
Alright, well there’s a lot wrong with this. We’ll take it paragraph by paragraph.
1. Yes. I have. I’m very open to someone changing it though. Yet, the two responses I’ve gotten as to why I’m wrong is, “wahhhhh, you’re wrong,” and, “they’ll macgyver something at center.” To quote Kucherov, are you kidding me?
2. That lightning team didn’t have huge holes or deficiencies. They just went ice cold for a week. That happens. But they could play 5 on 5 hockey, Their top center was 22. Kucherov was 25. Stamkos was actually 28. Hedman was 27. Their top 13 leading scorers were in their 20s, with McDonagh being the only 29 year old. Think they had three or four guys in their 30s…Girardi and such. Anyhow, wildly different situation. Just like you can see that the rangers don’t have it, you could see that the lightning did.
3. The bruins top D man was 20 years old. Not 42. I’m not really sure why this conversation is even happening, because the bruins aren’t involved in this. Is this the lame thing we see all the time when someone gets defensive and spits out “well, your team is bad too?” Again, pretty different situations here. The bruins didn’t such at 5 on 5. They weren’t a powerplay and a goalie. Their powerplay wasn’t anything special. Also, i don’t think anyone was running to say that the future was bright for boston. I think i likely would have said the same thing about that team as i am about the rangers, but for wildly different reasons.
4. Sigh. You’re still not getting this. I’m not saying the rangers are necessary past their prime. I don’t think they were a third round team this year. They probably should have been eliminated in the first round. I think they’ll get beyond that, but I don’t think this group will get back to the conference finals.