2011-12 NHL Playoffs LD

[It's Damn Real!]

I don't hate the team based on their financial standing. I hate them because they are my teams' rivals. I want to see them FOLD because they are a poor market that's show for over a decade, despite winning Stanley Cups, that they can't draw fans or make money.

The two, whether you or JGlass choose to believe it or not, are mutually exclusive.

I'm also not a typical NHL fan. Those are the types of fans the NHL doesn't need, because like Jersey's fans, they're the ones who only show up when their team is winning.

 

[JGlass]

As I've already noted, having to be kept afloat by the league is a sign that your market is not strong enough to sustain itself, ergo a sign that you do not deserve a franchise. See Thrashers, Atlanta; Flames, Atlanta; Coyotes, Phoenix.

The Devils have stayed afloat for almost 30 years, and as far as I know it's been without the NHL's help. Perhaps the team will be sold to that rich Russian guy that owns the Nets, or someone who can afford to pay off the Devils' debts.

Either way, this has little to do with the fact you want thousands of people to lose their jobs.

Devils' ticket sales went up 14% in the post-season, because their fans do not show up during the regular season, ergo without a long, deep playoff run in every season, they fail to bring in the requisite financials required to not only sustain the team, but to actually grow. And please… being a "pillar" in the "community" of Newark is like being the best Irish bar in East New York. No one's coming, no matter how great your beer is.

We'll see what their ticket sales look like next year.

As I've already noted, having to be kept afloat by the league is a sign that your market is not strong enough to sustain itself, ergo a sign that you do not deserve a franchise. See Thrashers, Atlanta; Flames, Atlanta; Coyotes, Phoenix.

You know repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make you smart, funny, or your point any more relevant, right?

The Devils are $375M in the hole to the Prudential Center, have a $100M contract in Kovalchuk and have already been gifted $10M just to sustain the franchise from the NHL. I don't care how you spin this, or how you try to — this is the sign of a poor and failing market, ergo it does not deserve it's franchise.

IDR... you're Dagger Dias'ing. Saying the same thing over and over again that has little or no relevance. You're trying to justify your hatred of a team with numbers, but in reality it has 0 effect on you.

NHL success ≠ Devils' success.

The ratings for the Stanley Cup Final will prove that, especially when compared to better, larger markets. Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, etc. will undoubtedly blow the Devils/Kings out of the water, and with good reason. Few care about the Los Angeles Kings, and even fewer about the New Jersey Devils.

Then we should just cut every small market team in the league and distribute all the best players between Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, LA, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver! That way all the games will be super competitive, and the finals will always have two big market teams in them!

I'm sure it is. I'm not denying the Devils' dominance over the Rangers. Doesn't make them a successful franchise, though, regardless of how many Cups they win. When you can potentially win a Cup in a season, yet your franchise still faces bankruptcy, that's about as strong an indication as any that things are not alright.

Yes it does. Real fans measure success in terms of cups, not dollars and cents.

Oh, and for the record, Lundqvist is 23-7-5 against Brodeur.

Imagine that, a guy who came into the league during the twilight of Brodeur's career has a better record in head to head play. Still irrelevant.

Wrong. It is never good to keep fledgling franchises afloat over any prolonged period of time. The Devils have struggled, monetarily speaking, for over decade now. It's time to cut the umbilical cord.

And, as far as I know (because I'm not some loser that tries to justify his hatred of another team by becoming invested in the business aspect of hockey), the Devils haven't had any fiscal aid from the NHL until just recently. It's always a struggle to keep teams afloat in a small market, but if there are jobs on the line, it's the team's duty to try to keep those jobs around for as long as possible. The Devils don't just support the guys on the ice and on the bench, but thousands of other people who rely on the games for jobs.

If the Devils fold, thousands of people lose jobs. If they move to Canada, America loses 1,000 jobs. So basically by rooting for the Devils to move, you're rooting for unemployment to rise and for people to tell their kids that it's going to be a light Christmas this year, so enjoy these handmedown socks.

Actually, there is a money issue here, as I've illustrated repeatedly. They are hundreds of millions in the hole, with a majority owner seeking another $80M investment into a franchise that's struggled financially for more than a decade. If that's not a "money issue", I have no idea what is.

And the NHL made 2 billion dollars in revenue last year. Even if the NHL paid off all of New Jersey's debts (which is ridiculous, but for the sake of the argument), you know what they'd have left? Over one billion dollars. What are they going to do with that one billion dollars? Invest in more teams, maybe. Probably line the corporate officer's coffers a bit. I don't know, you tell me. I don't see the harm in kicking an existing franchise with a history of success and two well established rivals some money to help them stay in business.

Once again, the NHL's success ≠ Devils' success.

No, but the NHL's success can help the Devils stay afloat.

Keeping the Devils' around is "in the best interests" of the league because the Commissioner does not like to admit defeat. It's why the NHL is footing all the bills for another shit market in Phoenix. That's not an indication that it's the right decision in either case — just an indication that the league has a Commisioner who does not like to admit defeat (even when he's defeated).

Or maybe because it IS in the best interest of the league. When the Devils play the Rangers or Flyers, they have a rivalry game to put on television. They get a cut of Zack Parise, Ilya Kovulchuck, and Martin Brodeur jerseys. Furthermore, they're established. As expensive as it is to help keep the Devils afloat, do you think it would be less expensive to move them to a new place and build a market from the ground up? Quebec City might like a team, but they're going to need a modern arena, sponsors, a relationship with the city, and then they have to find a way to get the fans to come to games every night.



Not that any of this matters. You can talk about how the Devils are a failing franchise all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they're successful after all of that. And that's why you hate them, because they're more successful than the Rangers with less money to work with. And because of that hatred, you want to see thousands of people unemployed, which makes you a bad person.

 

[JGlass]

I don't hate the team based on their financial standing. I hate them because they are my teams' rivals. I want to see them FOLD because they are a poor market that's show for over a decade, despite winning Stanley Cups, that they can't draw fans or make money.

You still haven't explained why the New Jersey Devil's failures have an effect on anything at all. You keep saying it's a "drain on the league," but the league manages to remain extremely profitable despite giving the Devils and Coyotes money.

The two, whether you or JGlass choose to believe it or not, are mutually exclusive.

Success on the ice and success in the box office? New Jersey clearly demonstrates they are.

I'm also not a typical NHL fan. Those are the types of fans the NHL doesn't need, because like Jersey's fans, they're the ones who only show up when their team is winning.

Are you insinuating New Jersey fans are fair weather fans? Wrong again! They draw poorly regardless of whether they're winning or not.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

This is becoming a quote war, which destroys arguments. I'm not going to continue it, sorry.

You are playing semantical games here that I don't care to get into detail over. I'm not going to split hairs with you. Fact is, the Devils are hundreds of millions in debt, seeking an $80M investment that's widely considered a longshot and have won multiple Stanley Cups yet still can't draw fans, ergo they are a drain on the league that is footing bills for them right now, along with the Coyotes.

This does not mean every small market team should suffer the same fate. Some have proven their worth — Nashville, San José, Anaheim, etc. among them. This is the difference between reality and rhetoric, something I'm not convinced you truly understand.

You can harp on this idea that I want to see thousands of people put out of work until you are blue in the face — it doesn't make it any truer, but trying to convince a tree that it's a dog is, after all, an impossible feat. So believe what you want.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

This is becoming a quote war, which destroys arguments. I'm not going to continue it, sorry.

You are playing semantical games here that I don't care to get into detail over. I'm not going to split hairs with you. Fact is, the Devils are hundreds of millions in debt, seeking an $80M investment that's widely considered a longshot and have won multiple Stanley Cups yet still can't draw fans, ergo they are a drain on the league that is footing bills for them right now, along with the Coyotes.

This does not mean every small market team should suffer the same fate. Some have proven their worth — Nashville, San José, Anaheim, etc. among them. This is the difference between reality and rhetoric, something I'm not convinced you truly understand.

You can harp on this idea that I want to see thousands of people put out of work until you are blue in the face — it doesn't make it any truer, but trying to convince a tree that it's a dog is, after all, an impossible feat. So believe what you want.

Spoken like a true loser. You've actually managed to bring smarkdom to the NHL now? Isn't it bad enough we discuss wrestling on forms like these based not on whom we like or who wins, but on who draws money? Now you want to turn sports into such a sterile environment.

I'm sick of obnoxious loser Rags fans who argue NOTHING other than "you guys can't sell out an arena" when you get wiped off the bottom of the Devils skates. I'm sure you go sit down in the box office of MSG with a big sign tat says "let's go Ticket Sales people!" It's perfectly acceptable that your team sucks as long as you continue to sell tickets, right?

Of course, in the event that another 20+ years elapses and the Rags win their allotted one Cup every 40-some years, I'm sure the argument will be about hockey. When Lundquist was leading the Rags to the #1 seed, it was about goaltending and how Brodeur was fat and old, right? But now that Lundy has been booted, it's about ticket sales. The ONE THING the Rags have on the Devils.

It's easy selling out an arena like MSG when you're drawing from one of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the WORLD. It's not that easy in NJ, yet the remarkable feat is how the team has sustained itself and been MORE SUCCESSFUL since 1982 than the Rags have been since the 1920's.

I don't hear Red Wings or Bruins fans talking about ticket sales with us. They discuss hockey with us. Why? Because they can. They understand. Rags fans just know that they suck, and the one thing they have to discuss is selling out an arena. I'd rather be a fan of the team that wins, myself.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Who are the Rags? I never heard of them. In fact, I have never ever heard anyone call any NHL team that.

There's only one person here who is resorting to name-calling. Sorry IC, but that's kinda poor form right there. IDR and JGlass both were going back and forth, but did not resort to petty shit like that.

And IDR is 100% right, their financial situation is totally in the shit and that is a HUGE knock on them as a franchise. That doesn't mean they are a bad team, they are porrly run, or anything. It means that they need new ownership, and honestly that they have a non-loyal fanbase.

I hate the Devils because their my teams rival. I respect the people that run the team, as they have been phenomenal for the better part of 20 years, and I respect the players. They are a greatly run team, but it is extremely telling when you can't sell tickets even though you are winning. It shows your fans are pretty fucking shitty, to be honest with you. Don't give me the bullshit about the markets, because it is the same market (yes, it is the same market, don't tell me otherwise, I have already proven so). And even if you want to give me bullshit that that it isn't, there are smaller regions selling more tickets then the Devils.


Here's the best part of all of this. The people that hate the Rangers are all jumping on the IDR is an idiot bandwagon. He's not all that far off the mark. Maybe he should go about it with a little more respect, but he's not really wrong. The league is financing the Devils, which is fucking pathetic. It was just as pathetic when they did it for the Coyotes, or any other team. Get someone in there that can actually afford the fucking team. If the current owners can't afford it, then force them out.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Horseshit, ST. I was asked into this thread to add my two pennies, which I did. and nothing I said was inaccurate in the least. Any moron can sit back and smile about how great it is to be a New York Team, to play in the biggest sports market in the damn world, and bang on other teams for not being as financially solvent. The fact of the matter is that the Rags fans (Rangers fans) do it more than anyone because it's all they have to talk about.

Do you think Yankees fans bash Orioles fans for their attendance? No sir. And why not? Because the Yankees fans can talk about baseball. Rags fans can't talk about hockey without invoking 1994. They live in the past and they live in the box office because they suck in the present.

I have every right to be angry and to go on the offensive, because here, you have a bitter Rags fan doing whatever he can to make himself feel better about the fact that his heavily favored New York team got shit on in 6 games by their biggest rival. Had the Rags won the series it'd be "Brodeur is fat and old and the Rangers are better," but it didn't go that way, so now it's "your team has financial woes."

If my team had 18+ million people in a 5 borough island, the largest concentration of corporations and companies in the United States and maybe even the world, and the largest US train and bus depot in our arena's basement, it'd be a lot easier to sell out our stadium, too.

Look across the NHL. Not many teams sell out every game or make money hand over fist. Here's the difference. The Rangers are relevant because of the city and arena in which they play. The Devils, on the other hand, have helped revive one of America's most historical cities. I work a great deal in Newark, and the Devils new arena being there has breathed new life into that city's economy and given its people jobs. I'm quite proud of the impact that my hockey team, which occupies a small and fragmented market (many people root for the Rangers because they've been hockey fans since before 1982 and many people root for the Flyers because they live closer to Philly than Newark), has had such a profound impact on the city and state in which they play.

Want another reason why IDR is making the argument of an idiot? The argument that the Devils "ruined hockey" with defense. Oh no! Not defense!

In 1995, the year the Devils won their first Stanley Cup with their much maligned "Neutral Zone Trap," the Devils scored THREE FEWER GOALS than the Rangers. They allowed 13 fewer goals.

In 2000, the year the Devils won their second Stanley Cup, they scored 251 goals. That was the highest in the NHL that season. The Rangers, by contrast, scored 218.

In 2001, the year the Devils lost in the cup finals to Ray Borque and Colorado, the Devils again had the highest scoring tally in the NHL with 295 goals. The Rags? 250.

In 2003, the Devils scored 216 goals, which was average. The Rags? 210. Another year out of the playoffs I'm afraid.

And this year? The Devils scored 228 goals. Two more than the Rags 226.

The neutral zone trap was employed briefly by the Devils, but through much of their dynastic mid-90's - mid-'00's run to 4 finals and 3 cups, they were among the highest scoring teams in the NHL.

The Devils didn't win because they ruined hockey. They won because they scored more goals than they allowed, because they didn't take stupid penalties, and because their goaltender is the greatest goaltender to ever play the damn game!

But as usual, since the answer is that the Rangers just plain suck, the Rags fans are going to change the question.

Fact: The Devils have been more successful in 30 years (10 division titles, 5 conference titles, 3 cups) as the Rangers have been in 86 years (7 division titles, 4 cups) despite playing in a deeper NHL with far more teams.

Rags Response: The Devils can't sell out an arena. We can, because we're from New York, so it doesn't matter how much we suck.

Fact: The Devils have one of, if not the, greatest statistical goaltender in the history of the NHL.

Rags Response: The Devils ruined hockey by coming up with a smarter way to play defense and having better defensive players than everyone else like Scott Stevens, Ken Danyko, Scott Neidermeyer, and Brian Rafalski. The fact that they've won 2 conference titles and 1 cup in years they were the highest scoring team in the entire NHL is irrelevant, as is the fact that the Devils have outscored the Rangers in almost every year since 1994.

Let me help IDR and ST out a little bit here. This is a hockey based discussion, no? here's how you should actually respond:

The New Jersey Devils outplayed the Rangers in the 2012 playoffs because they are a better team. I'm bummed out that my team lost in the playoffs to the Devils, but I have to give them credit. I am still proud of how well my team played this season, and of the fact that we still have one of the 3 best goalies in the NHL right now, along with Jonathan Quick and Pekka Rinne, but in the end it just wasn't enough. I'm looking forward to next year and will be cheering for the Kings in the cup finals, since as the Devils #1 rival, we cannot root for NJ in good conscience. That said, they are an exceptionally well run team with the best goaltender in the last 30 years and the best executive in sports in Lou Lamoriello.

Had you just said that, JGlass and I would have green repped you and we'd all have saved time. Instead, you decided to try and misdirect a hockey conversation into a non-hockey conversation, and instead revealed that you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical Rags fans.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Spoken like a true loser. You've actually managed to bring smarkdom to the NHL now? Isn't it bad enough we discuss wrestling on forms like these based not on whom we like or who wins, but on who draws money? Now you want to turn sports into such a sterile environment.

I'm sick of obnoxious loser Rags fans who argue NOTHING other than "you guys can't sell out an arena" when you get wiped off the bottom of the Devils skates. I'm sure you go sit down in the box office of MSG with a big sign tat says "let's go Ticket Sales people!" It's perfectly acceptable that your team sucks as long as you continue to sell tickets, right?

Of course, in the event that another 20+ years elapses and the Rags win their allotted one Cup every 40-some years, I'm sure the argument will be about hockey. When Lundquist was leading the Rags to the #1 seed, it was about goaltending and how Brodeur was fat and old, right? But now that Lundy has been booted, it's about ticket sales. The ONE THING the Rags have on the Devils.

So your gripe, is that this thread is too juvenile and does not feature enough mature discussion about hockey, so you come into it like a 400 mile an hour turd ready to hit the wall and see what sticks?

Again, like JGlass, I'm not getting into this quote war nonsense with either of you. You wanna talk one facet at a time? I'm game. You wanna start throwing combinations and trying to make twelve points to every post and I won't bother answering half of them, because I don't have the time or the patience to sit down and type out five-hour responses to every post.

It's easy selling out an arena like MSG when you're drawing from one of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the WORLD. It's not that easy in NJ, yet the remarkable feat is how the team has sustained itself and been MORE SUCCESSFUL since 1982 than the Rags have been since the 1920's.

I don't hear Red Wings or Bruins fans talking about ticket sales with us. They discuss hockey with us. Why? Because they can. They understand. Rags fans just know that they suck, and the one thing they have to discuss is selling out an arena. I'd rather be a fan of the team that wins, myself.

The Rangers suck… yet they were the first seeded team in the Eastern Conference? Yeah, OK. There goes that maturity factor again.

But hey, I'll give credit where credit is due. The Devils did deserve to win. They did out-play the Rangers. I said as much in multiple posts, though because I run my own Rangers' forum, I can't be certain how many were made here versus there. My issue was never with losing, or even losing to the Devils. It was with how your New Jersey butt buddy decided to handle it. Ever hear of the term sore winner? Yeah, it's a bit oxymoronic, but in specific cases it absolutely exists.

Actually, that's not entirely true — I did have issue with losing to the Devils, but certainly not to the point that it'd require me to lash into them as a franchise. JGlass is responsible for that, because he decided to troll the win instead of taking the high road. Maybe had taken the more mature route and written up something like you are demanding I had, I never would have had to come to bat for myself or the other Rangers' fans while obvious bandwagoner(s) was/were championing a team he/they likely didn't watch more than a handful of games the team played through the season.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Oh, and for the record, you won't find a more objective Rangers' fan who understands, appreciates and is incredibly disgusted with the amount of "wrong" the Rangers have done to the franchise over their 86-year history. Four Cups in 86 years is pathetic, but it's also indicative to how long and how wrong the franchise had been run for in the first place. That simply isn't the case anymore... for now. Read back in the NHL thread you were never participating in, IC, and you'll see that. I talk repeatedly with Habs about the dark years and about how the team is finally seeing things through the right way, by not trying to buy their way to a championship any longer.

Again, this isn't about my objectivity. I have plenty of it, when I'm treated respectfully about it. When I'm trolled however, I'll reply in kind.

So here's the deal — you wanna talk hockey, objectively? I'm game. You wanna rag on each other as a franchise and resort to these Ad hominem mud-slinging contests? I'm also game. Problem is, that discussion won't go far in either direction.

 

[Lowdown]

Heated debate. I look at the Devils in the same vein as the New Orleans Hornets in the NBA. Or the Dodgers. You have to admit that teams that are in the hole do put a strain on the league as a whole. Like the Hornets, the league should've found and sold the team as quickly as possible. The Chris Paul deal that happened with the Lakers was a huge blunder, where other small market teams liek the Charlotte Bobcats complained that the Lakers would be "too powerful" and thus making the deal unfair to them. On top of that, its a conflict of interest to have the commissioner running the day to day operations of a club yet stall out trade attempts made by another club. Its just bad business.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Heated debate. I look at the Devils in the same vein as the New Orleans Hornets in the NBA. Or the Dodgers. You have to admit that teams that are in the hole do put a strain on the league as a whole. Like the Hornets, the league should've found and sold the team as quickly as possible. The Chris Paul deal that happened with the Lakers was a huge blunder, where other small market teams liek the Charlotte Bobcats complained that the Lakers would be "too powerful" and thus making the deal unfair to them. On top of that, its a conflict of interest to have the commissioner running the day to day operations of a club yet stall out trade attempts made by another club. Its just bad business.

The main difference between the Hornets and the Devils? The Devils have won 3 titles, potentially 4 by the time June 15th rolls around.

Also, the commissioner of the NHL doesn't run ANYTHING with the Devils. The GM, Lou Lamoriello, does.

So your gripe, is that this thread is too juvenile and does not feature enough mature discussion about hockey, so you come into it like a 400 mile an hour turd ready to hit the wall and see what sticks?

Again, like JGlass, I'm not getting into this quote war nonsense with either of you. You wanna talk one facet at a time? I'm game. You wanna start throwing combinations and trying to make twelve points to every post and I won't bother answering half of them, because I don't have the time or the patience to sit down and type out five-hour responses to every post.

My gripe is that you and Stormtrooper have opted to try to misdirect people into thinking the Devils accomplishments are less significant because 1) they aren't the model financial franchise in sports, and 2) they played the neutral zone trap for a few years. And to be honest, it took me 30 minutes to research and write what I wrote. If it takes you 5 hours, that's a YOU problem, not a ME problem.

JGlass is responsible for that, because he decided to troll the win instead of taking the high road. Maybe had taken the more mature route and written up something like you are demanding I had, I never would have had to come to bat for myself or the other Rangers' fans while obvious bandwagoner(s) was/were championing a team he/they likely didn't watch more than a handful of games the team played through the season.

I am not sure if you're calling JGlass a Bandwagoneer or not, so I won't jump to the conclusion. I can tell you that JGlass and I texted throughout the year since we're both big Devils fans. He's no bandwagoneer by any stretch.

JGlass even admitted to me that he started this by being a sore winner. And for the record, I've been really light on Rangers fans in the last couple weeks, mainly because I know it could have just as easily gone the other way. I do, however, take personal exception to focusing on ticket sales like you're some sort of NYR stockholder or railing the Devils for ruining offensive hockey when they've been one of the better offensive teams for more than a decade now. Not just because it's my team, but because it's plain not accurate.

Fact is, you don't want to debate it, that's fine, I don't think less of you for that. You've said your peace, I've said mine. I'd rather yell at a hockey fan with whom I disagree than some of the moron's I've dealt with who don't watch or get hockey. I'd at least have a beer with you.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

My gripe is that you and Stormtrooper have opted to try to misdirect people into thinking the Devils accomplishments are less significant because 1) they aren't the model financial franchise in sports, and 2) they played the neutral zone trap for a few years. And to be honest, it took me 30 minutes to research and write what I wrote. If it takes you 5 hours, that's a YOU problem, not a ME problem.

5 hours is an obvious exaggeration. I can put together posts that take 15-30 minutes of research as well, but I'd rather they be concise. I don't want to have this hurricane of a discussion where we're debating multiple, deep-seeded topics at once (Devils finances, Rangers' history, Lundqvist, Brodeur, the Conference Finals, ticket sales, etc. etc. etc.).

Again, I don't discredit the Devils for what they've accomplished. I think, on paper, the better team lost, but on the ice the better team won, and deservedly so. Bottom line, for the Rangers, losing three straight games, two of which you gave up 2 or more goals in the first period alone, is unacceptable.

I am not sure if you're calling JGlass a Bandwagoneer or not, so I won't jump to the conclusion. I can tell you that JGlass and I texted throughout the year since we're both big Devils fans. He's no bandwagoneer by any stretch.

JGlass even admitted to me that he started this by being a sore winner. And for the record, I've been really light on Rangers fans in the last couple weeks, mainly because I know it could have just as easily gone the other way. I do, however, take personal exception to focusing on ticket sales like you're some sort of NYR stockholder or railing the Devils for ruining offensive hockey when they've been one of the better offensive teams for more than a decade now. Not just because it's my team, but because it's plain not accurate.

I'm going off what I have to work with, which is my knowledge of NHL fans on this forum for the few years I've been here, as well as the active participants in the NHL-related threads all year. Perhaps you and JGlass were texting all year after every game. Perhaps you got together and watched with one another. I can't know either for certain, but what I can know for it is that JGlass didn't show up "full-time" until the Devils won the Conference Finals, and showed face (as you've admitted) to troll the win, ergo it was quite obvious to me that he, like most Devils' fans I've encountered in my years experiencing them, was in fact a bandwagon fan. Most Devils' fans I've encountered hate the Rangers more than they actually love the Devils, and that's just pathetic to me. In my near 20-years watching NHL hockey, I've never seen a more insecure fan base in my life in that respect.

I'd love to debate the Devils offense/defense/trap stuff with you, but another time — perhaps this summer. I don't have the energy or time for it right now between my job, this forum, my own forum, wedding planning, etc. I don't want to half-ass that type of a debate, so I want to make sure I'm giving myself the opportunity to actually dedicate the requisite time needed to make it a successful argument.

Fact is, you don't want to debate it, that's fine, I don't think less of you for that. You've said your peace, I've said mine. I'd rather yell at a hockey fan with whom I disagree than some of the moron's I've dealt with who don't watch or get hockey. I'd at least have a beer with you.

Same here, but that's also because in my time here you've proven to be one of the more mature users I've come across. Maturity is key for me in wanting to actually meet someone off this forum, because for the most part, IMO, it's riddled with immature teenagers and young adults who spend far too much time crafting nasty, negative responses to every thread (wrestling related or not) as a means to be "repped" for it by their buddies who laugh at the expense of their victims. It's just something I've grown a distaste for, because it's petty and indicative of a juvenile mentality IMO.

 

[JGlass]

I'm going off what I have to work with, which is my knowledge of NHL fans on this forum for the few years I've been here, as well as the active participants in the NHL-related threads all year. Perhaps you and JGlass were texting all year after every game. Perhaps you got together and watched with one another. I can't know either for certain, but what I can know for it is that JGlass didn't show up "full-time" until the Devils won the Conference Finals, and showed face (as you've admitted) to troll the win, ergo it was quite obvious to me that he, like most Devils' fans I've encountered in my years experiencing them, was in fact a bandwagon fan. Most Devils' fans I've encountered hate the Rangers more than they actually love the Devils, and that's just pathetic to me. In my near 20-years watching NHL hockey, I've never seen a more insecure fan base in my life in that respect.

You've been watching hockey for 20 years? I've been watching it for 17. Just because I don't parade my opinions around on a website doesn't mean I don't know just as much, if not more than you about the game. I might not, but I might.

The idea that somebody is a bandwagon fan simply because they don't talk about it online is ludicrous. Talking about hockey online is simply not an interest of mine. I like watching the game and discussing it with fellow fans, because I'm mostly just interested in my team. No reason to discuss the problems that the Toronto Maple Leafs are facing.

Same here, but that's also because in my time here you've proven to be one of the more mature users I've come across. Maturity is key for me in wanting to actually meet someone off this forum, because for the most part, IMO, it's riddled with immature teenagers and young adults who spend far too much time crafting nasty, negative responses to every thread (wrestling related or not) as a means to be "repped" for it by their buddies who laugh at the expense of their victims. It's just something I've grown a distaste for, because it's petty and indicative of a juvenile mentality IMO.

Really? I'm the immature one? I believe it was this post...

Fuck grace. They're my teams' biggest rivals. What do you want from me? To blow that fledgling franchise? Fuck them. Fuck their bandwagon fans who can't bother to show up to fill out their arena in the PLAYOFFS.

They're $10M in the hole with the NHL and $320M in the hole with Prudential Center. I hope they fucking collapse to bankruptcy. FUCK THEM.

The "I hope they fucking collapse to bankruptcy" bit was particularly offensive to me. I hate the Rangers as much as the next Devils fan, but I don't want to see them go away. In fact, I'm grateful that they exist because it gives me a handful of games each season to get particularly amped up about. This season it gave me 6 extra.

So I don't know what I did in here that was so immature. Maybe it was the bar room thread that I bumped, but I can assure you it was very tongue in cheek... not to mention it's the bar room.

And I'll admit that I was being a poor sport about winning, but it's mostly due to the fact that the Rangers fans have been total dicks to the Devils fans for years, especially this one, and quite frankly, it's time to make what went around come around.

But nonetheless, nothing I did or said matches the poor sportsmanship of you wishing the collapse of my team.

Furthermore, I hope you don't think I A) spent more than a few seconds "crafting" anything or B) did it for the approval of anyone. Everything in the bar room was a good natured (from my perspective) ribbing. Everything in this thread stemmed from you wishing collapse on my team. Poor form.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Uh huh, and again, all of this was posted AFTER your little trolling tirade, so again, what were you honestly expecting from me—that I come in humbled, praising your team and your players after one of the most successful seasons the Rangers have had in the last 18 years ended in them losing to their biggest rival? Are you seriously questioning the anger I was working with that the time, when you yourself have already admitted that you were intentionally looking to raise it with your entire bar room post?

I'll give you this much, though — I don't spend enough time in the Bar Room as it is, and wasn't really conscious of the fact that post was in there. Had I realized that amidst the relatively blinded rage I was in, I'd never have even replied.

And as I already noted, I base my opinions on fans here off what they do here. Seeing as you never actually took the time to post any about the NHL all year, it's natural that my initial take on your trolling was that you were a bandwagon fan. My apologies for the inappropriate title, but what do you say you actually chat about the team during the season next year, eh?

Lastly, everything in this thread may have stemmed from me wishing collapse for your team, but me wishing collapse for your team stemmed from your immature, albeit successful baiting. So we both shoulder the blame, IMO.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Horseshit, ST. I was asked into this thread to add my two pennies, which I did. and nothing I said was inaccurate in the least.

Neither was anything I said.

Do you think Yankees fans bash Orioles fans for their attendance? No sir. And why not? Because the Yankees fans can talk about baseball. Rags fans can't talk about hockey without invoking 1994. They live in the past and they live in the box office because they suck in the present.

I wouldn't say they suck, lets be honest. The #1 seed in the east with hordes of young talent doesn't mean you suck. They got beat by the team that played better, no doubt. I've never said otherwise. The Devils deserved to win because they played better hockey. Whether you want to think they were the better team or not is irrelevant, because that's not what the NHL playoffs are about. It's about who is the hottest team in April-June.

Using your logic, the Devils sucked for all but 3 years since they moved there from Colorado (where they were after they moved from Kansas City).

I have every right to be angry and to go on the offensive, because here, you have a bitter Rags fan doing whatever he can to make himself feel better about the fact that his heavily favored New York team got shit on in 6 games by their biggest rival. Had the Rags won the series it'd be "Brodeur is fat and old and the Rangers are better," but it didn't go that way, so now it's "your team has financial woes."

And had the "Rags" won (again, I never heard Rags in all my life, and no one here is resorting to namecalling, which is the only thing I said negatively towards you in any way), a wide majority of Devils fans would be saying all the shit the Rangers fans are saying. That's sports. People are pissed when their team loses, especially so in the playoffs, and even more so when they lose to their arch nemesis in the playoffs.

Look across the NHL. Not many teams sell out every game or make money hand over fist. Here's the difference. The Rangers are relevant because of the city and arena in which they play. The Devils, on the other hand, have helped revive one of America's most historical cities. I work a great deal in Newark, and the Devils new arena being there has breathed new life into that city's economy and given its people jobs. I'm quite proud of the impact that my hockey team, which occupies a small and fragmented market (many people root for the Rangers because they've been hockey fans since before 1982 and many people root for the Flyers because they live closer to Philly than Newark), has had such a profound impact on the city and state in which they play.

Except the only teams the league has to help are the Devils and Coyotes (who are in the process of being sold, meaning the League won't have to support them financially for much longer). The other owners are financially solvent, and are selling tickets.

I applaud the Devils for helping to revive Newark. It's wonderful and they deserve credit for helping revive a downtrodden city. I just wish the league wouldn't have to financially support the team. I find It sad when any league has to support it's team. The Hornets, Dodgers, Mets, Coyotes, Devils, etc. Thankfully it seems like all those scenarios except the Devils have resolved themselves.

Want another reason why IDR is making the argument of an idiot? The argument that the Devils "ruined hockey" with defense. Oh no! Not defense!

In 1995, the year the Devils won their first Stanley Cup with their much maligned "Neutral Zone Trap," the Devils scored THREE FEWER GOALS than the Rangers. They allowed 13 fewer goals.

In 2000, the year the Devils won their second Stanley Cup, they scored 251 goals. That was the highest in the NHL that season. The Rangers, by contrast, scored 218.

In 2001, the year the Devils lost in the cup finals to Ray Borque and Colorado, the Devils again had the highest scoring tally in the NHL with 295 goals. The Rags? 250.

In 2003, the Devils scored 216 goals, which was average. The Rags? 210. Another year out of the playoffs I'm afraid.

And this year? The Devils scored 228 goals. Two more than the Rags 226.

The neutral zone trap was employed briefly by the Devils, but through much of their dynastic mid-90's - mid-'00's run to 4 finals and 3 cups, they were among the highest scoring teams in the NHL.

The Devils didn't win because they ruined hockey. They won because they scored more goals than they allowed, because they didn't take stupid penalties, and because their goaltender is the greatest goaltender to ever play the damn game!

But as usual, since the answer is that the Rangers just plain suck, the Rags fans are going to change the question.

I personally never argue this. It doesn't matter how you play the game, as long as you abide by the rules of the sport. Winning is winning. Maybe the whole neutral zone trap isn't extremely entertaining from a television standpoint, but the only thing that matters is Wins and Losses.

IDR is wrong to bring shit like that up. It doesn't matter how it's done, as long as at the end of the day you win the game fair and square.

Let me help IDR and ST out a little bit here. This is a hockey based discussion, no? here's how you should actually respond:

The New Jersey Devils outplayed the Rangers in the 2012 playoffs because they are a better team. I'm bummed out that my team lost in the playoffs to the Devils, but I have to give them credit. I am still proud of how well my team played this season, and of the fact that we still have one of the 3 best goalies in the NHL right now, along with Jonathan Quick and Pekka Rinne, but in the end it just wasn't enough. I'm looking forward to next year and will be cheering for the Kings in the cup finals, since as the Devils #1 rival, we cannot root for NJ in good conscience. That said, they are an exceptionally well run team with the best goaltender in the last 30 years and the best executive in sports in Lou Lamoriello.

Had you just said that, JGlass and I would have green repped you and we'd all have saved time. Instead, you decided to try and misdirect a hockey conversation into a non-hockey conversation, and instead revealed that you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical Rags fans.

That's kinda exactly what I said, except I added the fact that the franchise is in dire straits financially, which sucks. I never said they didn't deserve all the credit for winning, and for their success. I said that the ONLY knock on them as a franchise is their financial situation, which is only knocking the owners, not the GM, players, coaching staff, or anyone else. Everything else you mentioned is true, and I've agreed with before. But no fan on earth would say shit like that. Not Ranger fans, Yankee fans, Devils fans, Red Wings fans, Penguin fans, Steeler fans, Kings fans, Lakers fans, Celtics fans, Bruins fans, etc. ESPECIALLY immediatly after losing to your arch nemesis in the playoffs. It's called emotions. They kinda run ridiculously high during such a situation.


I hope to God that they don't end up being sold to some asshole who will move them (not that they will, but an ownership change is not unlikely since they are not financially stable and owners tend to do shit like that). Just like I hope to God the Islanders don't get sold to some asshole who will move them (the Islanders moving is about 90% certain to happen sadly, but that's a different story). I want the Rangers to beat all these teams, not have the other teams leave.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I'll give you this much, though — I don't spend enough time in the Bar Room as it is, and wasn't really conscious of the fact that post was in there. Had I realized that amidst the relatively blinded rage I was in, I'd never have even replied.

Hahaha, anyone who spends 1 minute in the Bar Room spends enough time in the Bar Room.

 

[JGlass]

Uh huh, and again, all of this was posted AFTER your little trolling tirade, so again, what were you honestly expecting from me—that I come in humbled, praising your team and your players after one of the most successful seasons the Rangers have had in the last 18 years ended in them losing to their biggest rival? Are you seriously questioning the anger I was working with that the time, when you yourself have already admitted that you were intentionally looking to raise it with your entire bar room post?

I'll give you this much, though — I don't spend enough time in the Bar Room as it is, and wasn't really conscious of the fact that post was in there. Had I realized that amidst the relatively blinded rage I was in, I'd never have even replied.

And as I already noted, I base my opinions on fans here off what they do here. Seeing as you never actually took the time to post any about the NHL all year, it's natural that my initial take on your trolling was that you were a bandwagon fan. My apologies for the inappropriate title, but what do you say you actually chat about the team during the season next year, eh?

Lastly, everything in this thread may have stemmed from me wishing collapse for your team, but me wishing collapse for your team stemmed from your immature, albeit successful baiting. So we both shoulder the blame, IMO.

I can accept all of this. I was baiting you, though I'd argue that was just poor sportsmanship more than immaturity. We both did our fair share of inappropriate things, so yeah, I'll apologize for trolling you in your time of crisis.

As for discussing hockey next season... maybe. As I said, talking about hockey on the internet isn't really an interest of mine. Talking about wrestling online is turning into a fleeting interest of mine. But if I feel the urge to talk about hockey, I'll pop into the sports stadium.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Hahaha, anyone who spends 1 minute in the Bar Room spends enough time in the Bar Room.

Touché!

I can accept all of this. I was baiting you, though I'd argue that was just poor sportsmanship more than immaturity. We both did our fair share of inappropriate things, so yeah, I'll apologize for trolling you in your time of crisis.

As for discussing hockey next season... maybe. As I said, talking about hockey on the internet isn't really an interest of mine. Talking about wrestling online is turning into a fleeting interest of mine. But if I feel the urge to talk about hockey, I'll pop into the sports stadium.

Deal. So we bury the hatchet, yeah?

 

[JGlass]

Sure, but first I want to hear you admit that the Devils are the best team in the history of sports.

Just kidding of course. The hatchet is buried.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

LMAO. For about three tenths of a second there I was like "Oh... here we go again!"

 

[Lowdown]

Well now that that's settled (for now), J Glass, how you think the series is gonna go down? Haven't really read much from a Devils fan.

 

[JGlass]

Well now that that's settled (for now), J Glass, how you think the series is gonna go down? Haven't really read much from a Devils fan.

I actually did make a non-spam post about it, but I'll post an abridged version here.

I think that the Kings Stanley Cup dreams fall on Jonathan Quick's shoulders. If he can continue to be the stud he's been through the playoffs, the Kings will be in good shape. But if the pressure gets to him, which it very well could, the Kings can't rely on Marty being cold. I'm fairly sure Marty has the most Stanley Cup experience of anyone in the league, and this may be his last chance, so you know he's going to leave it all on the ice.

I haven't seen enough of the Kings to really compare their style of play to the Devils. What I will say is that they match up well, and Mike Richards is a guy that the Devils hate to see. Then again, he's a guy we've seen pretty often, so you'd have to assume they'll figure him out sooner or later, right?

I picked Devils in 5, but I'm not sure about that anymore. My fandom creates a heavy bias, so I'm definitely picking the Devils to win, but I could see it going to 5 games, I could see it going to 7. I do, however, think the Devils will be the hardest team for the Kings to beat yet. They haven't really struggled in the playoffs yet, and the Devils have. They had to go to 7 against the Panthers, and not one of the Rangers games came easy.

The Kings have three real tests in my opinion.
1) Can Quick keep up his style of play?
2) Can they come back as hot as they were before this week and a half of off time?
3) Can they persevere in a must-win situation?

The Devils tests, on the other hand...
1) Can they keep the forecheck up against a younger, faster team?
2) Can they hold onto leads?
3) Can they silence the Kings top scorers like they did to the Rangers and the Flyers?

So... yeah, those are my thoughts on the series. I'm nervous. Not as nervous as I was against the Rangers, but still nervous.

 

[Lowdown]

Likewise. I haven't followed the Devils during the season or playoffs. I like the Kings chances, but this won't be a cakewalk. I'll take the Kings in 7.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Likewise. I haven't followed the Devils during the season or playoffs. I like the Kings chances, but this won't be a cakewalk. I'll take the Kings in 7.

I disagree. It will be a cakewalk. Kings in 5. Quick and painless.

 

[justinsayne]

I disagree. It will be a cakewalk. Kings in 5. Quick and painless.

Pun intended?