weird, thought i said "are," and not "were." the last time they played a good team in a 7 game series they lost 4 games to 1.  So, last year, played a good team, got swept by them. I was really only talking about the current make up of the team. But because you didn't read it carefully let's take a look back  2011: beat the Blackhawks (they were NOT good that year) in game 7 OT, Beat the preds 4 games to 2 (preds were nothing special) and smoked the Sharks (they were OK), played a GOOD team in the bruins and were beat, although it was game 7.  2010: Beat a 6 seed Kings taht were not very good, lost to a GOOD team in the chicago blackhawks 2009: beat a crappy st louis, then got smoked by chicago who got destroyed by detroit, so it's not like chicago was an elite team.  Need any more?
Posted by juniorfalcon19

Rangers are better at the top with Nash.  It remains to be seen what they've really lost by dealing Dubinsky and Anisimov.
Posted by Bookboy007

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : does this statement represent insecurity over who won that deal? If you were the Jackets, and Rick Nash demanded a trade that brought back Dubinsky and Anisimov... would you maintain a "it remains to be seen" attitude about the deal? isn't the fact that you even have questions about the deal evidence that it wasn't a good one? Shouldn't a talent like Rick Nash bring back something more significant then a risky two-players that need to prove everyone wrong just to make it fair? The best  case scenario for the Jackets is somehow Dubinksy and Anisimov have career years (which is a stretch considering how brutal the rest of their team is). Even if they do, the best this deal can be is even.
Posted by Olsonic

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : does this statement represent insecurity over who won that deal? If you were the Jackets, and Rick Nash demanded a trade that brought back Dubinsky and Anisimov... would you maintain a "it remains to be seen" attitude about the deal? isn't the fact that you even have questions about the deal evidence that it wasn't a good one? Shouldn't a talent like Rick Nash bring back something more significant then a risky two-players that need to prove everyone wrong just to make it fair? The best  case scenario for the Jackets is somehow Dubinksy and Anisimov have career years (which is a stretch considering how brutal the rest of their team is). Even if they do, the best this deal can be is even.
Posted by Olsonic

B's around 4th or 5th? They play in one of the weakest divisions in the NHL. If they don't win the division I'd be shocked. Top 3 without a doubt.
Posted by Bisson1

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : I wouldn't call the Northeast one of the weakest divisions.  They're more middle of the pack along with the Pacific.  The Northwest and Southeast are weaker.  The Atlantic and Central are stronger.  I agree though, I'd be shocked if they didn't win it.
Posted by goodnewsbears

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : does this statement represent insecurity over who won that deal? If you were the Jackets, and Rick Nash demanded a trade that brought back Dubinsky and Anisimov... would you maintain a "it remains to be seen" attitude about the deal? isn't the fact that you even have questions about the deal evidence that it wasn't a good one? Shouldn't a talent like Rick Nash bring back something more significant then a risky two-players that need to prove everyone wrong just to make it fair? The best  case scenario for the Jackets is somehow Dubinksy and Anisimov have career years (which is a stretch considering how brutal the rest of their team is). Even if they do, the best this deal can be is even.
Posted by Olsonic

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : Good reply Detroit breaks the mold everytime and I won't argue that.  But they have a group that year in and year out finds a way to get it done.  They have great leadership combined with skill.  Why did the Bruins lose to the Capitals.  Health.  I know its an excuse that I don't like playing but teams that stay healthy win cups.  Bergie scores everytime in game 7.  Horton...McQ and TT wasnt brilliant. Heck the Bruins werent even mean...and lacked the hunger and drive to win.  Shouldnt have happened. But if the last 3 cup teams played a certain way...and lots of teams following that mold I would think it means something.  I can tell you one thing though...teams found the blueprint on how to beat Vancouver.  And to say they are as playoff ready as a team that won I think is a stretch.  Vancouver hasnt had success...they reached the cup finals and have lost 4 years running when favored to win the cup.  I sound like I am repeating what many others have said.  I think Vans window has come and gone.  Teams take runs at their best players bc they can...There are very few guys on Van that I would wanna jump into a trench with and battle it out.  The 2010 version of Van was a much better team.  The Bruins team in every aspect is a better team then Van.  I realize you must play the games but as a Van fan you cant be happy with what they have done to get this team ready to play next year.  I dislike Van more then any team and I realize that blinds me.  But there is just so much drama with that team that makes them easy to dislike. 
Posted by shuperman

When it comes to cup winners, toughness and depth have been essential in recent years. I wouldn't necessarily include size. There is an odd stat that dates back decades where the Stanley cup champ was often in the bottom 5 in the league in average player height, many times even the very shortest. Even the Bruins, with guys like Chara, Boychuck, McQuaid and Lucic, have 6 or 7 smallish forwards and 2 or 3 undersized defense. But they are tough and physical. The reason the Bruins lost to the Caps was definitely health. That and a Caps team which played to tie. It resulted in a series that came down less to skill but a lucky bounce. They did the same thing to the Rangers. 14 games played for the Caps, and a completely random .500 record. In Response to Re: Beasts of the East :
Posted by OatesCam

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : I respectfully disagree. Many posters expected Nash to fetch a king's ransom on the market. Some other posters suggested that due to his numbers and contract he wouldn't be worth so much. Maybe Nash wasn't worth as much as you think considering that was the best offer Howson received for a player that didn't want to be there. What's left to be seen is whether the Rangers are improved after the 3 for 1 deal. I think Columbus will be hard pressed to be worse than last year. The same can't be said of the Rangers.
Posted by dezaruchi

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : I think the key word in Olsonic's post is "should".  If you look purely at "talent," and what is equivalent in terms of talent (which is impossible to quantify for the sake of comparison - we have only ugly results, meaning stats), then most people would look at this deal and say Howson should have received more talent back.  It just doesn't work like that, though. It works more like: Who would like Rick Nash?   (every team in the league).  Who is willing to give up a package of players who are not as good as Nash individually, but who might add up to  more talent ?  (a few teams who need a centrepiece player). Are those teams on Nash's list?   (No - the teams on the list are contenders). Are there teams on Nash's list who would pay equivalent talent? (No - that would be a lateral move that might disrupt the chemistry and composition) What are the teams on the list willing to pay? (Not much.  Atlanta received Oduya, a supposed up and comer who flamed out in Bergfors, a prospect who has 9 NHL games at this point, and a first round pick for a more dangerous scorer in Kovalchuk - start there). Really?  That's all? Yep. Anything else? Yeah, you'll be asking them to take on a huge long term financial commitment - one of the biggest in the league - for a player who has never come close to a 50 goal season, talent or no talent.  So even if a team is on the list and willing to give up a decent return, they may not want the contract. What's left? The Rangers.
Posted by Bookboy007

heyoo i'm still waiting on your recap of how the canucks have beat lots of elite teams in the playoffs
Posted by juniorfalcon19

In Response to Re: Beasts of the East : Unfortunately, you don't get to choose your opponents in the playoffs.  And as we all know, seedings, while determining home ice, don't necessarily have value as a predictive tool. Some teams enter the playoffs on a hot streak.  Some teams come in with injury problems.  There are always upsets in the first round.  There's no real way to predict.  The Canucks have won some series, and they've lost some series.  That's just the way it goes.  Did they beat "lousy" teams? Did they beat "elite" teams?  How do you define those?  There are so many variables at work in the playoffs, that to label one team as 'elite' and another as 'lousy' is overly simplistic.  Did the Bruins beat 'elite' teams on their way to their Cup victory?  Did they lose to an 'elite' or 'lousy' team in 2012?  When the playoffs come, it's pretty tough to stick labels on teams, because anything can happen.
Posted by 49-North

Teams do not stay static -- at the beginning of the season, the LA Kings were not a good team.  They made a coaching change, added some players, stayed healthy, and became a very good as they entered the playoffs. If you think the Canucks are a bad team, then go right ahead.  You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not out to change your mind.
Posted by 49-North

Teams do not stay static -- at the beginning of the season, the LA Kings were not a good team.  They made a coaching change, added some players, stayed healthy, and became a very good as they entered the playoffs. If you think the Canucks are a bad team, then go right ahead.  You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not out to change your mind.
Posted by 49-North