clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Your Decision 2016: The Rangers Suck

New, comments

I polled the people through the site’s account on Twitter. A sample of the site’s readers have spoken: The Rangers suck.

New York Rangers v New Jersey Devils
Legendary Rangers goaltender getting bodied whilst giving up a goal to Sergey Kalinin of all players.
Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

Earlier today, I posted up a poll through this very site’s official account, @AAtJerseyBlog. It was asking the most important question of the day: Who sucks. While not everyone has Twitter and not anyone really debated it, the voice of a relative few (about 333 or so as of this writing) have spoken. Thanks to sampling theory, that’s enough to represent the many that read and follow this site. So unless there’s a massive push overnight to change the 83%-17% lead I saw at 12:15 AM on Wednesday, it’s pretty clear what the answer is:

I am calling the winner of this poll early. I am here to write that you - the people, the Royal You – have decided that the Rangers suck.

And of course you did. Consider the opposition. It’s Philadelphia. I refer to them as the Second Rate Rivals for a reason. They’re always running up. Whether it’s in comparing Devils rivalries; winning anything of value in hockey, football, basketball, or soccer; perception of major metropolitan areas in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York; or even hosting the best professional hockey team in their own state. They’re second or worse. When was the last time Philly was the home of anything that could be described as first? Mummers? Hardcore wrestling back in the day? Making up the word “jawn?” What’s all that worth? Not a whole lot. So, congratulations to the Flyers for finishing second in something else again for the city of Philadelphia.

Even if it was a different opponent, I would have expected the Rangers to win this poll in a landslide. After all, they’re the New York Rangers. Sucking is inherent in their franchise. It’s 90 years old and the only luster they have is lackluster. The organization won three championships in a six-team league over 41 years. Some history. They spent decades being one of the cheapest franchises, being the least interesting Original Six team for said decades, idly watching some upstarts on Long Island put up a bona fide dynasty in their faces, and then deciding to buy their way into relevance by having Glen Sather sign as many Edmonton Oilers from the 1990 season in the early 1990s. They paved the way for big spending which yielded them exactly one (1) Stanley Cup and helped set the stage for a half-season lockout (and future lockouts?) after winning said Cup. What after then? Spending even more to fail to succeed (the Bobby Holik and Scott Gomez contracts were amazingly terrible), watching idly as a superior franchise in New Jersey went on to greater success with three (3) Stanley Cup wins, and still acting like they’re a big deal because they’re in Manhattan and they had that one (1) Cup win in 1994, 22 years and three CBA-driven lockouts ago. Wait. It’s almost 23 years, better get ready for that anniversary show. Only a Rangers fan would find the constant, propaganda-like claims of how great that year was and how this year could be the next 1994 to be anything but sad, desperate hype. Even Jets fans stopped going on about Super Bowl III eventually.

The biggest symbol of the Rangers is clearly their arena. What with their over-expensive, over-priced, over-played, over-rated arena. They call it Rangerstown. Seriously. A team flowing with cash and that’s what marketing comes up with: something that isn’t even a word. Sure they can claim it, it’s not like many know or care that they weren’t even the first team in Madison Square Garden or the first NHL team in NYC. What is in Rangerstown now? There are two classes as far as I can tell. Two Rangerstowns, if you will. The high brow people who think it’s sophisticated to drop hundreds or even thousands to be within 50 feet of the ice rink and maybe occasionally show up for the game. If only I had that kind of money to blow on something that falls apart with the exception of 4 out of 90 years. The other half? The low brow fans who just keep yelling about Denis Potvin as if they ever seen anyone as good as him (and don’t bring up Brian Leetch), who claim and believe that the 1993-94 season is somehow relevant in 2016, pay a pretty penny for a seat where they may or may not need binoculars to see the game, and has a big mouth about their team, which would be fine if there was anything worth saying about them.

Sure, the Rangers have won more games and made the postseason more than the Devils in the last six years. They’ve won just as many Cups and lost as many Finals as the Devils did. It isn’t something to brag too loudly about. But, again, when the fans support a squad that claims to be important just because they were around for a while, I guess they have to hold onto anything that doesn’t look like the ‘L’ they usually end up holding at the end of their seasons. Coincidentally, they’re holding one now. They lost at home to a Vancouver team that played the night before and previously lost nine in a row. I could not make that up even if I tried.

It is to that end and much more – feel free to have your say in the comments – that the people have spoken (unless, again, there’s a massive change between now and 8:30 AM tomorrow) in yesterday’s most crucial of polls (that was posted on this site’s Twitter account). The Rangers suck. Like the WWE: Then, Now, Forever.

Or at least until the next poll in four years where this crucial question may come up again.