| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| pucker |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 10:53:50
Jaromir Jagr has had a great year, and so have the New York Rangers. They have been a playoff team all year. The Sharks on the other hand got off to an ugly start, but thanks to the addition of Joe Thornton are now in fifth place and look like they are about to make some noise in the playoffs. Look at Cheechoo's goals before and after the arrival of Thornton. He is the league's MVP. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Goose |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 16:34:11
I gotta disagree with your assessment bablaboushka. They were both equally valuable to their teams. Nylander was second in scoring on the Rangers with only 75ish. That is a huge disparity in points and the Rangers probably would not have made it without Jagr (we'll find out now considering he is out for a while) The Rangers might have had great goaltending but the Sharks had Cheechoo so it's a wash really.
I truly believe that in this scenario (between Jagr & Thornton) the guy with the most points between them will be the winner. So that means Thornton will win. If jagr finished ahead...he would have taken it. Plain and simple. It's two very average teams who both would have failed if it weren't for 1 player per side.
Go Leafs! Oh wait a sec...damn! |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 12:34:37
(Check out my second article in Fizzle's Five for Writing) about my picks for the Hart, in the way I think they should be picked. |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 18:04:43
It was a healthy contribution that some games couldn't have been won without. They aren't Buffalo, but no one on that team had more than 73 points, so in principle it can be done (having a successful season without a 120+ point guy). I think that he was a key to the Rangers' success (obviously) but he wasn't the crucial factor. I think the Rangers would have had a great season even if Jagr wasn't there, though no one can argue that he did them no harm... |
| Ripley |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 17:55:16
So are you saying that his 120+ points and +34 rating wasn't key to their success? |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 11:23:04
I really beg to differ on that point. Jagr could have been replaced by a decent player and the Rangers might have lost a few more games, but I mainly attribute their success to great coaching and Lundqvist. |
| Ripley |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 10:49:21
It's interesting though. We all think that Jagr contributed less than Thornton because his team was always in the running for the playoffs. But take away Jagr and replace him with an average to good player and the Rangers would not have made it.
He kept people interested and his team in contention ALL year! |
| goon |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 09:26:40
Good point on Thornton playing for two teams. Has there ever been a league MVP who played on two different teams? If you consider the difference between where Boston finished and where San Jose finished, he should win MVP. |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/18/2006 : 14:53:00
since ATL didn't make the playoffs we can take out Kovalchuk. Kipper was phenomenal with 10 shutouts and the best wins/goals against in the league but Jagr and Thornton signaled ther resurgence of the power forward.
Since Thornton shared his with 2 teams is that a good or a bad thing for his case? |
| slapshot |
Posted - 04/18/2006 : 09:26:21
It could go to either Thornton or Jagr - both are well deserving of the award. In my opinion, Jagr took a garbage team that none of us thought would make the playoffs, and turned it into a contender. He has had the best comeback season of anyone and should win the Hart.
|
| Goose |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 12:33:44
I could buy that argument. But Jagr's +/- is a bit higher. And there are some other serious contenders:
Jagr
Lidstrom
Kiprusoff
Kovalchuk (if ATL pulls it off) |
