Was the 1994 Ranger team a fluke?

Question

The Rangers didn't make the playoffs at all in 1993. They finally solved their goaltending problem by trading Vanbiesbrouck, they acquired Esa Tikkanen from Edmonton, and dumped Tie Domi.

Even in 1993-94, they didn't become the dominant NHL team in the regular season until around March when they acquired Craig MacTavish, Glenn Anderson, Brian Noonan, and Stephane Matteau.

So they win the Cup, and the following season in 1994-95, the Rangers are a sub .500 team that just squeezed into the playoffs. While they upset the #1 seed Nordiques, they dropped significantly from the prior season.

Was that 1994 Ranger team a fluke, or were they simply a team built with the "win now, **** the future" mentality?

Answer 1

Are you a still angered Canucks fan?

To answer your question, no fluke, but talent!

Answer 2

Though I am not a Rangers fan. I do not feel that the 1994 team was a fluke at all. They put all the pieces together and then All of them clicked . That is why they worked . You can have all the good players you want, but if they do not work together then you are not winning. They had very good leadership there as well. No fluke at all.

Answer 3

I referred to that team as Edmonton East then, and still do to this day.

Answer 4

Yes In Every Sense of the word.

Answer 5

You forget that the Rangers won the president's trophy in 1992, as well as in 1994.  1993 seems to be the fluke, with 1995 being a drop-off after the cup winning team.

I've been camping all weekend and can barely think right now, so I won't say anything more... but that's important to note.  No, the 1994 team was not a fluke.

Answer 6

If the stars aligning for one brief (all be it 10 months long) period is  a fluke then yes it was a fluke. During that year everything went right for the Blues. Sather couldn't make an error if he tried. Messier was like a Messiah. Bad decisions were right. Lightning in a bottle doesn't happen twice.

The playoff format that year was different as well. If Toronto had played Vancouver in the first round when they were fresh they probably would have won and met New York in the final.

And the whole story could have been different.

Answer 7

I too am a Rangers fan too young to remember the Stanley Cup (Born April of '94) and I think you should refer to your name, buddy. *Expect the unexpected*

Answer 8

no

Answer 9

definitely not a fluke...

   Didn't the Rangers win the presidents trophy for best record in the league that year? That's no fluke. The only flukey thing that year was Matteau's goal in game 7 against the Devils because Tikkanen was in the crease, and yes, I am a Ranger fan.

    But I havta say the worst trade that year was trading Mike Gartner for Glenn Anderson...Gartner deserved to win the cup with that team..

Answer 10

A Fluke? No, they were very talented and driven by Messier. Maybe a one shot wonder, but they were fairly dominant throughout the playoffs. They were arguably the best "dump and chase" style hockey team ever. They had it down to a science.

Answer 11

They got the Cup didnt they?

If you got the Cup,who cares if it was a fluke.The mission was accomplished.They won it all.

Answer 12

It's pretty hard to fluke a "Stanley Cup", unless you happen to be Brett Hull and score a goal that shouldn't count, but the referees would rather count it a goal, than to work "Over Time"!

Answer 13

No. You had to know the Oilers had one more in them.