HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Who Would Have Won in 2004-05 Season?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2011, 03:54 PM
  #26
LongWayDown37
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 359
vCash: 500
If they have Hasek, like the next year, I definitely think its Ottawa's in 2005. Big reason being that in 2006, Hasek got injured going into the playoffs - which i think was, in part, due to overexertion from his participation in the Olympics. In 2005 Hasek would have been a year younger and no Olympics to wear him down.

LongWayDown37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:01 PM
  #27
Zauper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
I don't think Ovechkin would have won the Calder.

The extra year in the RSL really helped Ovechkin and his maturing and development.

In the RSL he only had 27 Pts in 37 games that year and the time off to train and prepare helped him make the jump to the NHL more quickly.

I think if there was a 2004-05 season Malkin would have been in the NHL and he would have won the Calder.

As for Jagr (and I'm the biggest Jagr fan) I don't think he would have won the Art Ross if there was a 2004-05 season.

The 2004-05 season was the grace Jagr needed, going to play for Kladno and then Omsk that year really helped him find his passion for hockey again and gave him the opportunity to refocus himself.

If not for the lockout, Jagr would have never regained his form.
There are a few problems with this post --
1) No real reason to think that Malkin would have come over sooner.
2) No reason to think that Malkin would have had a better rookie year - the only reason to think Ovechkin wouldn't win the Calder is if you think you'd be injured. I'd take 27 points in 37 games over 32 points in 57 games (Malkin's performance the same year).
3) For that matter, Ovechkin's rookie year was better than Malkin's and Malkin had the benefit of playing on the same team as Crosby, which meant he was dealing with second pairings while Ovechkin had to deal with first pairings. Had Malkin come over that year, he'd be on the top line, and thus dealing with better D.

All that said.. the obvious choice is Ottawa. They were such a good team, and picking up Hasek really gave them the last piece to their puzzle.

Zauper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2011, 01:18 PM
  #28
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper View Post
There are a few problems with this post --
1) No real reason to think that Malkin would have come over sooner.
2) No reason to think that Malkin would have had a better rookie year - the only reason to think Ovechkin wouldn't win the Calder is if you think you'd be injured. I'd take 27 points in 37 games over 32 points in 57 games (Malkin's performance the same year).
3) For that matter, Ovechkin's rookie year was better than Malkin's and Malkin had the benefit of playing on the same team as Crosby, which meant he was dealing with second pairings while Ovechkin had to deal with first pairings. Had Malkin come over that year, he'd be on the top line, and thus dealing with better D.

All that said.. the obvious choice is Ottawa. They were such a good team, and picking up Hasek really gave them the last piece to their puzzle.
Malkin has always liked being the go to guy and it's no secret that when he's healthy and Crosby is injured for any prolonged periods of time, Malkin steps up his game.

Had Malkin come to the NHL in 2004-05, he would be on the first line and he would have been a beast.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2011, 08:39 PM
  #29
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper View Post
All that said.. the obvious choice is Ottawa. They were such a good team, and picking up Hasek really gave them the last piece to their puzzle.
The obvious answer is that Ottawa choked every year they had the best team and there was no reason they wouldn't have choked that year.

My team won 100% of the games they didn't play.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2011, 09:01 PM
  #30
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
The obvious answer is that Ottawa choked every year they had the best team and there was no reason they wouldn't have choked that year.

My team won 100% of the games they didn't play.
The obvious answer is that it's a hypothetical question and there's no way of knowing. No fanbase is hanging up banners based on a season that didn't happen. Do you want to play along and pick a team for the hypothetical question, or shoot down every suggestion?

If you're going to take your best guess and pick a team, Ottawa's as good a choice as any. They were a few years past their chokes against Toronto c. 2000. During the two years before the lockout and the two years after (2002-03 to 2006-07) Ottawa won six playoff series. Only Anaheim won more playoff series in that stretch. Ottawa was should have been hitting their peak in 2005, with Chara and Havlat still on the team, Spezza developing into a #1 centre, and Hasek in net.

It's interesting that few people have mentioned Detroit. They had the most regular season points in the four years surrounding the lockout (456, Ottawa was 2nd with 433). But they only won three playoff series in those years. It seems like people are assuming they would have choked in 2005 too.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2011, 09:27 PM
  #32
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,525
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
04/05 would be the year Cloutier got his game to the playoffs.

Vancouver makes the Final that year.
Not a chance to both.

Reverend Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2011, 09:49 PM
  #33
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
The obvious answer is that Ottawa choked every year they had the best team and there was no reason they wouldn't have choked that year.

My team won 100% of the games they didn't play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
I have no idea about the individual awards but I like Det for the cup....Ottawa were indeed "chokers" and didnt show me the creativity and explosivness necessary to win it...If Boston can win it this year, Ott could have won it that year but I doubt it.. Tampa would have had a strong team but lacked depth........
Over 12 postseason appearances, Ottawa played in 20 series'
- in 4 they lost despite having home ice advantage and/or being the better regular season team.
- in 4 they defeated a higher seeded team.
- in 12, the series went as expected.
+/- zero

In the last 4 postseasons, the Capitals have played 6 playoff series' and had home ice advantage in every single one of them.
They lost 4 of them.
+/- Minus Four

Or is it just your opinion that every single team that has never won is a choker?

trentmccleary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2011, 10:14 PM
  #35
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,127
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
It's really, really hard to say. We haven't had a repeat Champ since Detroit and I think that it would've been especially hard for Tampa who played 2 long, hard series' against Philly and Calgary in the playoffs and the team didn't hold up like it should post-lockout. I forget when Khabi actually was up for FA, so if it was '04 and he still goes then that's a huge, huge loss. It's hard to tell how any of the players individually do: St. Louis is sandwiched in between an MVP winning career year in 03-04 and a miserable 05-06, Khabibulin also had a great 03-04 and a ridiculously bad 05-06, Lecavalier is anyone's guess, etc.

And in regards to Ottawa, every good team is seen as choke artists unless they actually win it, and they lost a big chance with the lockout. The Bruins were choke artists going into this year, people were even going after the Wings not too long ago for some embarrassing early exits and for the 2011-2012 season we'll have the Sharks, Capitals and Canucks as largely disrespected teams with a good shot at winning it all. Ottawa never did get a playoffs with Hasek in net, which is quite the difference from Lalime or Emery. Again, it's impossible to tell whether Hasek is healthy, whether the Heatley-Hossa trade happens (and, if applicable, how Heatley does) and all the other variables but stacked teams always have to be considered.

There's obviously no good answer to this topic, but the Wings, Sens, Lightning, Devils and Flames would be my choice for contenders, but it's anyone's guess as to whether the Sabres or Canes emerge early, whether the Leafs or Avs fall off then, what happens with the Sharks or the Bruins, etc. Even with some gift of hindsight I don't think we're much better off picking the winner for 2004-2005 then we are picking the winner for 2011-2012.
Sabres maybe, but even as a Canes fan, a lot of that teams emergence was due in part to picking up some cap casualties from other teams. Most notably the first and second line LWs in Stillman and Whitney. Really that was an incredibly weak position for the Canes before the lockout and it wasn't until the lockout that the Canes truly addressed the problem. Although on the plus side, Francis likely would have returned for one last stint with the Canes and O'Neill was still under contract for that season IIRC.

My bet as to what the lineup that year would have looked like:

Staal - Francis - O'Neill
Cullen - Brindy - Cole
Svoboda - Vasicek - Vrbata
C Adams - K Adams - Boulerice
extras: Brendl, Bayda, Zigomanis

Hedican - Ward
F Kaberle - Wesley
Wallin - Tverdovsky
extras: Boughner, Richmond

Weekes
Gerber

a decent lineup, and almost certainly would have finished better then they did the prior two seasons, but probably a year away from being all that good assuming they make some of the moves they made that offseason. Guys like Commodore, Staal, and Cam wouldn't have the same development chances they did due to the lockout, and that more then anything would hurt.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 02:21 AM
  #36
GrkFlyersFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 411
vCash: 500
Homer pick. Flyers. The lockout forced us to break up the '04 team, which despite being so banged up that Sami Kapanen was playing defense took a completely healthy TB team 7 games. If they stay together, that team would've been favorites.

GrkFlyersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 06:46 AM
  #37
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Not to take away from the discussion, but if Malkin comes over a year earlier are the Pens good enough that they don't end up getting the top overall pick in that draft (Crosby)? For that matter, Anaheim isn't likely getting Bobby Ryan in that draft either. There are a lot of thoughts you can cascade if you hypothetically play that lockout season, and they would change a number of things.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 08:39 AM
  #38
manifestodestiny
Registered User
 
manifestodestiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
I've recently felt that the Thrashers would never had relocated if that season would have been played. Why? It is apparent that they made a tremendous improvement between the 2003-2004 season and the 2005-2006 season only to see explode by the controversial moves by ASG, Waddell, and Hartly.

If I recall correctly, the Thrashers were sold during the lock-out, so perhaps Turner would not have been so willing to sell them if they were bringing in revenue for him. Moreover, I firmly that a solid season would have attracted a much hockey-focused team of investors, whether as part of ASG or by themselves. If that happened, we would not have relocated.

Now to the hockey-related information. I remember that there was some ill-chemistry between Hossa and Kovalchuk because Kovalchuk demanded a bigger rise and missed part of camp. When he camp back, the coach forced Hossa and Kovalchuk to work with each other in some menial drill, which Hossa did not take fondly to. That would not have happened with the lock-out.

Moreover, I do not believe that Heatley would have demanded out of Atlanta. I believe that part of his problems were exasperated by the long wait. He would have honoured Dan Snyder as he should have, and I believe that a Kovalchuk-Savard-Heatley line would have been quite potent. I also believe that it could have stayed together for many seasons.

manifestodestiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 01:50 PM
  #39
nWo
New World Order
 
nWo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In my house
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The obvious answer is that it's a hypothetical question and there's no way of knowing. No fanbase is hanging up banners based on a season that didn't happen. Do you want to play along and pick a team for the hypothetical question, or shoot down every suggestion?

If you're going to take your best guess and pick a team, Ottawa's as good a choice as any. They were a few years past their chokes against Toronto c. 2000. During the two years before the lockout and the two years after (2002-03 to 2006-07) Ottawa won six playoff series. Only Anaheim won more playoff series in that stretch. Ottawa was should have been hitting their peak in 2005, with Chara and Havlat still on the team, Spezza developing into a #1 centre, and Hasek in net.

It's interesting that few people have mentioned Detroit. They had the most regular season points in the four years surrounding the lockout (456, Ottawa was 2nd with 433). But they only won three playoff series in those years. It seems like people are assuming they would have choked in 2005 too.
Because Dave Lewis would still be their coach

nWo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 04:16 PM
  #41
ThrashersfanSVK
@Jakub_Homola
 
ThrashersfanSVK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by manifestodestiny View Post
I've recently felt that the Thrashers would never had relocated if that season would have been played. Why? It is apparent that they made a tremendous improvement between the 2003-2004 season and the 2005-2006 season only to see explode by the controversial moves by ASG, Waddell, and Hartly.

If I recall correctly, the Thrashers were sold during the lock-out, so perhaps Turner would not have been so willing to sell them if they were bringing in revenue for him. Moreover, I firmly that a solid season would have attracted a much hockey-focused team of investors, whether as part of ASG or by themselves. If that happened, we would not have relocated.

Now to the hockey-related information. I remember that there was some ill-chemistry between Hossa and Kovalchuk because Kovalchuk demanded a bigger rise and missed part of camp. When he camp back, the coach forced Hossa and Kovalchuk to work with each other in some menial drill, which Hossa did not take fondly to. That would not have happened with the lock-out.

Moreover, I do not believe that Heatley would have demanded out of Atlanta. I believe that part of his problems were exasperated by the long wait. He would have honoured Dan Snyder as he should have, and I believe that a Kovalchuk-Savard-Heatley line would have been quite potent. I also believe that it could have stayed together for many seasons.
Agreed. I've recently thought this, too. 04-05 season would have been great for Atlanta. I do not mean winning the Stanley Cup but definitely making the playoffs. Chemistry between Kovalchuk and Hossa has never worked and Heatley was better than Hossa at that moment. Savard in his prime, one-year younger Kozlov and what's the most important - NO GOALIES ISSUSES. Nurminen would have been still heathly, Lehtonen would have been his backup after two great seasons in SM-Liiga and Hartley on the bench... I think just Peter Bondra would not have been on the roster from the list of the key players from 05-06 season. And in 05-06 Atlanta had the best team in their history. I would love to see what would have happened if they didn't have those goalies troubles in that season.

About the winner of Stanley Cup: I agree with many of you and I'd pick Ottawa.

ThrashersfanSVK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 05:16 PM
  #42
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Not to take away from the discussion, but if Malkin comes over a year earlier are the Pens good enough that they don't end up getting the top overall pick in that draft (Crosby)? For that matter, Anaheim isn't likely getting Bobby Ryan in that draft either. There are a lot of thoughts you can cascade if you hypothetically play that lockout season, and they would change a number of things.
I don't think that would have changed much, because even with Crosby, Gonchar and some other vets (Palffy, Recchi, Leclair) on the '06 team, they finished with the same number of points as in '04. That's surprising, because they improved their GF/GA ratio significantly and there were extra SO points in '06. Given that, I don't see Malkin making a big difference for them in '05.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 05:25 PM
  #43
WarriorofTime
Registered User
 
WarriorofTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,623
vCash: 500
Since I'm assuming Hasek doesn't get injured I'll go with Ottawa. That would have been a sick team on paper.

WarriorofTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 08:08 PM
  #44
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 2,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
Sorry Ott fan....but either way you look at it something was missing.....Thinking more about it, I find more that they lacked "creativity and explosiveness and superior goaltending, more than they were chokers. Whether it was gaps in talen, coaching or choking something was missing......
The Senators were routinely one of the top scoring teams of that period, so I don't see how the likes of Alfredsson, Spezza, Havlat and Hossa could have their creativity and explosiveness questioned. And Hasek would have been the superior goaltending if he were healthy.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.