In recent years winning a Stanley Cup has been a ticket to mediocrity. Here are the results:
2004
Tampa Bay wins Stanley Cup.
2005
Lockout
2006
Tampa Bay (8th seed) lost to Ottawa 4-1.
Carolina wins Stanley Cup.
2007
Tampa Bay (7th seed) lost to New Jersey 4-2.
Carolina (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim wins Stanley Cup.
2008
Tampa Bay (15th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (9th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (4th seed) lost to Dallas 4-2.
Detroit wins Stanley Cup.
2009
Tampa Bay (14th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (6th seed) beat New Jersey 4-3, beat Boston 4-3, lost to Pittsburgh 4-0.
Anaheim (8th seed) beat San Jose 4-2, lost to Detroit 4-3.
Detroit (2nd seed) beat Columbus 4-0, beat Anaheim 4-3, beat Chicago 4-1, lost to Pittsburgh 4-3.
Pittsburgh wins Stanley Cup.
2010
Tampa Bay (12th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Detroit (5th seed) beat Phoenix 4-2, lost to San Jose 4-1.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) beat Ottawa 4-2, lost to Montreal 4-3.
Chicago wins Stanley Cup.
2011
Tampa Bay (5th seed) beat Pittsburgh 4-3, beat Washington 4-0, lost to Boston 4-3.
Carolina (9th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (4th seed) lost to Nashville 4-3.
Detroit (3rd seed) beat Phoenix 4-0, lost to San Jose 4-3.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) lost to Tampa Bay 4-3.
Chicago (8th seed) lost to Vancouver 4-3.
Boston wins Stanley Cup.
2012
Tampa Bay (10th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (12th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (13th seed) misses playoffs.
Detroit (5th seed) lost to Nashville 4-1.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) lost to Philadelphia 4-2.
Chicago (6th seed) lost to Phoenix 4-2.
Boston (2nd seed) lost to Washington 4-3.
Los Angeles wins Stanley Cup.
- 2009 was the only season where the recent cup winners compiled a winning record.
- After winning a cup, the cup-winners have won 11 series and lost 17 and have missed the playoffs 11 times.
- Pittsburgh and Detroit are the only teams to win even one series the year after winning the cup.
- Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Anaheim are the only teams to win even one series within two years of winning the cup.
- Detroit and Boston are the only teams to be a top-3 seed after winning the cup.
I think the OP is right. There's just not enough dynasties in hockey any more. Well, guess we might just have to muddle through that Columbus BlueJackets Dynasty that is sure to be coming, how exciting
In recent years winning a Stanley Cup has been a ticket to mediocrity. Here are the results:
2004
Tampa Bay wins Stanley Cup.
2005
Lockout
2006
Tampa Bay (8th seed) lost to Ottawa 4-1.
Carolina wins Stanley Cup.
2007
Tampa Bay (7th seed) lost to New Jersey 4-2.
Carolina (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim wins Stanley Cup.
2008
Tampa Bay (15th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (9th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (4th seed) lost to Dallas 4-2.
Detroit wins Stanley Cup.
2009
Tampa Bay (14th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (6th seed) beat New Jersey 4-3, beat Boston 4-3, lost to Pittsburgh 4-0.
Anaheim (8th seed) beat San Jose 4-2, lost to Detroit 4-3.
Detroit (2nd seed) beat Columbus 4-0, beat Anaheim 4-3, beat Chicago 4-1, lost to Pittsburgh 4-3.
Pittsburgh wins Stanley Cup.
2010
Tampa Bay (12th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (11th seed) misses playoffs.
Detroit (5th seed) beat Phoenix 4-2, lost to San Jose 4-1.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) beat Ottawa 4-2, lost to Montreal 4-3.
Chicago wins Stanley Cup.
2011
Tampa Bay (5th seed) beat Pittsburgh 4-3, beat Washington 4-0, lost to Boston 4-3.
Carolina (9th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (4th seed) lost to Nashville 4-3.
Detroit (3rd seed) beat Phoenix 4-0, lost to San Jose 4-3.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) lost to Tampa Bay 4-3.
Chicago (8th seed) lost to Vancouver 4-3.
Boston wins Stanley Cup.
2012
Tampa Bay (10th seed) misses playoffs.
Carolina (12th seed) misses playoffs.
Anaheim (13th seed) misses playoffs.
Detroit (5th seed) lost to Nashville 4-1.
Pittsburgh (4th seed) lost to Philadelphia 4-2.
Chicago (6th seed) lost to Phoenix 4-2.
Boston (2nd seed) lost to Washington 4-3.
Los Angeles wins Stanley Cup.
- 2009 was the only season where the recent cup winners compiled a winning record.
- After winning a cup, the cup-winners have won 11 series and lost 17 and have missed the playoffs 11 times.
- Pittsburgh and Detroit are the only teams to win even one series the year after winning the cup.
- Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Anaheim are the only teams to win even one series within two years of winning the cup.
- Detroit and Boston are the only teams to be a top-3 seed after winning the cup.
Hawks are sorta a special case
Half the team had to be traded or not retained due to cap
I think the OP is right. There's just not enough dynasties in hockey any more. Well, guess we might just have to muddle through that Columbus BlueJackets Dynasty that is sure to be coming, how exciting
Actually, I was not making that point. I just found it odd how cup winners of the recent past were all so mediocre in following years.
I would like to see teams build gradually, be near the top for a while, then decline gracefully. There are not a lot of marquee match-ups. Other than Jet games, I cannot see myself planning my week around a special match-up I want to see one night.
Actually, I was not making that point. I just found it odd how cup winners of the recent past were all so mediocre in following years.
I would like to see teams build gradually, be near the top for a while, then decline gracefully. There are not a lot of marquee match-ups. Other than Jet games, I cannot see myself planning my week around a special match-up I want to see one night.
Ah, well, I guess you just made my post moot. Thanks for mooting all over my post there, must feel good.
The 1967 Leafs are closer to the Roaring 20's and Prohibition than we are to the 1967 Leafs.
DON"T tell THAT to leafs fans, it's the greatest team that ever was!
What I don't get is how fans of the leafs who are younger then myself think they're great. They've been garbage for the majority of my lifespan.
Anyways I think it's the parity caused by the cap. Though it is suprising to see how teams such as boston and pittsburg fell off so dramatically (though it's important to note, Pittsburg was in the cup final the year prior to winning, which in my mind would put them on par/higher in competiveness then the Red wings).
Chicago imploded because of the cap in a big way. As for boston, i just don't know, it was essentially the exact same team last year and they just couldn't get anything done.
Personally i like the parity, and though it's nice to see "contenders" push for a while (ex: pitssburgh and detroit had been threats to win every year, though i wouldn't say as much for detroit now, pittsburgh could still challenge year in year out), i definitly prefer them "being in the mix" and not winning, then just winning every years.
All that does is cause a huge swell of half-fans to the team (detroit and pittsburgh most recently) and make every other fan hate the team even more.
DON"T tell THAT to leafs fans, it's the greatest team that ever was!
What I don't get is how fans of the leafs who are younger then myself think they're great. They've been garbage for the majority of my lifespan.
Anyways I think it's the parity caused by the cap. Though it is suprising to see how teams such as boston and pittsburg fell off so dramatically (though it's important to note, Pittsburg was in the cup final the year prior to winning, which in my mind would put them on par/higher in competiveness then the Red wings).
Chicago imploded because of the cap in a big way. As for boston, i just don't know, it was essentially the exact same team last year and they just couldn't get anything done.
Personally i like the parity, and though it's nice to see "contenders" push for a while (ex: pitssburgh and detroit had been threats to win every year, though i wouldn't say as much for detroit now, pittsburgh could still challenge year in year out), i definitly prefer them "being in the mix" and not winning, then just winning every years.
All that does is cause a huge swell of half-fans to the team (detroit and pittsburgh most recently) and make every other fan hate the team even more.
Personally preferred the old way where there was generational parity vs yearly parity. There were greay Islanders teams then ehy dropped off to be replaced by great Oilers teams that dropepd off then great Pittsburg teams that dropped off. There was still parity its just lasted longer. Now its every year a team can win it then the next season have to dismantle cause of cap reasons.
I realize that the economics of the game from the 90's on changed dramatically and this generational parity probably eclipsed the reach of smaller market teams so something had to be done. But personally I'd rather had dynasty teams and really bad teams every year that change slowly morph vs any year any team can win it and all the teams are so close to each other.
Half the team had to be traded or not retained due to cap
Agree with this.
Also I don't think i's fair to put Tampa or LA on the list. Tampa because they didn't have a chacne to repeat the next season, and LA because we have yet to see what they do.
Carolina is fair, Anaheim had a deadly roster till Neidermeyer hung them up. Chicago still has a cup favorite team dispite loosing a lot of players to the cap, Detroit is finally loosinig ground after literally decades of being a top team, Pittsbugh has injuries to top players that other teams could not even compete ot try and over come, and boston still has a great line up.
Personally preferred the old way where there was generational parity vs yearly parity. There were greay Islanders teams then ehy dropped off to be replaced by great Oilers teams that dropepd off then great Pittsburg teams that dropped off. There was still parity its just lasted longer. Now its every year a team can win it then the next season have to dismantle cause of cap reasons.
I realize that the economics of the game from the 90's on changed dramatically and this generational parity probably eclipsed the reach of smaller market teams so something had to be done. But personally I'd rather had dynasty teams and really bad teams every year that change slowly morph vs any year any team can win it and all the teams are so close to each other.
I'm probably in the minority there though.
Remember there were alot more relocations though as well. And not just from canada.
Personally preferred the old way where there was generational parity vs yearly parity. There were greay Islanders teams then ehy dropped off to be replaced by great Oilers teams that dropepd off then great Pittsburg teams that dropped off. There was still parity its just lasted longer. Now its every year a team can win it then the next season have to dismantle cause of cap reasons.
As a Jets fan though those years sucked. We had a decent team with a great player, but we were perpetually stick behind the Oilers.
No, I like it wide open, with each of the 30 teams thinking "this could be our year"...
