HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why weren't the recent Wings or Devils teams accepted as Dynasties?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2012, 02:26 PM
  #26
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,298
vCash: 500
It stems from Ottawa silver sevens because they happened to win 3 in row (they were called adynasty before that tho). So now we have alot of these conservatives who usually gets things twisted that believes that its 3 cups in a row and nothing else, even tho the Detroit Red Wings of the 50's is called a dynasty and so were the Islanders before the third cup.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 02:37 PM
  #27
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
It stems from Ottawa silver sevens because they happened to win 3 in row (they were called adynasty before that tho). So now we have alot of these conservatives who usually gets things twisted that believes that its 3 cups in a row and nothing else, even tho the Detroit Red Wings of the 50's is called a dynasty and so were the Islanders before the third cup.
Ottawa won 11 in a row. It was over a 3 year span, but the challenge cup era was so radically different that it's hard to compare. The first dynasty by modern cup standards is Ottawa's 3 in 4 from 1920-23.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 03:30 PM
  #28
ZetterBurger
Registered User
 
ZetterBurger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 500
1995-Finals
1996-WCF
1997-Champs
1998-Champs
2002-Champs

That looks like a team that dominated their sport for a period of time. Dynasty.

ZetterBurger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 04:22 PM
  #29
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Ottawa won 11 in a row. It was over a 3 year span, but the challenge cup era was so radically different that it's hard to compare. The first dynasty by modern cup standards is Ottawa's 3 in 4 from 1920-23.
oh I thought they won 3 in a row in 20-23 but you are right the original definition is 3 in 4.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 04:40 PM
  #30
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
A dynasty should:
A) win the majority of championships over a period of time when they have won three or more championships, and
B) have at least one title "defense" or an instance of back to back wins

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 05:34 PM
  #31
jaems
Registered User
 
jaems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,333
vCash: 500
IMO, they should be considered as Dynasties. They were mostly always in contention and competitive (yes, the Devils had that one off year when they didn't make the playoffs) and winning three Cups with the same core is a pretty difficult modern feat, what with more teams and the advancement of defenses/goaltending. Both of them would've gotten four had they not been stopped by an eventual Cup winner, specifically the Colorado Avalanche.

jaems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 06:47 PM
  #32
habsfanatics*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,053
vCash: 500
I consider those DRW/NJD to be dynasty teams.

habsfanatics* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 07:38 PM
  #33
Kirikanoir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirikanoir View Post
To be labeled a dynasty a team has to have accomplished something special above the average. Winning 2 championships in a row is not that rare, has been done a number of times, however three or four in a row is certainly far more rare.

Times a team has won 2 Cups in a row. 17 Ottawa, Montreal, Montreal, Detroit, Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, Montreal, Montreal, Philadelphia, Montreal, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Detroit.

Times a team has won 3 Cups in a row. 5 Toronto 1946-47 to 1948-49 Montreal 1955-56 to 1959-60 Toronto 1961-62 to 1963-64 Montreal 1975-76 to 1978-79 NY Islanders 1979-80 to 1982-83

Times a team has won 4 Cups in a row. 3 Montreal 1955-56 to 1959-60 Montreal 1975-76 to 1978-79 NY Islanders 1979-80 to 1982-83

Times a team has won 5 Cups in a row. 1 Montreal 1955-56 to 1959-60.

Then we get into winning 3 or more in a certain number of years which gets a little more subjective. However you want to define a dynasty I think there are some benchmarks a team has to have reached

1. Must win championships, playoff teams no matter how many playoff or final appearances they have in a row need not apply if they did not win championships.

2. Whether in a row or not a team must have won at least 3 championships in a set number of years not exceeding 10 years.

The amount of years is open to each individuals interpretation. My own personal view would be 3 in 6 or 7 years.
Detroit Red Wings 1996-97 to 2001-02 Six seasons 3 Stanley Cups

I think you could make a case for this being considered a dynasty, or at least as close to a dynasty as we are likely to see anytime soon

Detroit Red Wings 1996-97 to 2007-08 Eleven seasons 4 Stanley Cups The time frame is just a little too long to consider this one a true dynasty. That said had they won in either 95 or 2009, or both then that would be a different story.

New Jersey Devils 1994-95 to 2003-04 Nine seasons 3 Stanley Cups Had they won in 2001 that would have been 3 in 4 and 4 in 9 seasons and they would have been considered a dynasty. However 3 in 9 they fall just short of the mark

Kirikanoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 07:54 PM
  #34
Kirikanoir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaems View Post
IMO, they should be considered as Dynasties. They were mostly always in contention and competitive (yes, the Devils had that one off year when they didn't make the playoffs) and winning three Cups with the same core is a pretty difficult modern feat, what with more teams and the advancement of defenses/goaltending. Both of them would've gotten four had they not been stopped by an eventual Cup winner, specifically the Colorado Avalanche.
But teams don`t get handed labels like dynasty for being a contender, nor do we count Stanley Cups a team could have or would have won.

And of course winning multiple championships is hard, it`s supposed to be, that`s what makes it special. Think about it since 1917-18 only three franchises have ever won three Cups in a row, and only 2 have won 4 in a row.

You start watering down what is considered a dynasty and eventually the word loses all meaning, then pretty much we will be calling any team that manages to win 2 in a row a dynasty

Kirikanoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 08:08 PM
  #35
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's been 30 years since the NY Islanders won their 3rd in a row - they are the last team to do so.
I shouldn't have said it IS easier, but historically it has been. It HAS happened though, you can't have a league where you say there has never been a dynasty. It's different when it has happened. Also the Oilers haven't won 3 straight but 4 of 5 and 5 of 7 IS considered a dynasty in the NHL and that's what we're talking about here. You don't need to win 3 in a row, even with the strict rules of the NHL. I can't take a "dynasty" seriously when there were 8 years separating 3 cups. In the NFL teams need to do 3 in 4.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 08:52 PM
  #36
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,978
vCash: 500
Putting exact definitions aside, the basic idea of a dynasty is a team that dominated for a few years. A team where it was significant when they were finally beaten.

How could both the Devils and Red Wings fit into this category when their supposed "dynasties" overlapped almost entirely? The idea is incoherent. Come up with a new category if you want to recognize their constant excellence. A dynasty is something different.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:36 AM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Putting exact definitions aside, the basic idea of a dynasty is a team that dominated for a few years. A team where it was significant when they were finally beaten.

How could both the Devils and Red Wings fit into this category when their supposed "dynasties" overlapped almost entirely? The idea is incoherent. Come up with a new category if you want to recognize their constant excellence. A dynasty is something different.

I have referred to the recent Devils and Red Wings as "quasi-dynasties," which I think fits. They aren't the real thing, but as close as we've gotten in a long time.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:03 PM
  #38
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have referred to the recent Devils and Red Wings as "quasi-dynasties," which I think fits. They aren't the real thing, but as close as we've gotten in a long time.
That's the best you can say for them. Which is fine. But to call them dynasties in the purest sense, is just wrong, 30 teams or not. It was never easy to win the Cup year after year. The reason being, is that only 5 teams have won three in a row. Not the Oilers, not even the 1950s Red Wings.

The Islanders won 4 in a row and there were 18 players on that team who were there for all of them. Let's think about it for a second, how many times have we seen it when a player leaves a Cup champ directly after they've won? I mean a KEY player.

How about the 2010 Hawks? They're alright with Toews, Hossa, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, etc. But they sure took a beating when their depth took off. Big Buff, Ladd, etc. If the young Hawks have a closed door meeting and say "Look, let's win a bunch here or at least HAVE the chance to win a bunch here and take hometown discounts" then things are different.

Or the 2007 Ducks? Great team. Beat some very good teams in order to win the Cup. Then just like that they vanished. Niedermayer "retired" as did Selanne. Both came back but the damage was done. Penner leaves to one of the worst teams in the NHL. The team was bounced out in the first round.

Khabibulin in 2004? Tampa had the pieces to repeat again in 2005..........or 2006 I guess. Well, except for a goalie. Keep Khabby in that net with the core of Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis with Boyle on defense and I see that team winning again. But as it was, Richards signed that crazy contract and well, someone had to leave.

Too many teams have winning become the second priority. Looks to me like the Islanders had it the "first" priority.


Now that speaks volumes of the recent teams, but the truth is with a bounce or two the right way the Devils or Red Wings are a true dynasty. Detroit especially had lots of chances for this. They are about as close to a dynasty as you can possibly get, kind of like the 1970s Flyers. But they are still remembered as a great team in my mind and a couple of those Red Wings teams are all-time greats in my book.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:33 PM
  #39
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,042
vCash: 500
We'll never see another true dynasty with the league the way it is.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:35 PM
  #40
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
We'll never see another true dynasty with the league the way it is.
I think it's possible to see 3 in 4 under the right circumstances, but it's going to be awfully tough.

I highly doubt we ever see 3 in a row or 4 in 6 again.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:41 PM
  #41
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
When the Devils and Red Wings start winning Super Bowls, we can start talking about how they meet the NFL's criteria for being a dynasty.

The bar is set higher in hockey. When your sport's dynasties have won four in a row (Isles), five in a row (Habs), and five in seven years (Oilers), the Devils' three cups in eight years and the Wings' four cups in eleven years are just not on the same level.
The bar in hockey was pre set in an 06 league and the NFL term for a dynasty is more fitting given the growth and context of the League IMO.

Maybe as time goes on and we see less and less of even repeats or 2 of 3 year winners the thinking might change but some will be very rigid and even nostalgic in their thinking I would guess.

I'm with the OP on this one, especially with the Red Wings, the devils have a case as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:46 PM
  #42
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
I'd say that one Stanley Cup is a bigger accomplishment than one Super Bowl, but I think that stringing together several Super Bowls is tougher than several Stanley Cups. That's why a couple of Super Bowls gets the same prestigious "dynasty" label that four or five Stanley Cups gets you.
I'd agree with what you say here but only historically up to a certain point, 06 specifically and it looks very much less likely in a post Cap era where even getting back to the finals looks incredibly difficult.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:02 PM
  #43
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
That's the best you can say for them. Which is fine. But to call them dynasties in the purest sense, is just wrong, 30 teams or not. It was never easy to win the Cup year after year. The reason being, is that only 5 teams have won three in a row. Not the Oilers, not even the 1950s Red Wings.

The Islanders won 4 in a row and there were 18 players on that team who were there for all of them. Let's think about it for a second, how many times have we seen it when a player leaves a Cup champ directly after they've won? I mean a KEY player.

How about the 2010 Hawks? They're alright with Toews, Hossa, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, etc. But they sure took a beating when their depth took off. Big Buff, Ladd, etc. If the young Hawks have a closed door meeting and say "Look, let's win a bunch here or at least HAVE the chance to win a bunch here and take hometown discounts" then things are different.

Or the 2007 Ducks? Great team. Beat some very good teams in order to win the Cup. Then just like that they vanished. Niedermayer "retired" as did Selanne. Both came back but the damage was done. Penner leaves to one of the worst teams in the NHL. The team was bounced out in the first round.

Khabibulin in 2004? Tampa had the pieces to repeat again in 2005..........or 2006 I guess. Well, except for a goalie. Keep Khabby in that net with the core of Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis with Boyle on defense and I see that team winning again. But as it was, Richards signed that crazy contract and well, someone had to leave.

Too many teams have winning become the second priority. Looks to me like the Islanders had it the "first" priority.


Now that speaks volumes of the recent teams, but the truth is with a bounce or two the right way the Devils or Red Wings are a true dynasty. Detroit especially had lots of chances for this. They are about as close to a dynasty as you can possibly get, kind of like the 1970s Flyers. But they are still remembered as a great team in my mind and a couple of those Red Wings teams are all-time greats in my book.
This statement, and post is a bit puzzling to me.

You are trying to compare the post cap era with the precap one where players where not allowed to leave their teams period.

As we throw the idea of a guy should take a hometown discount around for the glory of the team way too often.

Like it or not most of us would and have left jobs at more prestigious firms or businesses for more money at lesser ones and hockey is a job, why should we expect players to be different?

Also note Chicago had to trade some Cap space because of Tallon's error, they was no chance of hometown discounts there.

At the end of the day everyone has their own notion of dynasty, quasi dynasty or whatever but to those that are strict in their thinking of dynasties they should also acknowledge that the league has vastly changed and it's quite possible that some of those past dynasties might not have become so if everyone had to play by the same rules (free agency, draft, Cap) over time.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 03:09 AM
  #44
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
That's the best you can say for them. Which is fine. But to call them dynasties in the purest sense, is just wrong, 30 teams or not. It was never easy to win the Cup year after year. The reason being, is that only 5 teams have won three in a row. Not the Oilers, not even the 1950s Red Wings.

The Islanders won 4 in a row and there were 18 players on that team who were there for all of them. Let's think about it for a second, how many times have we seen it when a player leaves a Cup champ directly after they've won? I mean a KEY player.

How about the 2010 Hawks? They're alright with Toews, Hossa, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, etc. But they sure took a beating when their depth took off. Big Buff, Ladd, etc. If the young Hawks have a closed door meeting and say "Look, let's win a bunch here or at least HAVE the chance to win a bunch here and take hometown discounts" then things are different.

Or the 2007 Ducks? Great team. Beat some very good teams in order to win the Cup. Then just like that they vanished. Niedermayer "retired" as did Selanne. Both came back but the damage was done. Penner leaves to one of the worst teams in the NHL. The team was bounced out in the first round.

Khabibulin in 2004? Tampa had the pieces to repeat again in 2005..........or 2006 I guess. Well, except for a goalie. Keep Khabby in that net with the core of Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis with Boyle on defense and I see that team winning again. But as it was, Richards signed that crazy contract and well, someone had to leave.

Too many teams have winning become the second priority. Looks to me like the Islanders had it the "first" priority.


Now that speaks volumes of the recent teams, but the truth is with a bounce or two the right way the Devils or Red Wings are a true dynasty. Detroit especially had lots of chances for this. They are about as close to a dynasty as you can possibly get, kind of like the 1970s Flyers. But they are still remembered as a great team in my mind and a couple of those Red Wings teams are all-time greats in my book.
This is what I think. 3 or 4 cups over a decade plus or minus with all the roster changes is not a dynasty. How many players were present for each win. The last Oiler team was not quite the same as the team that won 4 in five years and dominated the league over that time. I don't see it at as part of the dynasty that made 5 cup appearances across 6 years and won 4.

3 consecutive cup wins, 4, 5? Clearly that's domination. 4 across 11 years whatever, that's a good organization. Not domination. Not even close.

Dynasties dominate the league, year after year winning championships. No one has done that since the Isles. I'm sure someone will do it again. Eventually. But Pittsburgh, Colorado, the Devils and Wings just didn't make the cut. They never truly dominated the league winning championships year after year until they couldn't. Great teams, excellent organizations. Yes. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 04:35 AM
  #45
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
While in theory this may be true, recent history shows it not to be true. Cowboys and Patriots have both won 3 out of 4 championships since the last time an NHL team has accomplished that.
those are also the only 2 times in history that has happened.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 04:24 PM
  #46
tony d
BMO
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 58,426
vCash: 500
I've always considered the Red Wings teams of the past few years a dynasty. 4 Cups in 12 years is remarkable.

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:22 PM
  #47
Analyzer*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,967
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
I've always considered the Red Wings teams of the past few years a dynasty. 4 Cups in 12 years is remarkable.
5 finals (?) and how many conference finals for the Wings, as well ?

Analyzer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:45 PM
  #48
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Country: Scotland
Posts: 17,726
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirikanoir View Post
But teams don`t get handed labels like dynasty for being a contender, nor do we count Stanley Cups a team could have or would have won.

And of course winning multiple championships is hard, it`s supposed to be, that`s what makes it special. Think about it since 1917-18 only three franchises have ever won three Cups in a row, and only 2 have won 4 in a row.

You start watering down what is considered a dynasty and eventually the word loses all meaning, then pretty much we will be calling any team that manages to win 2 in a row a dynasty
This, imo, is the best post in this thread

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 11:26 PM
  #49
Kirikanoir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
I've always considered the Red Wings teams of the past few years a dynasty. 4 Cups in 12 years is remarkable.
And how many of those Detroit players were there for all 4 Stanley Cup Championships. Four or Five?

If you count that as a dynasty then you would also have to include the 1985-86 Montreal Canadians Stanley Cup as part of the 1970`s 4 in a row dynasty since the 86 win would give them 5 Cups in 11 years, the exact same amount of time Detroit won their 4 Cups in.

As well that 86 team had 2 players left from the 4 straight 1970s team, Bob Gainey and Larry Robinson.

Kirikanoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 05:47 PM
  #50
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirikanoir View Post
And how many of those Detroit players were there for all 4 Stanley Cup Championships. Four or Five?

If you count that as a dynasty then you would also have to include the 1985-86 Montreal Canadians Stanley Cup as part of the 1970`s 4 in a row dynasty since the 86 win would give them 5 Cups in 11 years, the exact same amount of time Detroit won their 4 Cups in.

As well that 86 team had 2 players left from the 4 straight 1970s team, Bob Gainey and Larry Robinson.
This. Which is why I can't call the 2008 Wings part of a "dynasty". They won the Cup and came within a goal of repeating. That's close but this was a far different team from 2002 let alone 1997. If anyone wants to call the Wings from 1997-'02 a dynasty even using the loose rules then that's a little bit better. I think they still fall short personally though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Dynasties dominate the league, year after year winning championships. No one has done that since the Isles. I'm sure someone will do it again. Eventually. But Pittsburgh, Colorado, the Devils and Wings just didn't make the cut. They never truly dominated the league winning championships year after year until they couldn't. Great teams, excellent organizations. Yes. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
I agree with you. I do think the Oilers are the most recent team to do this though rather than the Islanders. 4 Cups in 5 years. Three first overall finishes in the standings during that time (1986 included). That's pretty dominant and they only stopped winning once Gretzky left (yeah, yeah 1990, but that was a different team and it only happened once).

Since then the only teams to come close to a true dynasty would be the Penguins (1991, 1992 Cup wins and blowing the NHL out in 1993 only to be upset) and Red Wings (1st overall in 1995, 1996, Cups in 1997 and 1998). Again, no dynasties, not quite because of some sloppy play by each team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This statement, and post is a bit puzzling to me.

You are trying to compare the post cap era with the precap one where players where not allowed to leave their teams period.

As we throw the idea of a guy should take a hometown discount around for the glory of the team way too often.

Like it or not most of us would and have left jobs at more prestigious firms or businesses for more money at lesser ones and hockey is a job, why should we expect players to be different?

Also note Chicago had to trade some Cap space because of Tallon's error, they was no chance of hometown discounts there.

At the end of the day everyone has their own notion of dynasty, quasi dynasty or whatever but to those that are strict in their thinking of dynasties they should also acknowledge that the league has vastly changed and it's quite possible that some of those past dynasties might not have become so if everyone had to play by the same rules (free agency, draft, Cap) over time.
Why don't we ask John Tonelli whether or not he'd want a few extra bucks in his bank account (from the standard of that era) or if he's happy with 4 Cups in a row and always being a part of that. Players certainly had less choices back then, but it still happened that they left the team. Dryden? The 1972 Bruins fled to the WHA. Moog? Coffey? It happened once in a while. But today it's almost as if we already know a young team cannot and will not possibly stay together after they win a Cup. Honestly, do you think L.A. will repeat? I don't know who, but a key player will leave for greener pastures. If I am part of a young team like, say, the Oilers I would do everything in my power as a player to keep that core together whether that means a paycut or encouraging others to do so. If you leave a team with dynasty potential for a team that has no chance of winning just for more money then winning is not your first priority. That was the point I was making.

Big Phil 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 08:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.