| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2008 : 17:27:03
|
Since the 30 team expansion, the way the game has become primarily a business and the general cirulation of players, no team has really been able to consistently be more than average. Two teams that seem above that are the Wings and Devils.
You look at their rosters, their accomplishments over the past 15 or so years and it really stands out from the crowd. Both have been leading the pack since around '93, with the Wings having ultimately more to show for it when all is said and done in cups.
My question is, is the inevitable bound to happen? As players from the early years retire and new ones take their place, will the teams go through growing pains or do you believe that they have enough core guys to tide them over and do a partial 'rebuild' without affecting the standings?
Habs get number 25 this year
|
|
|
Antroman
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
537 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 07:21:33
|
| The New NHL was created partly as a means to spread the wealth around and bring good competitive hockey to all teams while spreading the success to alternating markets in order to establish interest throughout the U.S. Because the new league is in it's infancy and we are only two years into it they are still having some growing pains. It is unlikely we are going to see that dynasty type franchise thing again in the future. There are some lingering franchises such as Detroit and New Jersey but these are your more or less carry over teams from the old era. Just to repeat a Stanley Cup now is a monumental task and will be harder as we move farther along with the new NHL. The real trick today is to try and build a solid core of young players and compliment them with a couple of free agents so your team remains competitive over a stretch of seasons. Your chances of winning a cup is a one in thirty shot. Not real good odds I'm afraid, but if you keep making the playoffs, your odds are considerably better, one in sixteen. |
 |
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 08:43:22
|
All good, except that I elieve a dynasty is still possible even in the new NHL. I would disagree Antro, if you build yourself a strong core of guys to work around, get them to tap in to the system and play well with each other, and sign them up young or when they are not at their max potential, you could do some good things even in the new NHL.
Look at Phoenix(not that they are a dynasty in the making but just for the argument sake)
They have bunch of players who are not superstars but yet work well together and are all tuned in to the coach and the all for one one for all system. It is a matter of chemisty more than money. Is Spezza THAT good, or is he just that good with Alfie and Heatley? A lot of it relies on them, as we see of late..  If you hone a guys talents to suit your needs at your cost, you can do real well.
Habs get number 25 this year |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 10:26:05
|
I think you are missing Dallas and perhaps Colorado on your list of teams that have been sucessful for a long period of time.
However, if you look that the three teams that have remained very successful over a long period of time, they have a few things in common.
1) They draft and develop players very well. Since the mid-90's, there has been less and less loyalty by players towards teams. That being said, having young talent is key. Most teams will not keep a core of players for more than 3 years.
2) They have excellent coaching. Dallas, New Jersey, Colorado, and Detroit have had some of the best coaches in the league through that period of time. The coach develops a system that works for the team and brings players into the system. They do not change systems based on new players. Good coaches that can modivate players to buy into a system is vital.
3) These three teams have not bent to media pressure and have built foundations of talent and trade for today as well as tomorrow. Rarely have these three teams been heavily involved in trade deadline moves and if they have they have not overpaid for rental talent.
4) These teams have stuck to a formula of players. They have not went out and purchased a ton of talent on one side of the puck only. All of these teams have had a great scoring line, solid offensive support from the 2nd line, a great shut down 3rd line, and a stable 4th line to swallow up minutes. All have very solid defense and through the years those 4 teams have normally had the cream of the crop in goaltending. That works.
Most importantly, there is more parity in the league over the past 10-15 years than any other time in hockey. There are maybe 5 poor teams in the league and maybe 5 elite teams in the league each year. The remaining 20 teams are pretty solid.
That is the reason why you see fewer dynasties today than you did through the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Less player loyalty and a more competative league make dynasties far more difficult to build and maintain. |
|
|
|
Antroman
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
537 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 15:32:54
|
| Hey Alex, you disagreed with me and then went on to say the same sort of thing. Yes you can build a team that way and stay very competitive but I was referring to a dynasty such as winning three or four in a row. I think with the new league and the cap that those days are over. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 19:10:14
|
Let me reiterate the question Beans since what you said really restated my intro. without developping on it and I am interested to hear your thoughts and reasoning behind them:
Are these dynasties, or whatever you want to call them, dying down? Is it the closing era of dynasties in the National Hockey League?
Habs get number 25 this year |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 04:54:20
|
Alex, my prediction - because it is way too early to see right now - is that yes, dynasties will die out.
Why? Pure numbers, really . . . because of the parity, and low loyalty as Beans mentioned . . . because of the new structure that still allows the Phoenix's and Columbi to compete . . . and because of the money. Too much money to keep stars after a cup win because of inflated values, even if you do sign up your core to a bunch of long term contracts - you just can't sign everyone.
Anaheim has made a good attempt at tap-dancing around this problem, with the late and very late acquisitions of Nieds and Selanne . . . but no one is saying this "potential repeat" has a chance to go past next year.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 11:10:02
|
The NHL's expansion to 30 teams was in 2000-01. No team has won the cup more than once since then...
Team.... # of Wins Since 2000-01
Detroit 352
Ottawa.. 323
New Jersey 318
Dallas.. 317
Colorado 308
Toronto 295
Vancouver 287
Buffalo 285
San Jose 285
Philadelphia 282
St Louis 272
Nashville 255
Edmonton 254
Montreal 254
Carolina 252
Calgary 250
Anaheim 248
Los Angeles 247
Boston.. 244
NY Rangers 243
Washington 240
Tampa Bay 239
NY Islanders 236
Phoenix 236
Pittsburgh 226
Florida 211
Chicago 210
Minnesota 209
Atlanta 204
Columbus 172
Since the teams have played a differnt number of games since 1993, I have listed their wins in percentage...Multiple Cups won Detroit 3, New Jersey 3, Colorado 2...
Team......Win % Since 1993
Detroit 59.5%
New Jersey 54.0%
Colorado 54.0%
Dallas... 53.2%
Quebec... 51.4%
Philadelphia 49.2%
Toronto 48.5%
Buffalo 47.8%
St Louis 47.1%
Pittsburgh 46.5%
Boston... 45.4%
Vancouver 45.3%
Montreal 44.8%
NY Rangers 43.6%
Washington 43.6%
Carolina 43.2%
Ottawa... 43.2%
Nashville 43.1%
Calgary 43.0%
Min N Stars 42.9%
Minnesota 42.5%
Phoenix 42.4%
Anaheim 41.5%
San Jose 41.1%
Edmonton 40.8%
Chicago 40.5%
Los Angeles 40.3%
Winnipeg 38.9%
NY Islanders 38.6%
Florida 38.1%
Tampa Bay 37.1%
Hartford 36.3%
Atlanta 35.5%
Columbus 35.0%
Champions take chances, and pressure is a privilege.
Billy Jean King to Maria Sharapova
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
Edited by - PuckNuts on 02/01/2008 12:00:14 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 12:32:54
|
When I first read your post I thought that you said I was a prolific "golfer"...handycap 16.7...
I have spent many hours on hockeydb.com, NHL.com, etc, and have copied many stats into many excel spread sheets, linked them together, merged them etc. I have spent many, many hours, sometimes over a brown pop or two...
When someone brings up a scenario, like this topic, it rings a bell in my head to go and find the information, and post it so others can form an opinion also...
Champions take chances, and pressure is a privilege.
Billy Jean King to Maria Sharapova
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 21:19:36
|
| Alex, to answer you question you have to define dynasty. If it means a team being very good for a very long time than there still will be Dynasties. If it means a team winning more that a couple of consecutive Cups, than I would say that a dynasty is still possible, but they will be rare and very special. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 08:16:17
|
For me a "Dynasty" means a team winning at least three championships in a row or at least four in six years.
I know - by that definition the New England Patriots, even if they win tomorrow, are not a dynasty. And as much as some will balk at that notion, I think the Patriots are an excellent example of the next level down from "Dynasty" which would be "Most Dominant Team of Their Era". If they end up winning five in eight years though, I probably would call them a Dynasty.
It's a strict way of looking at the word I guess, but I think that the word should indeed be protected, the same way we want to protect, and not water down, the label "Hall of Fame Player".
Back to hockey. So for me the last true Dynasty was the Oilers, and before them the Isles and the Habs of course. To put the same word to the Devils or Red Wings of the last ten years diminishes the meaning of the word in my opinion. And I think allowing four out of six to be called a Dynasty gives enough consideration to the point that there is more parity today and that it is harder than twenty, thirty years ago and so on.
So will there be another Dynasty under my definition? I doubt it, but as Joaquim Andujar once said, "In a word, yanevano".
|
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 17:24:18
|
I would consider the Red Wings right now in a ''dynasty'' and the Patriots in a dynasty as well. It takes a lot in major league sports to be so good for so long I think we can all agree on that. Of course not the same type of dynasties we used to see but hey, it's the nature of the beast. As the owners change, the sport changes.
Habs get number 25 this year |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
NHL Dynasty in the making? 
