jawdroppingly verbose for a post with completely nonsensical conclusions.

2007 Anaheim was one bad call and/or one bad bounce away from losing to a red wing team that was at least their equal talent for talent. and yet you “contend” they hold up with the best of all time?

it is an utterly absurd notion that the amount of guys on the ‘97 team needs to be the same as on the 2009 team for it to be a dynasty. in fact, and you forgot to include Holmstrom or McCarty on your long timer list, it is a miracle there are so many players still on the team who were there 13 years ago, it is literally a statistical anomaly. how many original players from the early 80’s Oiler “dynasty” were still on the Oilers in the late 90’s? this only solidifies the case for being labeled a dynasty. also - your absurd argument completely ignores the fact that things have overlapped, with change occurring gradually and relatively seamlessly (with a small Dave Lewis hickup). there were tons of players on the 2002 team who were on the ‘98 team? and more players on last year’s team from that 2002 team? but none of this matters. the fact that Osgood backstopped the same team with the same management (with the addition of his former captain) to stanley cups 10 years apart is a dramatic example of how the wings are not only a dynasty, but arguably the longest dynasty in NHL history. i mean, the team is so dominant, it manages to shift captaincy, coaches, from no cap to cap, all without missing a beat, without “Rebuilding”, without hiring new management, and without EVER missing the playoffs. They have more consecutive playoff appearances than any team in pro-sports right now. they are quite obviously a dynasty.

all dynasties are quite obviously elite…

of course maybe not “as elite has been defined” in your case, but that’s a pretty dubious argument. it’s like me saying you’re a terrible blogger and you not being able to pose an argument against because my “definition” of a “terrible blogger” is “YOU”.

i guess the issue isn’t so much that you are wrong about your classification of the red wings as elite, but rather you don’t actually know what the definition of an “elite team” is.

and you are a terrible blogger… as terrible blogger has been defined.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 06/09/09 at 01:31 AM ET

For me personally, if I had to choose between competitiveness or greatness, I would probably choose greatness.  That’s always been the draw for me to professional sports, the idea that it’s the best players and teams in the world.  Competitiveness does have the added element of drama, but if it is at the cost of skillful play, it’s less attractive to me.

Not to offend anyone, but most people don’t tune in to the special olympics even though the competition is often very intense and close-matched.  On the other hand, I can still watch a blowout game, at least while the top players are still getting most of the time.

The best scenario would obviously be a combination of both, but I am not sure that the salary cap can allow for truly legendary teams.  Even as teams and general managers adapt to the cap, there’s only so much talent you can fit under ~$55 million.  Maybe a team that has several veteran stars who can’t stay healthy for a year or two, but gets lucky in the lottery with a phenom or two who jumps right in could have enough talent for a few years until the rookies need new contracts, at which point the team would have to give up some of its players to stay in the cap.  But I don’t think we will see teams like the legendary teams of old simply because the math is impossible.

On the other hand, the salary cap can allow bottomfeeders to rebound more quickly (excluding poor managerial decisions) as other teams have to let more talent onto the market .  And in a way, the competitiveness should allow franchises to grow more homer fans so each franchise can profit, rather than having leaguewide fans rooting for the few elite teams while ignoring the local underachiever. 

The hope is that these homer fans will be drawn into the sport and become dual homer/leaguewide fans who follow the sport even after their team is eliminated.  I don’t think the NHL has succeeded on this front, but one would have to examine tv ratings and merchandise sales excluding the finalist cities year-over-year to see if there is growth.

As far as the Wings as a dynasty, I think you are right to say that they don’t qualify as a traditional dynasty as they don’t have a number of consecutive titles.  But what they have accomplished (and may accomplish soon) is a testament to the managerial skill of the organization.  Now if the Wings win this year and next, I would put this group on the list as a dynasty.  Like you said, there really isn’t much carry over in terms of players from the previous champions to the current team.  Maltby and Draper were vital cogs, but they weren’t the engine on the previous teams.

Posted by wilford brimley on 06/09/09 at 01:40 AM ET

I did miss Tomas Homstrom who as a rookie in 1996/97 and only played one playoff game.  Sorry.

Darren McCarty’s 13 NHL games this season would not qulify him for his name on the cup should Detroit win it.  Further, he had a stint with another team during this run and was not continuously a Red Wing.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 01:55 AM ET

perfection, the point of a dynasty (as I understand it) is that it’s the same players winning over and over again.  The Wings have won with different groups of players.  Of the major contributors from 97 and 98, only Homer, Lidstrom, and Ozzie are still key pieces.  Maltby, McCarty and Draper aren’t impact players anymore, and even Homer is slipping.  The only key additions from 02 are Chelios and Datsyuk, one of whom is a healthy scratch now.

It’s an amazing accomplishment what the Wings have done, and it deserves it’s own category, separate from dynasty.  At least that’s how I define a dynasty as a series of consecutive titles of at least 3.

On the other hand, maybe we should define a dynasty in terms of the management/braintrust, meaning an organization that doesn’t just have one phenomenal run, but is able to rebound and dominate again.  Something like the Canadiens or the Celtics under Auerbach(coach first, then GM/executive).  If that’s the case, the Wings of the past 12 years definitely qualify.

Posted by wilford brimley on 06/09/09 at 01:56 AM ET

Just curious how the ‘86 Canadiens and ‘95 Devils are not elite in your books, yet the ‘96 Avalanche are. All three teams have three or four guys who are surefire Hall-of-Famers (Robinson, Roy, Gainey, Chelios, Stevens, Niedermayer, Brodeur, Sakic, Forsberg) plus each had a fourth who consistently was one of the best playoff performers of the past 20 years in Claude Lemieux. You could argue that several of the younger guys on those teams (Chelios, Roy in Montreal, Niedermayer) were not surefire Hall of Famers yet, but neither was Forsberg after two seasons, leaving Colorado with only two players who were sure to make the Hall in ‘96.

Posted by nw on 06/09/09 at 06:14 AM ET

It seems slightly odd, but I think TPSH is actually trolling his own blog.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/09/09 at 06:31 AM ET

As I have often written, the number of Hall of Fame tracked players and the elite goalie are necessary conditions for an elite team, but they are not sufficient conditions.

Montreal in 1986 finished 7th in the league with 87 points.  That result is not out of place with their results in the years before or after the cup run. 

New Jersey finished 9th with 52 points (in only 48 games) in the year of their cup run.  They actually missed the playoffs the next season.

Colorado finished 3rd with 104 points acquiring Roy in mid-season (which made them a better team).  They had been 2nd the year beforehand and first the year after.

All teams may have had several Hall of Fame track players and an elite goalie, but it is clear from their results Colorado is a far better team than the other two.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 06:32 AM ET

It seems slightly odd, but I think TPSH is actually trolling his own blog.

Posted by HockeyinHD

Nope and as I have said in the past, TPSH is read world-wide, not just by Wings fans.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 06/09/09 at 06:35 AM ET

As I have often written, the number of Hall of Fame tracked players and the elite goalie are necessary conditions for an elite team, but they are not sufficient conditions.

All teams may have had several Hall of Fame track players and an elite goalie, but it is clear from their results Colorado is a far better team than the other two.

But as you’ve managed to tell us time and time again, being dominant in the regular season (even year after year after year) does not make one an elite team. Colorado had been good the season previous in Quebec, but that was a short season and they were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. At that point, they’d only had two good regular seasons—why was their ‘96 team elite at the time, and Detroit’s right now not so much?

Posted by nw on 06/09/09 at 06:44 AM ET

The short answer is goaltending.  That is the difference between the 96 Avs and the 2009 Red Wings and its a big one.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 06:46 AM ET

Ah yes, I knew it’d come back to be Osgood’s fault yet again. Because he is not one of the greatest of all time (i.e. Roy, Brodeur), the team is not elite, despite what the team does to consistently blow away its competition.

Posted by nw on 06/09/09 at 06:55 AM ET

And funny how, just two years after ‘96, that very Avalanche team with that elite goaltending lost in the first round and the goat of your blog posts backstopped the Wings to a Stanley Cup win.

Posted by nw on 06/09/09 at 06:59 AM ET

Nope and as I have said in the past, TPSH is read world-wide, not just by Wings fans.

It must be nice to be able to be summarily dismissed on a global level.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/09/09 at 07:06 AM ET

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/09/09 at 07:22 AM ET

Nope and as I have said in the past, TPSH is read world-wide, not just by Wings fans.

Sorry, Paul, but I find that really hard to believe. Unless the world has way more appreciation for spouting opinions with no explanations, justifications, or rational arguments supporting them.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/09/09 at 07:26 AM ET

Nathan, now why would I tell you something that isn’t even true.

You folks probably forgot about this, but when HNIC did their first feature on bloggers last season, TPSH was mentioned too along with other blogs, including KK & A2Y.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 06/09/09 at 07:30 AM ET

The short answer is goaltending.  That is the difference between the 96 Avs and the 2009 Red Wings and its a big one.

Yet I have no doubt that this current Red Wings team (and for that matter, the Pens) would kick the holy shit out of the 96 Avs.

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone on 06/09/09 at 07:35 AM ET

You folks probably forgot about this, but when HNIC did their first feature on bloggers last season, TPSH was mentioned too along with other blogs, including KK & A2Y.

In the context of ‘While there are blogs that a full of complete poo and not wirth even an offhand perusal (like TPSH) there are other ones which provide some degree of information (KK) and intentional humor (A2Y)?’

Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/09/09 at 07:47 AM ET

You people really have given Detroit Red Wings fans a bad name.  I won’t judge an entire group of fans by a few bad apple loudmouths.

The underlying “problem” is that somebody has come here and told you the obvious.  Chris Osgood (even if he has been hot in the playoffs) is not one of the best goalies in the NHL.  That is especially true at this advanced point in his career.  That fact alone takes away from the “greatness” of this Wings team.  They are lucky about the circumstances.  A salary cap and expansion have allowed a team to have as much success as the Wings have had recently (one and very likely two Stanley Cups) despite a goalie like Osgood.  Sure Osgood has played pretty well in those playoff runs (they wouldn’t have happened if he played at the level he did in the regular season), but it doesn’t make him one of the top goalies in the game.

Now Kukla’s Korner has a Red Wing bias.  Abel to Yzerman has a Red Wing bias (and in fact goes out to find people to bash who don’t fit that bias).  It was very convenient for Bill to find somebody who is, in the context of a larger argument about the quality of the best NHL teams today, arguing this Red Wings team is not among the historically elite.  It is an easy target.  At no point does anyone have to try to address the point you can just bash away.  Bill can cheer it on.  Its a shame that Bethany or Tony (since they are team blogs who had their teams play against Detroit in the playoffs) were unwilling to make any statements that could be interpreted as anti-Red Wing (whether they actually are or not is not important).

I will not have my opinions censored because the most juvenile of the Red Wing fans will attack them - and only on rare occassions will they attempt to use facts in their arguments.  I am going to say what I believe in.  I will say what I think needs to be said.

The NHL does not produce the elite teams it could and should.  That is the underlying point to my argument.  For it to be true we must accept that Detroit is not the elite team they could have been without a salary cap.  The most juvenile of the Detroit fans will attack anyone who suggests the idea.  I suppose that is part of their partisanship.

As you know if you read my posts, I think Detroit will win the cup.  I think that Osgood will probably be a solid player who doesn’t do anything too extraordinary in the run.  So far that has been largely true.  The speculation for Osgood to win Conn Smythe comes from the idea that somebody has to win it.  There is no clear front runner on the Red Wings.  When in doubt the goalie usually gets votes, whether they are deserved or not.  When there is no clear front runner for awards, often they are given as “career achievement” awards.  This scenario also helps Osgood, who has had a long career as a pretty good goalie and never won an individual award.  If I had my vote, Crosby and Malkin are at the top of the list even with a Detrit win (barring something exceptional in the remaining games). 

I think my position is correct.  It is highly defensable.  I think it has become an easy target for the Red Wing bashers.  If that is how they want to treat me, it isn’t going to earn my admiration of them (and I definitely once thought quite highly of the majority of the Kukla’s Korner commenters), but it isn’t going to make me go away.  I am by no means an anti-Detroit Red Wings person.  I have a lot of respect for the team.  That would be obvious if you read the posts before bashing them.  I am a hockey fan in general.  I am a rare type with little bias toward the home team.

When I think Detroit needs to be praised, I wil do so.  When Detroit needs to have less positive things written about them (I do not think I have bashed them at any point) I will do that too.  If you feel the need to attack me in BOTH cases and think this is some kind of joke it is your loss.  It is a loss to Kukla’s Korner.  It takes away from the objectivity of the site.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 08:14 AM ET

Yeah, well, sorry, I didn’t literally mean I thought you were lying, just trying to get to my point of what my main problem with this blog is. He’s welcome to have any opinion he wants, my issue is that they are hastily explained and generally come with the same regurgitated “explanations” over and over again.

Take any paragraph from the above post, but let’s look at this one:

Since the salary cap, the best team so far has been the 2007 Anaheim Ducks.  I think they were an elite team.  If there could be a tournament played of all the post-lockout Stanley Cup winners (and for the sake of argument let’s include Detroit and Pittsburgh from this year), I think those Ducks should win.  I think they are the only post-lockout cup winner that could stand up with the best of all time.  They only had a one year run at the top because they had not acquired Chris Pronger yet in 2006 and in 2008 Teemu Selanne and Scott Niedermayer were away for “sabbaticals” for much of the season.

This is so poorly written and explained that I have no reason to acknowledge his opinion, even if I disagree with it. He doesn’t answer questions that MUST be answered for his points to be truly sensible. This paragraph simply raises questions such as:
- Why do you think the ‘07 Ducks are the best post-lockout team?
- Why do you think the ‘07 Ducks were an elite team?
- Why do you think the ‘07 Ducks would win a tournament with all the post-lockout Cup winners?
- Why do you think the ‘07 Ducks can stand up with the best teams of all time?
- Why is it that the “sabbaticals” from ‘08 are excuses for the Ducks’ mediocre season that year, but in ‘09, when they had their full compliment, their season was almost equally mediocre until a hard playoff push?

It seems like every freaking post by this guy follows this same pattern. And the crazy thing is, J.J. raised some of the obvious, unanswered questions from a previous TPSH post, and this post was intended to answer those questions… but in turn is just passing the buck along to new arguments filled with holes and lacking explanation.

Look, if I’m out of line, I truly apologize. I’m not here to flame the guy personally, and I’m not upset if he doesn’t like the Wings or Osgood or whatever, etc. etc. But compared to the contributions from every other writer that’s currently on KK, and has been a part of KK in the past, it is my opinion that this guy single-handedly drags down the quality of content that posts to the front page.

This is only MY opinion. At least I can say I fairly explained why I feel this way.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/09/09 at 08:18 AM ET

The question of the who the best teams of all time are and where all the various cup winners and potential cup winners fit is something a book could be written about.  Hundreds of pages.  You cannot seriously expect that as a blog post.  A post may touch on many areas.  Some you will agree with and others you will not.  If there seems to be sufficient interest in addressing a certain area I iwll try to do so in the future.  If the question of the 2007 Anaheim Ducks interests you I recommend you click on the link.  It gives my thoughts at the time of their cup win and makes an attempt to explain why I think they are elite.

I have no desire to re-write that entire post to make the point that although there may be less elite teams with a salary cap, I think one has been produced.  That is an interesting point worth mentioning.  If you want more information about that point, a link was provided.  If you still want more, it can be discussed in the future.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 08:29 AM ET

You people really have given Detroit Red Wings fans a bad name.  I won’t judge an entire group of fans by a few bad apple loudmouths.

TPSH, read my last comment.

I can’t speak, and won’t speak, for any other fans, Wings fans or otherwise. But even as a Wings fan, I have no problem with your opinions on Osgood. I don’t fully agree—I think Ozzie WILL be a HOFer, but I think his resume is still a bit short of what it needs. That’s another discussion, and if I had my own blog and time, I’d write a full post with complete explanations as to why I feel this way.

My problem with your posts is completely unrelated to your opinions. Anti-Wing, pro-Wing, pro-Thrashers, pro-Brampton Battalion, neutral… whatever. That’s irrelevant. My problem is your explanations (or lack thereof). I won’t spit it out again, it’s in the comment above.

Look, it’s not meant to be personal. I don’t know you. Probably never will. I think if you want to be a better blogger that gains more followers and respect, you should take some of our criticisms to heart and work on improving the explanations of your opinions.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/09/09 at 08:31 AM ET

Thank you for finally fielding those questions, TPSH. 

I can see your point about hockey losing viewership the deeper the playoffs go when the two teams left going for the cup aren’t really elite teams.  A lot of hockey fans I’ve encountered aren’t really hockey fans, but fans of their individual teams.  I agree that for a lot of those cases, it takes a really compelling team to get those people to keep watching after their guys have been eliminated.  When Carolina won the cup, I didn’t watch a single finals game.  Granted, I’ve personally come a long way as a hockey fan since then, but I’m in no position to judge a Sabres fan who tells me he isn’t watching this year’s final, as an example.

I think a large part of this is a failure of NHL’s marketing.  I still think that Detroit is an elite team, but it seems to me that the finals (again) are being sold as this David vs. Goliath matchup between the underdog who deserves it and the scary foreigners who want to deny him his birthright.  I pray next year’s Center Ice commercials feature a fan of any team other than Pittsburgh, especially if I’m going to have to watch it no fewer than 1,000 times over the course of a season.

At any rate, I digress.  I believe that the 2008 Red Wings team could beat the 2007 Ducks, even without the recent history between those two teams, but it’s a point both sides have plenty of foothold with.

I can appreciate your definition of a dynasty and how Detroit doesn’t fit into that.  Once again, I disagree, contending that they’ve been at or near the top of a 30-team league for more than a decade, despite the turnover.  But, there is no standard definition of dynasty nor of “elite”.  This is simply a case where our personal definitions of these words do not match, I can respect that.  Furthermore, your personal definitions of those words aren’t so off-base as to be ridiculous.

Once again, thanks for taking time to reply.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/09/09 at 08:34 AM ET

The question of the who the best teams of all time are and where all the various cup winners and potential cup winners fit is something a book could be written about.  Hundreds of pages.  You cannot seriously expect that as a blog post.

Then you cannot make claims that require at least a quick discussion of such points. Period. Don’t do it. It would be one thing if you were talking about the Bowman-coached Habs, or Arbour’s Islanders—teams that via general knowledge are considered elite—amongst the best of all time. But you’re picking a team that’s had a good run of success in the last three seasons, but had a single Cup in isolation and has yet to really follow up on that with even a good, deep playoff run.

I have no desire to re-write that entire post to make the point that although there may be less elite teams with a salary cap, I think one has been produced.  That is an interesting point worth mentioning.  If you want more information about that point, a link was provided.  If you still want more, it can be discussed in the future.

I DID click the link, and I did read the post. But it’s the same formula—a lot of opinions and statements, but no facts or persuasive arguments to get me to buy in, or at the very least, respect the opinion if I disagree. Furthermore, that post is quite irrelevant now, as that Ducks team has morphed a bit over the last two seasons, the Wings and Pens have developed, and the game has changed. An important part of your argument in this current post seems to revolve around the reason the Ducks had a poor ‘08 season. So it seems you aren’t taking that ‘07 season in isolation.

If you want to say the ‘07 Ducks are “elite” in a single, isolated playoff run, fine. I’d say that if you isolate EVERY Cup winner EVER like that, they are all elite. That’s the point of winning the Cup—you were the BEST at the most important time of the year. The Ducks were it in ‘07.

I would argue you can’t judge—even post lockout—“eliteness” on a single season. But that’s getting into specific opinions, and I’m not taking issue with your opinions, I’m taking issue with the haphazard way you express them and provide little to no supporting evidence all too often.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/09/09 at 08:45 AM ET

That is especially true at this advanced point in his career.

Really?

Because at this advanced point in his career, people are SERIOUSLY considering him a candidate for the Conn Smythe, whereas at previous points in his career he was considered one of the worst goalies to have won a Stanley Cup.

Most people agree that Osgood is a better goalie nowadays than he was when he was younger.

“At this advanced point in his career” he sought to better himself, completely changing his style and becoming more competent as a goalie.

He may have (and admits as much himself) struggled mentally and physically this regular season, but when the stakes were up, when it COUNTED, he completely turned his game around in the post season.

Not a lot of people would argue that the Wings didn’t need elite goaltending in their last back-to-back (especially seeing that they won back to back with two different goalies), but I just simply don’t see how you can watch the playoffs this year and not even re-consider your thoughts on Osgood. 

The numbers are there, the video evidence is there, the highlight reel goals are there.

If you can’t admit that Osgood’s post season run has been elite, then there is not a single elite goaltender in the league today.

Simple as that.

Posted by Garth on 06/09/09 at 09:12 AM ET

It is funny that almost every blog calls you a joke (pensblog, puck the media, etc…) yet you think it is only Wings fans that think you are the biggest douche on the face of the universe. 

Paul, you are kidding yourself if you think he is anything but a joke.  The fact that he keeps bringing the same trolling argument up is fact enough.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 06/09/09 at 09:27 AM ET

That is especially true at this advanced point in his career

I think, more and more, it becomes obvious that TPSH is not written by a fan of today’s NHL (he practically said so above, after all).  Before this point is mistaken let me state that it is totally acceptable.  I’m not going to say every college football writer should praise the BCS because it’s what’s current- dissent is important as it encourages change which is, frequently, linked with progress.  I don’t mind TPSH being anti-current NHL but it’s taken me a while to pin point what it was that fueled his writing before he confirmed it here.

The quote I picked above touches on something that’s a recent development with the current NHL, and sports in general.  Goalies aren’t done at 33, 34 any more.  Roy played until, I believe, he was 38.  Brodeur is 37, and will at least play until he’s 38.  You can say that this is because they were sublime talents that could fend off age by being, well, awesome or you could take the approach that they were able to remain NHL-caliber players because they did it in 2004, 2009, and not earlier.

Dryden retired at 32.  Fuhr was clearly not the same man in his mid to late 30s.  But that’s not really the norm now.  Hasek was a quality netminder into his 40s.  This isn’t limited to goalies.  Chelios was playing quality minutes for a talented team at 44, 45 and who would likely have played far more minutes in this season and been sharp enough to play more in the post-season at 47 had he not had that gruesome leg break in the preseason.  Henrik Lundqvist, Evgeni Malkin, and Shea Weber might be elite players in the early stages of their career, and lives, but there are other players who remain elite into the twilights of their tenure.

Athletes don’t age like they once did and that may or may not be a good thing for the sport and they can last and perform much longer.  It might be a sidenote to expansion/dilution, it might be a strange form of nepotism and exclusion, but I don’t really buy either explanation.  It’s 2009, we know more about keeping our bodies in shape and our athletes are able to use that to prolong their careers accordingly.  This is just one of the many changes to the current NHL, which TPSH only marginally enjoys because he loves the game, moving away from the old NHL, that TPSH loved unconditionally. 

And, again, that last thing I wrote?  Totally acceptable.  It’d just be nice to have realized it 10 or 15 blog posts back.  Would’ve saved some frustration and angst on the behalf of many of us feeble-minded, malcontent Red Wings fans.

Posted by shanetx on 06/09/09 at 09:29 AM ET

Look at the top six scorers for the Red Wings this year…

Pavel Datsyuk        
Henrik Zetterberg          
Marian Hossa          
Johan Franzen      
Nicklas Lidstrom              
Brian Rafalski

Now look at the top six for the Avs in 96

Joe Sakic      
Peter Forsberg      
Valeri Kamensky      
Claude Lemieux      
Scott Young      
Sandis Ozolinsh

Now using TPSH’s method of only using name recognition for judging talent, which team is more elite?  Actually, can you find a more “elite” top six in the past twenty years?  No f’ing way.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 06/09/09 at 09:36 AM ET

Look at the top six scorers for the Red Wings this year…

Joe Sakic
Peter Forsberg
Valeri Kamensky
Claude Lemieux
Scott Young
Sandis Ozolinsh

That is a convenient way to overlook a significant amount of talent on the Avs team.  Adam Foote, Uwe Krupp, Adam Deamarsh, Mike Keane.  While the top six scorers of the Red Wings are a stronger group, there are more talented players outside that group on the 96 Avs than on the 09 Wings.

And don’t forget the difference between Patrick Roy and Chris Osgood.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 09:52 AM ET

Or we can start listing the Red Wings depth players who have played a huge roll on the team both this year and last, Providing them the depth that has made them so successful. 

Niklas Kronwall
Brad Stuard
Darren Helm
Jiri Hudler
Val Filpulla
Dan Cleary

Posted by SpaceCityHockey from Houston, TX on 06/09/09 at 09:56 AM ET

You people really have given Detroit Red Wings fans a bad name.  I won’t judge an entire group of fans by a few bad apple loudmouths.

Yet these bad apple loudmouths seem to be the only people who even take the time to read this blog.  The rest of your “world wide audience” must agree with everything you say, but not to the extent where they actually would take the time to post any praise for it.

And Paul, might it be that at the time of HNIC dropping TPSH, there weren’t very many prevalant hockey blogs at the time, please correct me if I’m wrong…but it might be a lack of options at the time rather than a presence of quality.

The real point is that everyone seems to be taking issue with one man(?)‘s self-ordained authority to classify what is considered “elite” and what is not.  I’m not going to argue with TPSH, because I myself don’t think I have the right to say what is NHL elite and what is not.  The fact of the matter is that it is just one person’s oppinion.

We here at KK don’t only have the right to disagree with what is posted, but the responsibility to challenge the posters to back up their allegations.  Let’s keep it somewhat civil.

In my oppinion, the “elite” horse has been beat to death on several different occasions and perhaps it is time to move on.  Just my two cents…take it or leave it.

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 06/09/09 at 10:02 AM ET

PSH, you are totally overlooking the rest of the Wings then.  The D is one of the strongest top to bottom and the Wings are lauded for having one of the strongest line-ups for all four lines ever.  Where else would you find Darren Helm playing in the AHL all year.  Dan Cleary on the 3rd line?  Brad Stuart as a 4th defensemen?  He’s a #1 or two in any other team.

The Wings clearly stack up against the 96 Avs very well.  The Avs. did have Patrick Roy, which of course gives them an advantage in goaltending (though in this playoffs it would be slight), but the Wings out-class them in every other aspect.  If the 96 Avs are elite, then the 2009 Wings are as well.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 06/09/09 at 11:10 AM ET

Its a shame that Bethany or Tony (since they are team blogs who had their teams play against Detroit in the playoffs) were unwilling to make any statements that could be interpreted as anti-Red Wing (whether they actually are or not is not important).

I don’t judge on how you write your blog, keep your nose out of mine…..

Posted by Tony F from Virginia Beach, VA on 06/09/09 at 11:46 AM ET

By that point in time, Uwe Krupp had appeared in an NHL All Star Game, Adam Foote was selected to play for Team Canada in the 196 World Cup and was a key player.  Deadmarsh was a key player for USA in that same World Cup.  Mike Keane had been the Montreal captain and was one of the top defensive forwards in the game.

With all due respect to people like Dan Cleary, Brad Stuart and Darren Helm, Colorado had a far better supporting cast in 1996 than Detroit has now.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 12:13 PM ET

for example the 1995 New Jersey Devils didn’t have enough Hall of Fame track core players to count in my book

so the bottom line here is that your definition of an “elite team” is: a team that has a minimum number of individually elite players.

so if you put a bunch of elite players together (i.e. Rangers) and the team goes nowhere, it’s an elite team.  but if you put a bunch of non-elite players together and the team does nothing but win, it’s not an elite team.

based upon the above analysis, I have to say…you, sir, are an idiot.

sorry to be so blunt.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:28 PM ET

The NHL has in the past used the definition that a dynasty is a team that wins 3 cups in a row or 4 in 5 years or 5 in 7 years.

really?  please link me to the official definition.

thanks.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:30 PM ET

The NHL has in the past used the definition that a dynasty is a team that wins 3 cups in a row or 4 in 5 years or 5 in 7 years.

I didn’t just read that.

I couldn’t have.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 06/09/09 at 12:32 PM ET

as i said in my first post above… this whole thing is stupid because it’s simply semantics. anyone is or isn’t “elite” when you create some narrow, arbitrary definition.

i mean, why no mention of backup goalies… or 5th, 6th and 7th defensemen? or coaching? these are all integral elements to a “team” makeup. when you admit that the 6 leading scorers on the current wings are more impressive than the 6 leading scorers on the ‘96 Colorado team and they have a stronger team defense and they have more depth and they have better coaching…. all of this should reasonably factor in.

but it doesn’t within this silly definition of “elite”... so everyone just needs to move on. i don’t so much share any of the hostility towards this blog as others. i don’t think its so much that TPSH doesn’t support his arguments, it’s that he makes loaded arguments based on criteria and definitions that he dictates. these are the types of arguments made by folks with self esteem issues who want more than anything to be right.

so congrats… you are right, the wings are not “elite” as you have defined it.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 06/09/09 at 12:33 PM ET

Paul in Miami

That dynasty definition has appeared in the Official NHL Guide and Record Book with a list of dynasties following it.  I think its a good one. 

If you actually read what I said and conclude that I am saying you get a sufficient number of random hall of famers together and you will have an elite team then I question your reading comprehension abilities

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 12:35 PM ET

That is the difference between the 96 Avs and the 2009 Red Wings and its a big one.

wait, so the 96 Avs were elite by your definition of having a bunch of elite players.  you count Roy as one of those elite players.  however, isn’t a goaltender’s performance boosted by having elite players playing in front of him?  you know, the exact argument you use AGAINST calling Osgood elite.

your pretzel logic may fool some people, but I see right through it.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:40 PM ET

“Perfection”

Why no mention of the more incidental parts of teams like backup goalies and spare defencemen?  Because in general they are not the guys who win cups.  There is very little difference between the players in those positions on most playoff teams.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 12:41 PM ET

Roy career playoff stats…151-94 (62%)  2.40 .918

Osgood…74-47 (61%) 2.12 .916

but Osgood isn’t elite because of the teams he has played behind (which weren’t elite) and Roy is elite despite the teams he has played behind (which were elite).

OMG

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:42 PM ET

Paul in Miami

Now compare the scoring levels in their eras, their regular season numbers, number of Vezina Trophies etc.  Patrick Roy wins easily.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 12:45 PM ET

That dynasty definition has appeared in the Official NHL Guide and Record Book with a list of dynasties following it.  I think its a good one. 

again, link please.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:48 PM ET

Why no mention of the more incidental parts of teams like backup goalies and spare defencemen?  Because in general they are not the guys who win cups.

hmmm, you mean like the Wings’ backup goalie last year (Osgood) who came in to relieve Hasek and backstopped the Wings to the Cup, going 3 weeks without losing a game?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:49 PM ET

Now compare the scoring levels in their eras, their regular season numbers, number of Vezina Trophies etc.  Patrick Roy wins easily.

so you start off talking about them in that ONE YEAR, which I show is nearly identical…and you switch it to talking about their entire careers?

wow.

do you know what “moving the goalposts” is?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 12:51 PM ET

(Roy may pull ahead in that regard - he had a better career overall… but you are still avoiding addressing Paul’s point completely regarding your convenient logic)

also - the way you trivialize these “incidental” elements displays a lack of understanding of the concept of “team”

what do you think is the difference between a Rangers team stacked with elite players that can’t win anything and an Aves or Wings team also stacked with elite players that win time and time again? It’s those factors that exist under the surface. These are called intangibles NOT incidental. Their intangible because someone like you can’t quantify them. They don’t exist in record books. But, they ARE the difference between elite teams and simply teams with elite players

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 06/09/09 at 12:54 PM ET

In order to judge a player you use all available data.  You want to be able to decide if a given season is typical for this player at this point in his career or if it is a statistical outlier either above or below his expected level.  That is a rather basic method.

Which specific Ranger team are we discussing?  I argue that for most of the period up to the lockout they were an expensive bnunch of has beens with few players who were in the primes of their careers.  That is the main difference between the Ranger teams that missed the playoffs and elite teams.  Elite teams had good players that were in the primes of their careers.  The Rangers had those players 5 and 10 years later when they were no longer so good.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 01:17 PM ET

Thats great that those players had those accomplishments on the world stage.  Helm, Cleary, Stuart and the rest have a Stanley Cup at this point in their careers and are potentially one game away from a second.  That sounds like a pretty good supporting cast.

Posted by SpaceCityHockey from Houston, TX on 06/09/09 at 01:22 PM ET

Yes they played on a team good enough to win the Stanley Cup.  Notice that I cited individual and not team accomplishments for the 96 Avs.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 01:29 PM ET

In order to judge a player you use all available data.

Data is not the alpha and omega of judging a player.  If you look at Pavel Datsyuk or Marian Hossa in this year’s playoffs…going on stats alone, you would say they have done almost nothing to help their team, but this is not true.  Data does not take intangibles into account…that’s what makes them intangibles.  Ask any NHL coach that has ever won a Stanley Cup and ask them if intangibles were a factor, I beleive they would all say ‘yes’, whether their team was elite or not.

A poke check to save a star from scoring a goal.  A big face-off win at the end of a game.  Even a great pre-game speech to get the troops rallied.  All of these are blips on the data screen (if they appear at all), but have significant impact on a team’s success.

Yet these would not fit into your criteria which, in my oppinion, is a big flaw.

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 06/09/09 at 01:33 PM ET

Drew

Ask me if Datsyuk or Hossa would be integral parts of top teams that could win the Stanley Cup.  I would clearly say yes also.

Their careers have clearly shown they are among the best players in the NHL.

You are making the same point I am making to Paul in Miami when he quotes Osgood stats and tries to argue he is as good as Roy.  The only difference is you are trying to argue that some of the better players in the NHL are not as good as the clear evidence shows due to some injuries in a playoff which have kept their scoring totals down.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 01:38 PM ET

Elite teams had good players that were in the primes of their careers.

brings us back to that ‘07 Ducks team again…

Weren’t Salanne, Niedermayer, and Pronger all past their prime? Oh yeah, and weren’t Getzlaf, Perry, Penner, and Beauchemin all not yet in their prime?

i think Giguere may be the ONLY star from that team in his prime… and that’s arguable seeing that he’s a backup only 2 years later.

and i’m not sure why i keep responding to this. again, you are ignoring the actual arguments, and simply picking random tangents to harp over. rather than addressing the integral concepts of intangibles and team chemistry, you want to talk Rangers. Fine, they were over the hill and it was maybe a bad example. doesn’t change the fact that every NHL player in the league would strongly disagree with your supposition that the parts of the team that are unquantifiable are simply incidental. in fact, more often than not, the elite players tend to cancel each other out in a playoff series. i’d say a truly elite team excels at timely secondary scoring and role players taking their game to unexpected levels.

i’d say a truly elite team has players like Draper, Maltby, McCarty and Chelios taking very little minutes from the kids breaking in, but undeniably having a gargantuan effect in the locker room… an intangible effect that is. truly elite teams have high quality backup goalies not just leaving the team confident if they have to unexpectedly take over in the playoffs, but also pushing the starting goalie to be better day in and day out. again, out of your sight line and intangible. an elite team has a culture of winning, an expectation of winning - losing in the conference finals is considered a huge failure. these teams attract talent who takes less money to play for them. elite teams sustain the same management for over a decade because success is just that consistent. elite teams have leaders that lead by example. elite teams have the perfect combination of talent, will, heart, and team chemistry. you don’t acknowledge any of this stuff in your over-simplified criteria for what makes an “elite” team. you see the game like it’s an all-star game.

the more this goes back in forth, the more i’m realizing that it’s not your definition of “elite” that’s so off… it’s your definition of “team”.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 06/09/09 at 01:44 PM ET

I think a big point you are missing out on is that the Wings have missed a huge number of games for their top players throughout this playoff run and they are still one game away from another cup. 

I think that means that up and down this roster are pretty good players.

Posted by SpaceCityHockey from Houston, TX on 06/09/09 at 01:47 PM ET

The only difference is you are trying to argue that some of the better players in the NHL are not as good as the clear evidence shows due to some injuries in a playoff which have kept their scoring totals down.

That was NOT the point I was trying to make.  I was taking exception to you disregarding intangibles for the fact that they are just that…intangible.  Going by data and stats alone doesn’t tell the whole story.  You cherry pick your own points when it suits you best which is why everyone is getting so frustrated with you.

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 06/09/09 at 01:55 PM ET

“Perfection”

In 2007, Pronger and Niedermayer were two of the three Norris Trophy nominees.  That is hardly what I consider over the hill.  When you add that to a top goalie and a group of forwards including Selanne, Getzlaf and the best checking unit in the game at the time (Pahlsson, Moen, Niedermayer) you hve an elite team in my books.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 02:01 PM ET

What about 3 of the top 10 defensemen in regualar season scoring (LIdstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall) a Norris Trophy Finalist (6 time winner) in Lidstrom, a Hart Trophy/Lady Byng/Selke finalist (Selke/Lady Byng Winner) in Datsyuk, a former Selke Finalist and Conn Smythe winner in Zetterberg, and a goalie who has NEVER had a losing season in Osgood (and playing great in the playoffs) Oh and Marian Hossa and Johan Franzen…who just last year broke Gordie Howe’s record for most goals scored in a single series.

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 06/09/09 at 02:09 PM ET

there you go… continue to evade the actual issues.

conversational skill is not your strong point.

perhaps you should run for office of some kind. your convenient logic, hollow conclusions, and artful dodging of any legitimate questions or counterpoints is politics in a nutshell.

i’m done with this nonsense.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 06/09/09 at 02:10 PM ET

Drew

I agree the Red Wings are a good team.  If they had a top goali, I wouldn’t hesitate in calling them elite.  But they don’t…

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/09/09 at 02:12 PM ET

PSH, those were top players for the Avs.  I am talking supporting players.  You are comparing 3rd liners to 2nd liners.  The Avs had a line of clear first liners, second liners, 3rd liners and fourth liners.  I argue that the Wings have a team with two first lines, a legit second line playing as a third, and a 4th line that would be a third line on any other team, including the 96 Avs. 

The only thing that the 96 Avs clearly have over the Wings is Roy in net, and that is on reputation alone.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 06/09/09 at 02:16 PM ET

“By that point in time, Uwe Krupp had appeared in an NHL All Star Game, Adam Foote was selected to play for Team Canada in the 196 World Cup and was a key player.  Deadmarsh was a key player for USA in that same World Cup.  Mike Keane had been the Montreal captain and was one of the top defensive forwards in the game.

With all due respect to people like Dan Cleary, Brad Stuart and Darren Helm, Colorado had a far better supporting cast in 1996 than Detroit has now. “

But TPSH if you going to point to extra NHL selections or accolades why not admit Niklas Kronwall has quite a few of his own from 2006>

Posted by Paul on 06/09/09 at 02:36 PM ET

Paul in Miami Beach and Redwing,

Today is your chance to learn something new. The definition of a dynasty that TPSH is using—and that you both find so hard to accept—comes from the NHL Official Guide and Record Book (available on Amazon.com and elsewhere). The same definition has been used in the Official NHL Guide for close to two decades, since the Oilers won the Cup in 1990. I’d quote you the page number from the 2009 Edition (and out of the various earlier editions if you wished), but I’m at the office and my reference books are at home.

You’ve asked for a link, but it is rather hard provide you with an electronic link to a paperback book. However, here’s a link to the NHL’s Stanley Cup Record Book and History from the NHL.com site. While it does not give the text of the definition as quoted by TPSH (i.e. 3 Cups in a row, 4 Cups in 5 years and 5 Cups in 7 years), but you’ll note the teams listed as dynasties fall into those groupings.

For the record, 5 Cups by Detroit in 12 seasons is a pretty nice run, and it’s no doubt a great time to be a hockey fan in MoTown. But that impressive accomplishment is nevertheless not a true dynasty by the accepted definition. The Wings will just have to win the Cup in 2009 and come back a do it again next year…

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 03:28 PM ET

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 04:28 PM ET

That means shite now. That was the ‘rule’ in the pre-cap era. The Wings dynasty would be a mix of pre-and current-era.

5 in 12, if it happens, is as impressive as you’ll ever see in the new NHL.

By the way, where are all those people that claimed the Cap era meant an end to the Red Wings?

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 06/09/09 at 03:39 PM ET

While it does not give the text of the definition as quoted by TPSH

Thank you, that’s all I needed to know.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 06/09/09 at 03:41 PM ET

RedWinger

Let me be clear: The definition of Dynasty as quoted by TPSH appears IN PRINT in the NHL Official Guide and Record Book. The fact that I cannot immediately find you an electronic version of that page from an official NHL publication does not invalidate the fact that those words quoted by TPSH appear IN PRINT, sanctioned by the NHL.

As for your suggestion of pre- and post- cap era rules and definitions, that’s a rather silly distinction. That’s like suggesting that Ottawa is the only true dynasty because after the NHL introduced the forward pass which changed the game completely. Or that all teams prior to the New York Islanders cannot be considered dynasties because of the unfair advantage of the reserve clause and territorial exemptions. Or that all teams after the Montreal Canadiens of the 1970s cannot be considered dynasties because of the unfair advantages of free agency.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 03:59 PM ET

You people really have given Detroit Red Wings fans a bad name.  I won’t judge an entire group of fans by a few bad apple loudmouths.

Nice direct contradiction of yourself in the first two sentences, Puck.  How… you.

Look, what this really comes down to is that your style of hockey analysis is fatally flawed, and it has been since the first time I looked at one of your posts here.

What you seem to do is reach a conclusion and then hack up a bunch of barely relevant ‘facts’ to support it, and then say that you’ve proven your point.  As far as I’ve ever been able to tell from reading your posts you’ve yet to prove anything beyond how stubborn and myopic you can be when it suits you.

As far as this latest incident of the generally obtuse manner you take to analysis goes, it’s just more of the same.

-You make the flawed assumption that having x muber of elite players makes a team elite/more elite than a team with x-y number of elite players.

-You make flawed assessments of which players are actually ‘elite’ in the first place.

-You constantly flip flop between assessing a team on a year to year basis and over a period of time, and take the same flawed approach with players.

-You appear to be fundamentally unable to accurate assess the ability of post-lockout teams to pre-lockout teams.

In general, you seem to view hockey through a slightly cracked prism of pre-conception, misinformation and downright silliness that makes any kind of theory or notion you come up with look more like impressionist art than a drawn to life portrait.

But, hey, there is some modicum of enjoyment to be drawn from looking at what half-mad artists draw and attempting to find something there.  Now that I’m fairly certain you’re a little cracked, I can ‘enjoy’ your posts with the foreknowledge that they aren’t written by an author with much referent gravitas… just some blogger whose sees things through his own warped perceptions and stubbornly glues himself to whatever he posts.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/09/09 at 05:50 PM ET

Elite teams had good players that were in the primes of their careers.

Osgood is in the prime of his career.  So are Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Franzen, Cleary, Samuelsson, etc etc

Thanks for admitting that the Wings are an elite team.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 06:03 PM ET

While it does not give the text of the definition as quoted by TPSH (i.e. 3 Cups in a row, 4 Cups in 5 years and 5 Cups in 7 years), but you’ll note the teams listed as dynasties fall into those groupings.

from that link.

1919-1927 Ottawa Senators - 4 Cups in 8 years.

1950-1955 Red Wings - 4 Cups in 6 years.

1962-1967 Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 Cups in 6 years.

there are three that don’t fit what you say the definition is.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 06:10 PM ET

As for your suggestion of pre- and post- cap era rules and definitions, that’s a rather silly distinction. That’s like suggesting that Ottawa is the only true dynasty because after the NHL introduced the forward pass which changed the game completely. Or that all teams prior to the New York Islanders cannot be considered dynasties because of the unfair advantage of the reserve clause and territorial exemptions. Or that all teams after the Montreal Canadiens of the 1970s cannot be considered dynasties because of the unfair advantages of free agency.

not sure what the name is for this type of argument, but I’m sure there is one.  he said one thing, and you argued against the converse.

it’s like if I said “the ground is wet because it rained” and you come back with “so you are saying it rained every time the ground was wet.”  there are other reasons the ground could be wet, which have nothing to do with why it is wet now and offer no valid argument against his statement.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 06:14 PM ET

Paul In Miami Beach,

Sigh….

RedWinger asserted that the accepted definition of “dynasty” no longer applied (I won’t quote his misspelled profanity) because “that was the ‘rule’ in the pre-cap era.” Presumably RedWinger infers that in the salary cap era we need a less restrictive definition of “dynasty.” Which to my mind is nonsense.

My response covered some of the aspects of the game that have changed over time that impacted the ability for teams to repeat as champions (either making it easier or not easier depending on your point of view), suggested the salary cap isn’t any more significant than some those changes, and thus called into question why we needed a different (i.e. less strict) definition of “dynasty”.

To use your metaphor for my argument, where RedWingersaid “We cannot go outside because it’s raining”, my reply was “It’s rained all these other times and we’ve had no problem going outside. What’s so different about this rain?”

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 06:53 PM ET

To use your metaphor for my argument, where RedWingersaid “We cannot go outside because it’s raining”, my reply was “It’s rained all these other times and we’ve had no problem going outside. What’s so different about this rain?”

when did RW say anything about excluding past teams from “elite” because the standards for what is currently elite have changed?  he never did.  in fact, I believe the name for your argument is a strawman.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 07:28 PM ET

OMG

now we know why Edzo isn’t a coach.  he would actually SAY THAT to his players?  yikes.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 08:53 PM ET

oops, damn.. wrong thread.  damn tabbed browsing.

LOL.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/09/09 at 08:53 PM ET

Paul in Miami Beach,

I never said ANYTHING about elite teams in my correspondence with you or RedWinger! That’s a TPSH word / argument that I want no truck or trade with.

So back and re-read my correspondence. RedWinger wants to loosen the definition of Dynasty because of the salary cap. I prefer a stricter definition, and I offer evidence for why it is unnecessary to loosen the definition. I don’t see why the salary cap should be accorded any more weight than some of the other changes to the game in the past that have made it harder and/or easier (depending on your point of view) to maintain a dynasty. That is not a straw man argument. It’s a comparative argument.

It’s now up to RedWinger (or you) to provide some rationale why the salary cap is more of a boogyman than the loss of the reserve clause et al and support RedWinger’s argument that a looser definition of Dynasty is necessary.

Myself, I think I’ll just wait for Detroit to win one of the next two games, then win the Cup in 2010, achieving a real dynasty by the accepted rules and call it good…

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 09:28 PM ET

Paul In Miami Beach and RedWinger,

Okay, I’m finally at home, and pulled a book off the shelf. This is a quote from Total Stanley Cup 2004: The Official NHL Playoff Media Guide, page 128:

“Although the definition of a sports “dynasty” can be debated, the following criteria have been used here:
a) Three-or-more consecutive Stanley Cup wins,
b) Five or six consecutive playoff appearances including four Stanley Cup wins, and
c) Seven consecutive playoff appearances including five Stanley Cup wins”

That is essentially the criteria that I detailed previously, the only differential being four Cups in five or six years. (My memory had it as four Cups in five years. What’s a year between friends?) Under that criteria, the Guide lists eight teams as qualifying for the tag “Dynasty”. That list on the printed page is the same as the teams appearing on the link I provided earlier with the EXCEPTION of those Ottawa teams from the early 1920s.

By the way, the information above is republished in Total Stanley Cup 2008: The Official NHL Playoff Media Guide, page 136. This document WAS available electronically as a PDF. Here’s the link so you can download it for yourself:

Total Stanley Cup 2008

Cheers!

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/09/09 at 10:28 PM ET

Nope and as I have said in the past, TPSH is read world-wide, not just by Wings fans.

Don’t worry, it’s not just Wings fans that think his arguments are brutal…

Posted by dare from Edmonton, AB on 06/10/09 at 12:48 AM ET