This again.  You and your elite teams.

This is nonsense.

The last three cup finals: Hawks/Flyers and Penguins/Wings part 1 & 2, involved better, more talented teams, a better product, and better hockey for the fan than either the last two post-lockout snooze-fests that were the Calgary vs. Tampa series or the Anaheim vs. New Jersey series.  None of those four teams were elite either and none of them are as good as the Pens, Wings, and Blackhawks of the last 3 years.  Even the Flyers, despite their regular season record, are very good team.  They struggled with both injuries and consistency over the year, but they are no fluke.  This was a team built to win it now.

The Cap has certainly made it harder for teams to keep all their players.  Most definitely.  It has, however, made it so the core of a team, the real stars, stick around much, much longer.  Just look at all the long term deals that are going to keep the core of teams like Detroit, Pittsburg, Chicago and Washington together for years to come.  You didn’t see stuff like this pre-lockout.  Sure, there will be a lot of churning of the roster each year, but the talented cores will remain.

I like the Cap.  I know that’s rare to hear from a Wings fan, but I think it works.  I never liked the idea of certain small market teams essentially becoming farm clubs for the big money clubs.  It’s lame.  I like how everyone has a shot at free agents every year and it’s just not the same group of teams, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, New York, Philly, always in the mix for the big names. 

There’s no more “buying” the Cup.  You have to earn it now with good scouting, good drafting, good development and shrewd contract negotiations.  Sure, there will be times when you hit that salary cap sweet spot, like the Wings did last year and the Hawks are experiencing this year, but, again, that’s primarily due to solid management decisions.  Sports should be determined by what happens on the ice/field and what happens in the back-room/management aspect, not based on which owner has the fattest, deepest wallet.

The Blackhawks next year wont be the Blackhawks this year, but they will still be a great team.  One of the best in the league, no doubt.

Your obsession with teams being “elite” or not is odd and pretty meaningless, really.

Posted by Ajax19 on 06/04/10 at 12:33 PM ET

It is a commentary on the state of the NHL that the probable Stanley Cup champions are a team that is already being dismantled, for no reason other than rules that give the NHL owner’s larger profits under a salary cap.

Well, there’s also the fact that they gave Huet and Campbell a combined 12.8 million (22% of the cap for next year if it is 58.8 mil).  The reason they are breaking up has more to do with their incompetence managing the cap than the actual cap itself. 

Posted by Ajax19 on 06/04/10 at 12:33 PM ET

Good post.  Agree on all points.

Posted by pens fan in baltimore on 06/04/10 at 12:45 PM ET

Ajax19, a very well-thought-out comment.

I like the cap, too, overall, even though it’s not perfect.  But what system is?  Certainly I’d much rather have it than the system we had before.

I would not mind exploration of a modification that would allow teams to sign a player or players drafted by the team, which I guess the NBA has.  I am wary of creating more loopholes, but there might be some merit to that idea.  It would bar the poaching of players from elsewhere, but give teams a break for good drafting and development, which presumably we want to reward, not punish.  This will of course still disproportionately benefit big-money teams, though.  But maybe it’s worth thinking about.

Posted by Lex Talionis on 06/04/10 at 12:47 PM ET

what about this:

- nhl’s got the cap now
- with the cap, you don’t get elite (in your definition) teams

—> there are no more elite teams.

... well, what about changing the definition of an “elite team”, then?
the whole nhl had to change with the cup, so it’sonly fair you also have to

or you could just rant on and on about there being no more elite teams.
but the logic does a bit tail-biting, doesn’t it?

and, for the definition of an “elite team”: you really think that a team has to have elite players in every position? then the last elite team has been seen a loooong time ago.
i’m sure the 08 wings should be considered an elite team, both defensively and offensively. same goes for pittsburgh a year later. what those two teams didn’t have, was an elite goalie. it’s purely logical to deduct they’re not elite teams then, lacking an elite puck-stopper ... but not calling the wings/pens elite is a bit far away from reality, isn’t it?

so, coming back to the beginning: maybe your definition of “elite” needs some work.
otherwise the only thing you can write about is bound to be repetitive.

the hockey played after the lockout is the best i’ve ever seen played - not because of the cap, but because of the rule changes. so i’m not buying that teams (and thus the level of play) were that much better pre-lockout/pre-cap. did we have real elite teams then? sure. as we do now. but before the lockout, there were way more suckeroos in the league. and no, i’m not talking about how many mediocre teams had a chance to make the playoffs in the east

Posted by german_wing from Toronto, Canada on 06/04/10 at 12:51 PM ET

just found an article about the elite/goalies/lockout topic:

http://www.puckupdate.com/2010/06/04/john-madden-no-longer-needs-an-elite-goalie/

madden speaks my mind!

Posted by german_wing from Toronto, Canada on 06/04/10 at 01:06 PM ET

Good post Ajax19. Maybe you should be blogging instead of commenting…

Posted by blammo from Vancouver, BC on 06/04/10 at 01:14 PM ET

Neither of these teams have the elite players that one might expect looking at historical finals.  This is why the series has been lacklustre.

“There you go again.”

I see just as much collective elite talent on the Philly and Blackhawk rosters than I do on any of these recent participants. 

2004 finals rosters:
Calgary - http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000432004.html

TBay - http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000552004.html

2006 finals:
Carolina - http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0009792006.html

Edmonton -
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000412006.html

2007 finals:
Anaheim - http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0043122007.html

Ottawa -
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000542007.html

Give it up, PSH.  Type it with me now: “This is a decent finals match-up.”

Posted by Leo_Racicot on 06/04/10 at 01:40 PM ET

... well, what about changing the definition of an “elite team”, then?

Posted by german_wing from Frankfurt on 06/04/10 at 12:51 PM ET

Great point, Deutschland.  PSH’s well thought-out elite team breakdown back in 2006 dances around the cap topic quite a bit.  And in his defense, it was written just after the cap rules went into place.

Posted by Leo_Racicot on 06/04/10 at 02:00 PM ET

The last three cup finals: Hawks/Flyers and Penguins/Wings part 1 & 2, involved better, more talented teams, a better product, and better hockey for the fan than either the last two post-lockout snooze-fests that were the Calgary vs. Tampa series or the Anaheim vs. New Jersey series.  None of those four teams were elite either and none of them are as good as the Pens, Wings, and Blackhawks of the last 3 years.  Even the Flyers, despite their regular season record, are very good team.  They struggled with both injuries and consistency over the year, but they are no fluke.  This was a team built to win it now.

This statement is largely false.  The Hawks/Flyers is not a particularly talented finals series.  The Hawks are one of the better teams in a league that has had its top teams removed.  They are a team that is 3 or 4 years from their peak and will never get to one because they will not stay together that long. 

The Philadephia Flyers are a joke as a Stanley Cup finalist.  They should not have made the playoffs.  As the 18th place finisher in a league where 16 teams make the playoffs, they are the lowest regular season finisher ever to get to the finals.  They got to the finals largely as a fluke.  they played the three lowest scoring playoff teams and got unsustainable goaltending from borderline NHL players.  If Philadelphia is built to win now, they are built very badly.  They lost half of their regular season games. 

This final is extremely weak in terms of the talent and ability of the teams.  You have to go back a long time to find a similarly untalented final (I am thinking world war 2). 

Your first paragraph is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Cap has certainly made it harder for teams to keep all their players.  Most definitely.  It has, however, made it so the core of a team, the real stars, stick around much, much longer.  Just look at all the long term deals that are going to keep the core of teams like Detroit, Pittsburg, Chicago and Washington together for years to come.  You didn’t see stuff like this pre-lockout.  Sure, there will be a lot of churning of the roster each year, but the talented cores will remain.

The cap (and liberalized free agency that came with it and over expansion) have made it so that no elite teams ever exist anymore.  They are broken up before they get there. 

There have always been teams that kept winning cores together.  Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey are examples from the 90’s.  The cap does nothing to help them do so and makes it harder.  The longterm contracts signed by some players is NOT a guarantee any team stays together.  It is entirely possible (and probable) that some of these players signed longterm get traded (or bought out) because their team needs the cap room.  Before you crow about how teams are staying together, lets wait and see if it actually happens.

I like the Cap.  I know that’s rare to hear from a Wings fan, but I think it works.  I never liked the idea of certain small market teams essentially becoming farm clubs for the big money clubs.  It’s lame.  I like how everyone has a shot at free agents every year and it’s just not the same group of teams, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, New York, Philly, always in the mix for the big names. 

Free agency is a red herring here.  In the old CBA, you could not build a winning team via free agency.  Players did not come available until they were on the downside of their careers (age 31 or older).  Today you can become a free agent as young as 25 years old.  It didn’t matter that some teams spent a lot of money on free agency.  Unless they had a talented young core they couldnt win.  In fact, the rangers spent more money on free agents than anyone and missed the playoffs 7 straight years.  It was a losing strategy.

The real problem was that good teams stayed together a long time.  In 2004, it was possible (and likely) that those good teams were going to be Tampa Bay and Ottawa for the next several years.  That was bad for business.  They had to be broken up.  Bigger markets had to have a better chance to win.  A salary cap accomplished that to some degree (it sure broke them up).  Gary Bettman was not expecting the longterm deals we have seen - he remains against them.  He was expecting to see the NHL’s best players reach free agency in or before their primes and go to the biggest markets.  Sure there was a salary cap, but you only need one Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin to make a big difference to your franchise.  These big names would go to the big markets because that was where the money was.  Advertising money was the draw.  Crosby could make more in ads in New York than in Pittsburgh (the same way Gretzky made more in LA than Edmonton).

There’s no more “buying” the Cup.  You have to earn it now with good scouting, good drafting, good development and shrewd contract negotiations.  Sure, there will be times when you hit that salary cap sweet spot, like the Wings did last year and the Hawks are experiencing this year, but, again, that’s primarily due to solid management decisions.  Sports should be determined by what happens on the ice/field and what happens in the back-room/management aspect, not based on which owner has the fattest, deepest wallet.

There never was a buying of the cup.  That is myth.  Look at the markets that won it.  Tampa Bay,  East Rutherford, New Jersey, Denver, Colorado, Dallas (look at revenues in both of the last two of those markets today - they cannot be classified as big money markets).  Detroit has been in economic decline for years with the problems in the auto industry and yet they remain “big money”.

If teams could buy the Stanley Cup, then New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto would have dominated the cup winners, but they didn’t.  Ironically, Chicago looks likely to win now.

In the past, any market could get a good young core of players.  when the team started winning revenue exploded and they could afford the salaries to keep their core together.  Today a team gets a good core of players and has no chance to keep them together and breaks them up before their peak is achieved.  No more elite teams.

The Blackhawks next year wont be the Blackhawks this year, but they will still be a great team.  One of the best in the league, no doubt.

The Blackhawks are a good team.  They will never be an elite team.  That is sad because they could have been.  Instead of a seeing what the 2014 Blackhawks could have been, we will be stuck with whichever team can find their temporary window to win before they are dismantled at that time.

The Stanley Cup finals used to have more good players in them.  They have had better teams almost every year in the past (the only recent year to rival this one for inept finalists in 2006).  The changes the NHL has made over the past few years have reduced the quality of top teams.  As a result, the finals are trending toward weaker and weaker teams.  The stagnant salary cap of the last couple years has made the situation worse. 

The idea that a historical precident of what makes an elite team needs to be changed because the NHL mangled its rules so that none can exist anymore is false.  I will not redefine teams that could not have made the Stanley Cup finals as elite just to pretend there has been no damage to the league.  I will fight against the weakening of the NHL’s best teams and the lacklustre Stanley Cup finals it has brought us.

With the persepctive of history, when we are 10 or 20 years away from today, we will look back on the Stanley Cup champions of the last few years as being a series of unremarkable teams.  Hoepfully things will have changed to reverse that trend.  Hopefully better teams will be allowed to exist again.  i will not hold my breath.  Right now we see the likely Stanley Cup champions about to be dismantled and we see them in a playoff series against a rather mediocre team.  The result is the games have been lesser quality hockey than stanley Cup finals of the past.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/04/10 at 02:58 PM ET

These “elite teams” posts are dumb. Normally I would add a “no offense” to the author in this statement, but I can’t, not after seeing all the dead-horse-beating and noting that it appears to be PuckStopsHere versus every other hockey fan on KK, which is a collection of pretty knowledgeable and engaged hockey fans.

Ajax19 and German Wing posted pretty good rebuttals. PSH posted a belabored response and managed to thread a dozen more needles in defense; an overly complex argument is not necessary to support a good idea.

I’m thinking that if this “elite” teams thought had any merit or gained any traction, we’d have to worry about March Madness being whittled to a preselected Final Four of Duke, NC, Kansas and, I don’t know, Michigan State. Otherwise, the quality of games would suffer.

Posted by awould on 06/04/10 at 04:29 PM ET

This is an interesting discussion.  A couple of things come to mind.  1st the Flyers were the #7 seed, really tied with the Canadiens with 88pts.  The WSH, PIT, BUF, NJ and even OTT were significantly better teams during the regular season.  So the main reason why such a mediocre team as PHI is in the finals is that through either luck or whatever else one chooses to explain it, PHI beat out the rest of the field in the East.  I know, I know, the East is not as strong as the West but there were better teams and some significantly so, than PHI in the East.  So that’s part of it.  And whether or not a truly elite team would have been upset by MTL, BOS or PHI, you can’t argue that PHI is the best the East has to offer this year.  That’s one thing. 

The other thing that comes to mind is that there is more to how entertaining the hockey is than how good the players are or how many all-time great players or teams are playing in the game.  In fact I would argue that that is only a small determinant of how enjoyable the games are to watch.  And the ironic thing is that even that is not for the reason people think.  I think that having all-time great teams and players playing adds to the enjoyment of watching mostly for the reason that they are more well-known and hence the match-up is more compelling and that it is not because their greater skill and talent is so much more fun to watch.  Yes it is more fun to watch but I believe that is only a small reason why match-ups of all-time great teams are enjoyable.  I believe its mostly because such match-ups are more emotionally compelling.

One last point : hockey is a relatively low-scoring sport with a relatively ( relative to average Goal/gm output)  large variation in game to game scoring output.  This means that upsets are common and that the outcomes of short series are subject to large amounts of luck.  In order to be an odds-on favorite to emerge from your conference’s field of 8 teams you need to be a lot better than the other teams.  Most years the best team in a conference won’t represent its conference.  That’s just the natural result of allowing 16 teams into the playoffs where the outcome of a playoff series is so heavily dependent on luck.

Posted by Bossy_Rules on 06/04/10 at 05:41 PM ET

I think PHI gets a bad rep as a mediocre team. Many picked them to win it all before the season started, when they got that dbag Pronger. They had a rough season with injuries and their goalie problems are widely known. I think they managed to right the ship just in the nic of time. Overcoming 0-3 deficit to beat Boston was no easy task - even for those who say Boston folded and wasn’t too good to begin with, beating any team under those conditions, 4 straight, is impressive.

That said, I do agree that the East basically sucks and if PHI had to battle through the West, they’d be playing golf right now….

Posted by awould on 06/04/10 at 05:52 PM ET