1990's-2000's: Colorado Avalanche vs Detroit Red Wings

[Hobnobs]

i find myself defending pierre lacroix a lot, but observing from afar i thought the son thing was more well-handled than it could have been. i invite colorado fans to give us the inside, day-to-day scoop.

it was 100% a mistake to acquire his kid: for his team, for his kid, for everyone. i'm sure even he would tell you that now. but after two years, he admitted his mistake and traded him away. we've all seen situations where a gm/coach's literal son wasn't involved where it was much more drawn out.

and i remember eric lacroix being a promising and useful player. looking at his stats now he was listed as 6'1 and 210 but i could have sworn he was 6'3, 225, so at least in my memory he played like a big guy. late bloomer, decent offensive ability for a grinding bottom six forward, responsible in his own end and sticks up for his teammates. a poor man's ian laperriere? so it wasn't like his son was total garbage, just a distraction that wasn't worth the disruption to team unity.

He didnt admit his mistake. Eric had to literally demand a trade

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He didnt admit his mistake. Eric had to literally demand a trade

really? whoa, i stand corrected.

so i just googled it. here's something:

Eventually, internal problems revolving around the fact that he was the GM's son began to take its toll. Lacroix requested a trade.

"I had a bad episode there leaving Colorado, which is fine," he said. "At the time, it was not fun, but I've learned to deal with it. Unfortunately, that little incident was out of my control and out of anybody's control and the next thing you know, it was time to move on. That's what life is all about. Was it sad at the time? Yeah. Do I understand it today? Yeah."

https://www.dcourier.com/news/2006/feb/25/lacroix-a-new-chapter-in-life/

sounds like he's referring to a specific incident. anyone know what happened?

another article:

With at least part of the blame being tossed his way for a season-opening 1-5-1 record at Colorado, embattled left winger Eric Lacroix went to the general manager, his embattled father Pierre Lacroix, and requested a trade.

[...]

Sources close to the team said that Eric paid for the sins of his father, who traded a large portion of the team after the Avalanche won the Stanley Cup in 1996. Among those traded were backup goalie Stephane Fiset, sent to the Kings in a deal for Eric Lacroix on June 21, 1996.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/30/sports/sp-37707

 

[LightningStorm]

Assuming the OP meant the Dead Puck Era (1995-2004), I'd have to go with the Wings, though AINEC in favor of either team is a wrong answer. And though the Wings having a 3-2 cup edge helps, it's not the end all be because I rank the Avs above the Devils during this era, despite them also having a 3-2 cup advantage.

When comparing other categories for this era, the Wings mostly come out on top of the Avs. Here's how Detroit, Colorado and Dallas compare from 1995-2004 in categories besides cups:

#1 seed in the Western Conference:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 96, 02, 04)
2. Dallas: 3 (98, 99, 03)
3. Colorado: 2 (97, 01)
The other winner was St. Louis in 2000 (President's trophy as well)

President's trophies:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 96, 02, 04)
2. Colorado: 2 (97, 01) and Dallas: 2 (98 and 99)

Conference final appearances:
1. Colorado: 6 (96, 97, 99, 00, 01, 02)
2. Detroit: 5 (95, 96, 97, 98, 02)
3. Dallas: 3 (98, 99, 00)

Conference champions:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 97, 98, 02)
2. Colorado: 2 (96 and 01) and Dallas 2 (99 and 00)

Playoff series against each other:
Colorado vs Detroit: 3-2 Avs
Colorado vs Dallas: 2-1 Stars
Dallas vs Detroit: 1-0 Wings

As we can see, the Wings come out on top in most categories, in addition to cups.

As I said before though, I do rank the Avs ahead of the Devils during this era. The Devils playoff performances from 1996-99 (one playoff series win) drop them below the Avs in my book, in spite of them having one more cup. Plus the West was much tougher than the east. The Devils were the only big 4 team in that era in the East. The Avs lost 4 times in the WCF, twice apiece to Detroit and Dallas, which IMO costed them at least 3 cups. They'd be favorites over the 97 Flyers and heavy favorites over the 99 Sabres and 02 Hurricanes, while the 2000 Devils would've been a tossup like their finals the next season.

All in all, here's how I rank the big 4:
1. Detroit
2. Colorado
3. New Jersey
4. Dallas

And while I've seen many what if scenarios here, mainly revolving around one or more of the WCF game 7's the Avs lost, I think the game that would've impacted the rankings the most was game 7 of the 2001 SCF. If the Devils win it, they would've undisputedly been the best of this era, not only having the most cups but also beating all of the other 3 in the finals. Meanwhile, the Avs might be below the Stars in this scenario. Each would've had a single cup, but perhaps the Stars winning both of the WCF they played against each other would've given them the edge in this case.

Of course there was the trade that sent Kozlov and a 1st round pick to Buffalo for Hasek. But either way, let's remember one thing, if a team "bought" the Cup, good for them. It isn't as if the Rangers didn't try over this entire era. My Leafs tried. Detroit was just a place that players knew wanted to win. It will surprise some people looking back, but that 2002 team had trouble in practically every series they were in. 1st round they are down 2-0 to Vancouver and if Lidstrom's center ice shot doesn't go in during Game 3 who knows what happens. They controlled St. Louis rather easily but were down 3-2 against Colorado. Then in the final, despite it being a 5 game series it was more like the 1993 Cup final in the way that the earlier games were far from a done deal. Detroit loses Game 1, then won Game 2 but didn't break the tie until 5 minutes left in the game, then scored with a minute left in Game 3 to tie it and needed triple overtime to win while Carolina had a glorious opportunity with a power play in the second overtime. After Game 3 it was a done deal I think, but those first three games were closer than some might remember. They put more of a scare into Detroit than you would have thought.

I agree that the notion of the 2002 Wings being a bought team is overblown. It's not like most of them were in their prime, which would've been financially impossible to have them all on the same team, even for a big spending team like Detroit in the pre salary cap days. Big Phil is right about them facing struggles in every series outside of the St. Louis one, and there were people who questioned whether a team as old as them could survive the grind required to win a cup.

 

[The Panther]

I agree that the notion of the 2002 Wings being a bought team is overblown.

You won't convince Oilers fans (like me) of that! The only reason the Oilers fell completely out of contention from about 1992-93 to 1997 (and sporadically for years after that) is because of unfair NHL economics. It's great that the Red Wings built a big team then -- good for them, it was good for the League to have Detroit be powerful again -- but they only did so because several teams with equally good management couldn't afford to compete.

Anyway, back to the thread topic: I guess I have go with Detroit, since they have the 3-2 Cup edge in the 1996 to 2002 period.

In general, I think you have to say the Avalanche were stronger at center and in goal -- two positions that often determine champions on teams. However, the Red Wings were deeper overall at forward, and I think they were much stronger on defense. The advantage the Avs had with Roy in net isn't enough to push them over the hill.

 

[LightningStorm]

You won't convince Oilers fans (like me) of that! The only reason the Oilers fell completely out of contention from about 1992-93 to 1997 (and sporadically for years after that) is because of unfair NHL economics. It's great that the Red Wings built a big team then -- good for them, it was good for the League to have Detroit be powerful again -- but they only did so because several teams with equally good management couldn't afford to compete.

The point I was trying to make was it wasn't like the Red Wings were assembling an All Star team of superstars in their prime. Most of their HOF's were past their prime by then, and others such as Datsyuk and Zetterberg hadn't hit theirs yet. My main point was they weren't much of an outlier from the stacked teams their western rivals in Colorado and Dallas had built. It's obvious those teams were great partially due to their ability to be among the largest spenders, a luxury the Canadian teams with the exception of Toronto (and Vancouver to a lesser extent) lacked.

 

[The Panther]

The point I was trying to make was it wasn't like the Red Wings were assembling an All Star team of superstars in their prime. Most of their HOF's were past their prime by then, and others such as Datsyuk and Zetterberg hadn't hit theirs yet. My main point was they weren't much of an outlier from the stacked teams their western rivals in Colorado and Dallas had built. It's obvious those teams were great partially due to their ability to be among the largest spenders, a luxury the Canadian teams with the exception of Toronto (and Vancouver to a lesser extent) lacked.

Okay, I see your point. Thanks for explaining.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Colorado vs Dallas: 2-0 Stars
Dallas vs Detroit: 1-0 Wings

Colorado beat Dallas in 5 games in 2004, while Detroit did the same in 1995.

 

[overg]

It will surprise some people looking back, but that 2002 team had trouble in practically every series they were in. 1st round they are down 2-0 to Vancouver and if Lidstrom's center ice shot doesn't go in during Game 3 who knows what happens. They controlled St. Louis rather easily but were down 3-2 against Colorado. Then in the final, despite it being a 5 game series it was more like the 1993 Cup final in the way that the earlier games were far from a done deal. Detroit loses Game 1, then won Game 2 but didn't break the tie until 5 minutes left in the game, then scored with a minute left in Game 3 to tie it and needed triple overtime to win while Carolina had a glorious opportunity with a power play in the second overtime. After Game 3 it was a done deal I think, but those first three games were closer than some might remember. They put more of a scare into Detroit than you would have thought.

Of the four modern era Wings Cups, the '02 squad was the one which most "coasted" on its talent. They didn't exactly mail games in, but compared to the other three Wings' Cups, they may have been the least disciplined. The '97 probably hit the highest peak-team play of the bunch, as they were just a monster by the time they bonked the Flyers. The '98 squad was probably the weakest team overall, but may have also had the highest will to win (due to the Konstantinov factor). And the biggest surprise is the '08 team. Despite having by far the least impressive roster, they just *controlled* games throughout both the regular season and playoffs, often looking more dominant than even the '02 squad on a per-game basis.

The '02 had the most star power, but there are legit arguments that it might have only been the third best of the Wings Cup-winning teams from that era. You could also easily argue it was the best team of the bunch, but it's not the slam dunk many assume when they look at the roster.

As for the original question, my answer changes depending upon whether we're talking overall success, or head to head. Overall, I think it's hard to argue against the Wings. More Cups, more success in the regular season. But head to head, I'd probably give Colorado the slight edge. They just seemed to slightly out-clutch the Wings more often than vice versa.

 

[Leafsdude7]

The Wings had the better depth, but the Avs had the better star power, IMO. There wasn't really a bad player on the Wings through most of their peak, but I'd tend to rank their best players behind most of the Avs best over those years: Sakic was better than Yzerman (though I think their careers were about even or in Yzerman's favour), Forsberg better than Fedorov, Blake/Foote better than anyone except maybe Lidstrom (who, IMO, didn't peak until after the Avs best years were behind them). The Wings were much better in defense depth over their best years, but the Avs had the better goaltender in Roy.

Picking the better team is therefore a matter of taste, IMO. If you think a team is only as good as their best player, you gotta go Avs, but if you think you need all 19 players to be a great team, you gotta go Wings.

 

[Hobnobs]

The Wings had the better depth, but the Avs had the better star power, IMO. There wasn't really a bad player on the Wings through most of their peak, but I'd tend to rank their best players behind most of the Avs best over those years: Sakic was better than Yzerman (though I think their careers were about even or in Yzerman's favour), Forsberg better than Fedorov, Blake/Foote better than anyone except maybe Lidstrom (who, IMO, didn't peak until after the Avs best years were behind them). The Wings were much better in defense depth over their best years, but the Avs had the better goaltender in Roy.

Picking the better team is therefore a matter of taste, IMO. If you think a team is only as good as their best player, you gotta go Avs, but if you think you need all 19 players to be a great team, you gotta go Wings.

but Fedorov once led the playoffs in assists WITHOUT EVEN REACHING THE FINALS!

 

[Doctor No]

but Fedorov once led the playoffs in assists WITHOUT EVEN REACHING THE FINALS!

I'm not sure of the relevance, but Peter Forsberg has also done this (and led in points, too).

 

[Epsilon]

The Wings had the better depth, but the Avs had the better star power, IMO. There wasn't really a bad player on the Wings through most of their peak, but I'd tend to rank their best players behind most of the Avs best over those years: Sakic was better than Yzerman (though I think their careers were about even or in Yzerman's favour), Forsberg better than Fedorov, Blake/Foote better than anyone except maybe Lidstrom (who, IMO, didn't peak until after the Avs best years were behind them). The Wings were much better in defense depth over their best years, but the Avs had the better goaltender in Roy.

Picking the better team is therefore a matter of taste, IMO. If you think a team is only as good as their best player, you gotta go Avs, but if you think you need all 19 players to be a great team, you gotta go Wings.

This is a bit of a weird claim unless you think Lidstrom's peak was 06-08 post-lockout stretch. The Avs won the Cup in '01 and went to the conference finals against Detroit in '02, both seasons where Lidstrom won the Norris trophy (coming off of 3 straight runner-up finishes), so it would be strange to say "their best years were behind them" at that point.

Also, I don't really think there's any reason to use maybe there; Lidstrom was clearly better than both Blake and Foote through that period. Chelios certainly also was in '02, while Konstantinov was clearly better than Foote in '96 and '97.

 

[Leafsdude7]

This is a bit of a weird claim unless you think Lidstrom's peak was 06-08 post-lockout stretch. The Avs won the Cup in '01 and went to the conference finals against Detroit in '02, both seasons where Lidstrom won the Norris trophy (coming off of 3 straight runner-up finishes), so it would be strange to say "their best years were behind them" at that point.

Also, I don't really think there's any reason to use maybe there; Lidstrom was clearly better than both Blake and Foote through that period. Chelios certainly also was in '02, while Konstantinov was clearly better than Foote in '96 and '97.

I'd say Lidstrom's peak was ~'02-'10, but it might have been more a case of flying under the radar before that. And while the Avs won the Cup in 01 and made the Western Finals the next year, they never seriously challenged again after. The loss of Roy pretty much crippled their claim as a top team from '04-'10, IMO, and the '03 team was at least a disappointment. So maybe there was a little overlap, but not much.

Konstantinov vs Foote I think it fairly even. I don't think I'd agree that Vlad was better than Foote, let alone clearly.

 

[LightningStorm]

Okay, I see your point. Thanks for explaining.

Not a problem.

Colorado beat Dallas in 5 games in 2004, while Detroit did the same in 1995.

Forgot about the 04 first round series. I guess I accidentally equated it more with the 06 one than the Roy-Belfour WCF in 99 and 00. Edited my post to fix it.

And while the Wings did beat the Stars in 95, that series doesn't quite fit with the spirit of the Big 4 DPE era since that series was before the Stars became part of the big 4 in 97. Heck, even then they weren't quite on the others level since it wasn't until 98 when Belfour arrived.

 

[feffan]

I'd say Lidstrom's peak was ~'02-'10, but it might have been more a case of flying under the radar before that. And while the Avs won the Cup in 01 and made the Western Finals the next year, they never seriously challenged again after. The loss of Roy pretty much crippled their claim as a top team from '04-'10, IMO, and the '03 team was at least a disappointment. So maybe there was a little overlap, but not much.

Konstantinov vs Foote I think it fairly even. I don't think I'd agree that Vlad was better than Foote, let alone clearly.

Lidstroms peak for on ice ability was about 1994-2003. That it, as u are speculating around, took many long to figure out is another case. But after the lockout, even when winning those Norrises, he was a clear step down from his DPE himself.

Konstantinov finished 4th and 2nd in Norris his last two seasons before the accident. Foote got 1 vote in 98/99 and 8 votes in 02/03.

Foote was a great player 2-3 defenceman who is underrated by many. But comparing him to peak Konstantinov won´t make him look good. And there´s really nothing there but subjective memories to say he was nearly as good.

Lidstrom was the clear best defender out of the Colorado/Detroit defenders during the rivaly. Peak Konstantinov and Blake are up for discussion. Foote is a distant four.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Lidstroms peak for on ice ability was about 1994-2003. That it, as u are speculating around, took many long to figure out is another case. But after the lockout, even when winning those Norrises, he was a clear step down from his DPE himself.

I don't think 2005-06 or 2007-08 were a clear step down from anything - probably two of his three best seasons along with 1999-00. Even in 2007, he nearly led the playoffs in scoring without even reaching the Finals. I would put the range between 1997-98 and 2007-08. But obviously he was good before and good after, because he's a good player.

Of all the defensemen on both sides, Konstantinov was the most visibly excellent in the matchup - and with respect to Chelios, the one thing the 1996-97 Red Wings never adequately replaced, because he's the one who could shutdown Colorado's top-line.

 

[feffan]

I don't think 2005-06 or 2007-08 were a clear step down from anything - probably two of his three best seasons along with 1999-00. Even in 2007, he nearly led the playoffs in scoring without even reaching the Finals. I would put the range between 1997-98 and 2007-08. But obviously he was good before and good after, because he's a good player.

Of all the defensemen on both sides, Konstantinov was the most visibly excellent in the matchup - and with respect to Chelios, the one thing the 1996-97 Red Wings never adequately replaced, because he's the one who could shutdown Colorado's top-line.

In a vacuum I agree with you that those seasons where great and by achievements belong among his greatest. But I don´t believe he would have seen that revival if not for the change in philosphy from the NHL efter the 04/05 lockout. Even if many players (Hull for instance...) noticed they couldn´t keep up in the new NHL, it also prolonged and gave new wind to some that DPE had almost extinguished their time as elite players. Jagr and Lidstrom I place in that department.
That Lidstrom, with worse "back up defenders" after the lockout had less ATOI than before the lockout is maybe the most telling stat of it all. I don´t think 05/06 and beyond Lidstrom could have done what he did if the DPE had continued. But the DPE Lidstrom could have done what the after lockout Lidstromdid.
The grind, even for a smart player who didn´t build his play on physicality, was taking a toll. After the lockout may not have been the highest scoring era ever, but as I see it - it was the easiest era ever to play in right after the lockout.
A player like Sakic, who of coursed aged as nice wine, I see in the same light. He had less ATOI in his 2 seasons before the lockout than the 2 seasons after. Yet his PPG went from 1.04 2 seasons before, to 1.14 after.
That a player lika Jagr didn´t miss a game during his 3 seasons after the lockout and was back to top Art Ross form is also telling. He hadn´t played a whole seasons since 95/96, 10 years earlier. His only season without a missed game before that I think. That was the case for many of the old timers. Sakic, Iginla, Niedermayer and so where less injuried after the lockout than before. Therefore less injuried in there late 20´s and 30´s than in their mid 20´s. That´s not the ususal way. And even if those where good seasons by those players, neither could be said by those who saw them play (with the exception of mentioned Niedermayer probably...) to have been better players after the lockout than before.
Point being. Lidstroms peak to me is clearly mid 90´s to around 03. Even if he among his peers looked to have better seasons as far as points and achievements go, he still was a lesser player than 10 years earlier.

Became a longer post than expected. And agree that Lidstrom of course was good both before and after wherever his peak was

Agree with Konstantinov. He was Detroits version of Stevens - not that they played identical, but he was their fear out there. That 1-2 punch of peak Lidstrom/Konstantinov 5-10 more years would have changed where a few Cups belonged I think. Then Detroit probably is the last true Dynasty.
Chelios, altough still great and doing more than one could have expected of him when he was traded to DRW, wasn´t his Chicago or Montreal scary version anymore. And to me, he was more dirty than the scariness of Stevens and Konstantinov.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I would give detroits defense he nod but I've always felt like the Colorado core(forward wise) was better than Detroits from 96-02. Although Detroit had better depth.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Colorado should have won the cup in 1999 and 2000.

 

[Doctor No]

Colorado should have won the cup in 1999 and 2000.

As a biased Avalanche fan, I agree.

As a hockey fan, I think that does a disservice to an excellent Dallas squad that beat them both times.

 

[Sadekuuro]

As a biased fan who really didn't want Colorado to win , I think they should have too. Those Conference Finals against Dallas were among the rare series where the Avs didn't have a mismatch in goal, though.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Colorado should have won the cup in 1999 and 2000.

I probably wouldn't be triggered by the numbers 4-1 so much.

 

[Canucks1096]

Colorado should have won the cup in 1999 and 2000.

Col was better team on paper and that's it. Dal was better in the regular season as well

 

[TheMule93]

Admittedly I didn't watch hockey during this time, but I find it hard to believe you could make a definitive statement on one team being better than the other. Both experienced sustained regular season and post season success, in my book 3 cups vs 2 comes down to "that's just the way the cookie crumbled"

 

[Canucks1096]

Assuming the OP meant the Dead Puck Era (1995-2004), I'd have to go with the Wings, though AINEC in favor of either team is a wrong answer. And though the Wings having a 3-2 cup edge helps, it's not the end all be because I rank the Avs above the Devils during this era, despite them also having a 3-2 cup advantage.

When comparing other categories for this era, the Wings mostly come out on top of the Avs. Here's how Detroit, Colorado and Dallas compare from 1995-2004 in categories besides cups:

#1 seed in the Western Conference:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 96, 02, 04)
2. Dallas: 3 (98, 99, 03)
3. Colorado: 2 (97, 01)
The other winner was St. Louis in 2000 (President's trophy as well)

President's trophies:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 96, 02, 04)
2. Colorado: 2 (97, 01) and Dallas: 2 (98 and 99)

Conference final appearances:
1. Colorado: 6 (96, 97, 99, 00, 01, 02)
2. Detroit: 5 (95, 96, 97, 98, 02)
3. Dallas: 3 (98, 99, 00)

Conference champions:
1. Detroit: 4 (95, 97, 98, 02)
2. Colorado: 2 (96 and 01) and Dallas 2 (99 and 00)

Playoff series against each other:
Colorado vs Detroit: 3-2 Avs
Colorado vs Dallas: 2-1 Stars
Dallas vs Detroit: 1-0 Wings

As we can see, the Wings come out on top in most categories, in addition to cups.

As I said before though, I do rank the Avs ahead of the Devils during this era. The Devils playoff performances from 1996-99 (one playoff series win) drop them below the Avs in my book, in spite of them having one more cup. Plus the West was much tougher than the east. The Devils were the only big 4 team in that era in the East. The Avs lost 4 times in the WCF, twice apiece to Detroit and Dallas, which IMO costed them at least 3 cups. They'd be favorites over the 97 Flyers and heavy favorites over the 99 Sabres and 02 Hurricanes, while the 2000 Devils would've been a tossup like their finals the next season.

All in all, here's how I rank the big 4:
1. Detroit
2. Colorado
3. New Jersey
4. Dallas

And while I've seen many what if scenarios here, mainly revolving around one or more of the WCF game 7's the Avs lost, I think the game that would've impacted the rankings the most was game 7 of the 2001 SCF. If the Devils win it, they would've undisputedly been the best of this era, not only having the most cups but also beating all of the other 3 in the finals. Meanwhile, the Avs might be below the Stars in this scenario. Each would've had a single cup, but perhaps the Stars winning both of the WCF they played against each other would've given them the edge in this case.



I agree that the notion of the 2002 Wings being a bought team is overblown. It's not like most of them were in their prime, which would've been financially impossible to have them all on the same team, even for a big spending team like Detroit in the pre salary cap days. Big Phil is right about them facing struggles in every series outside of the St. Louis one, and there were people who questioned whether a team as old as them could survive the grind required to win a cup.

If you are counting 1995 for Dallas NJ and Det. You need count 1995 for Quebec to make it fair for Col. So Quebec was 1st in there division and won the eastern conference as well