Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2

[DannyGallivan]

Circling back to Hull, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at his early WHA-years and see if they mattered more than I may have believed. I've concluded that if Hull had played another three years in the NHL, he would have knocked down a couple-three more All-Star team nods in spite of his age. the first WHA year, 1st/2nd NHL AS LW's were Mahovlich & Dennis Hull. Absolutely no doubt in my mind he'd clear that bar. The next year wasn't eye-popping transcendent for Hull, but back in the NHL, the first team LW All-Star was Rick Martin, who seemed to be utterly bereft of defensive conscience that year (-22 on a team that was only 2 games under .500*) and serendipitous passenger Wayne Cashman. Year after that, Rick Martin (who also apparently had been coached up to clean up his defensive act, too) and somebody named Steve Vickers were the AS LW selections.

In summary, if Hull is in a close call with anyone in your comparisons- and you haven't looked into his early WHA years, perusing them takes nothing away from his value- it probably adds to it.

I have always stated this. Hull would have finished with over 800 NHL goals if he didn't jump to the rebel league.

 

[The Macho King]

I have always stated this. Hull would have finished with over 800 NHL goals if he didn't jump to the rebel league.

I'll put it like this - Hull has a good case for #5 even absent his WHA years. That's why they don't really move the needle for me. It's almost like Gretzky's years with the Kings/Blues/Rangers. If your peak/prime resume is as strong as his is, the still great but not peak achievements you accumulate afterwards don't really matter much to me.

Other leagues + international I weigh more heavily when they are used with players who *don't* have a point of reference against top competition (Soviet and Czech players mostly). With Hull, who already had such an impressive NHL career in a tough era, they just don't add to his positives and they don't really explain away the negatives he has.

Anyway - one exercise I want to do later today is to make the contrarian case for each player - why they're not in the top 5 of this round.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I don't care about your jerseys any more than I hate Bourque (I don't and I was happy he won the Cup... he was just an inferior defenseman to Niklas Lidstrom).

Not at all, he was a better all-around defenseman than Lidstrom.

 

[seventieslord]

Fair, I'm being glib.

But I look at Rocket's resume and see it as inferior in every conceivable way to Bobby Hull most especially, .

Really hey? EVERY conceivable way?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Much harder to rank this time around. For me, the first two are easy... Hull by a landslide and then Jean. After that, I've been moving a few pieces around.

 

[sr edler]

In the large picture though, one Olympic Games shouldn't count for that much in a career of over 1000 NHL games for most of these guys.

You can certainly make a case that best-on-best international hockey tournaments, or even only one best-on-best international hockey tournament, can mean a whole lot in comparison with a whole lot of regular season NHL games over several years where your all-star side beat up on teams like the California Golden Seals, the Cleveland Barons or the early 90s Ottawa Senators and San Jose Sharks.

Big stage international hockey matters, because, amongst other things, it can show certain players adaptability to different rinks/environments, which is key when you're trying to evaluate their versatility as players.

That said, the Czechoslovaks knew how to trap before the trap became cool again, and all players on that team obviously bought into it, even Jaromir "Dying Alive" Jagr. It's pretty telling Pavel Patera co-led that team in scoring, at the time playing in the Swedish Elitserien scoring 25 points in 46 games.

 

[Orange Dragon]

Few months ago I've tried to rank most dominant SVS% seasons using the Z-SCORE (how many standard deviations was goalie's performance above the league mean), the method certainly has it's flaws but it's better than comparing raw stats across different eras. Hasek and Roy both cracked top 100 seasons 7 times:

Hasek top seasons: 1, 3, 4, 16, 25, 36, 72
Roy top seasons: 8, 11, 14, 48, 53, 88, 89

Even though you can see Roy's regular season performance often downplayed, he has great case for being the second best regular season performar of all time. However the separation between him and Hasek is still clear.

Full post can be found here.

 

[Sentinel]

Am I wrong to not put much stock into international play ever since the inegration of most top Soviets/Russians into the NHL?

Yes, you are. Nagano and SLC were every bit as good as, say, CC-84.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll put it like this - Hull has a good case for #5 even absent his WHA years. That's why they don't really move the needle for me. It's almost like Gretzky's years with the Kings/Blues/Rangers. If your peak/prime resume is as strong as his is, the still great but not peak achievements you accumulate afterwards don't really matter much to me.

Other leagues + international I weigh more heavily when they are used with players who *don't* have a point of reference against top competition (Soviet and Czech players mostly). With Hull, who already had such an impressive NHL career in a tough era, they just don't add to his positives and they don't really explain away the negatives he has.

Anyway - one exercise I want to do later today is to make the contrarian case for each player - why they're not in the top 5 of this round.

I happen to think Gretzky's LA years, specifically 88-89 and 93 playoffs add substantially to his overall value and legacy.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Big Hasek guy. It's not time for him yet because we're still talking about the very, very best players to ever play...not just the best players to ever play...there's a marked difference.

I reflect on my contributions thus far and think that I haven't said a kind word about Hašek yet- which is a little unfair of me, I reckon, because I don't believe him to be among the least of the players up for discussion at this time. I agree that it's not time for him now- but I think it'll definitely be time for him next vote. If he winds up top-dozen, I'd be all right with that.

Even though he didn't have enough teammate firepower to go all the way to the Grail, he was Cup-theft awesome for a long time- and really didn't miss by much.

I'm paraphrasing what I saw somebody write about Hašek back in his time... it went something like this: 'teams can spend millions upon millions of dollars arranging for strength and depth at multiple positions, all with the idea of constructing a Cup contender... and Hašek can come along and sweep away all their hopes with a few waves of his stick-free blocker-arm.'

He was THAT good...

 

[bobholly39]

Sorry, dude, Crosby ain't got nothing on Richard in playoffs. Richard had been likely the greatest playoff performer ever until Gretzky came along (although Lafleur has a case). Crosby is not in the same stratosphere.

Well to be fair i didn't say "Crosby > Richard for playoffs" overall. There are other components than just offense in a vacuum, which is what this mostly considers.

I was looking strictly at PPG dominance over peers during a player's prime. I think Crosby's numbers are extremely impressive. I honestly didn't expect him to be anywhere this dominant, I fully expected Beliveau to rank #1.

I think PPG is certainly very representative of offense in a vacuum - and in that regards Crosby is #1 among these players.

You can certainly make a case that best-on-best international hockey tournaments, or even only one best-on-best international hockey tournament, can mean a whole lot in comparison with a whole lot of regular season NHL games over several years where your all-star side beat up on teams like the California Golden Seals, the Cleveland Barons or the early 90s Ottawa Senators and San Jose Sharks.

Big stage international hockey matters, because, amongst other things, it can show certain players adaptability to different rinks/environments, which is key when you're trying to evaluate their versatility as players.

That said, the Czechoslovaks knew how to trap before the trap became cool again, and all players on that team obviously bought into it, even Jaromir "Dying Alive" Jagr. It's pretty telling Pavel Patera co-led that team in scoring, at the time playing in the Swedish Elitserien scoring 25 points in 46 games.

Oh yeah I definitely think Nagano is key and worthy of accounting for Hasek. But - it still is one olympics game. I'm not saying 6 olympic games = 6 regular season games. What i'm saying is 1 olympic run is equal to....1 regular season maybe? Slightly more/less in terms of importance depending on each person's scale. Sentinel was arguing it as a key reason to have Hasek at #5 - and i'm just saying it might be important for Hasek, but in the overall big picture it's still a small part of his overall resume, and shouldn't be given too much importance.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I happen to think Gretzky's LA years, specifically 88-89 and 93 playoffs add substantially to his overall value and legacy.

I always considered the fact that a post-peak Gretzky put up 160+ point seasons on the Kings as iron-clad proof that his numbers weren't tied exclusively to the Oilers in any way. Considering how many people still bring up the "stacked Oilers" in discussions about him, I can only imagine the arguments about how his team got him his points otherwise..

 

[Michael Farkas]

I reflect on my contributions thus far and think that I haven't said a kind word about Hašek yet- which is a little unfair of me, I think, because I don't believe him to be among the least of the players up for discussion at this time. I agree that it's not time for him now- but I think it'll definitely be time for him next vote. If he winds up top-dozen, I'd be all right with that.

Even though he didn't have enough teammate firepower to go all the way to the Grail, he was Cup-theft awesome for a long time- and really didn't miss by much.

I'm paraphrasing what I saw somebody write about Hašek back in his time... it went something like this: 'teams can spend millions upon millions of dollars arranging for strength and depth at multiple positions, all with the idea of constructing a Cup contender... and Hašek can come along and sweep away all their hopes with a few waves of his stick-free blocker-arm.'

He was THAT good...

For sure, one of all-time game stealers. I think it cut the other way too, a couple more times than I would like. As such, I'm not ready for him quite yet.

 

[ted2019]

Wish I had the time this week to do more research and actually post in this round. Everyone has done a fantastic job with all the arguments and has shed some light on things that could change my voting slightly.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I reflect on my contributions thus far and think that I haven't said a kind word about Hašek yet- which is a little unfair of me, I reckon, because I don't believe him to be among the least of the players up for discussion at this time. I agree that it's not time for him now- but I think it'll definitely be time for him next vote. If he winds up top-dozen, I'd be all right with that.

Even though he didn't have enough teammate firepower to go all the way to the Grail, he was Cup-theft awesome for a long time- and really didn't miss by much.

I'm paraphrasing what I saw somebody write about Hašek back in his time... it went something like this: 'teams can spend millions upon millions of dollars arranging for strength and depth at multiple positions, all with the idea of constructing a Cup contender... and Hašek can come along and sweep away all their hopes with a few waves of his stick-free blocker-arm.'

He was THAT good...

In a nod to this, the age of Twitter, I'll some up my cases for Hasek with refreshingly little detail () This isn't for 5th spot (that belongs to the Golden Jet)... it's for his overall spot compared to Roy.

He's a goaltender who won the Hart (twice), plus one second and two third finishes.
Six Vezina Trophies (twice as many as Roy and the most since the Vezina actually went to the "best" goalie).
The only reason the Czech Rep. won the Nagano Olympics (other than Canadian injuries)

If it wasn't for that pesky thing called the playoffs, and Roy's three Conn Smythes, it wouldn't even be a contest in my mind between the two.

By the way, I'm still flip-flopping between the two goalies (and the term flip-flopping isn't a nod to Hasek's goaltending style). My original list had Hasek one ahead of Roy. My list for this round currently has Roy one ahead of Hasek. Still undecided between the two.

 

[The Macho King]

So here's my "piss in the cheerios" take on each player up for voting. Also known as "why X player isn't #5 overall".

Hull - Best Winger. Best Center. Best Goalie. Best Dman. Six Teams. One Cup. That's a problem.
Beliveau - Lots of team success on a stacked team. Offensive performance doesn't necessarily stand out from a lot of the guys up in this and probably the next two rounds.
Roy - There's another goalie in this vote that has better accolades (at least in the regular season). And he generally won his Cups behind very good teams.
Hasek - No Cups until he went to a powerhouse. There are very legitimate questions about his commitment to his team.
Richard - Most of his dominance came in a league that was roughly AHL-quality. Lots of all-stars, but outside of Howe there wasn't much in the way of competition for those all-stars.
Harvey - Offensive numbers aren't staggering, and it seems that the entire Habs roster outside of the Rocket gets credit for being great defensively, so it's hard to know how much credit should go to him versus the rest of his squad (including a likely top-3 definitely top-5 goaltender of all time)
Bourque - Peak seems a little lower than others (I would personally dispute this), and he didn't have a lot of postseason success. His Cup came as a mercenary.
Shore - Hart trophies are probably not as impressive as they appear at first blush. Relative lack of postseason success for a team as good as the Bruins.
Morenz - Good resume, but it's hard to tell if he was even the best forward in his era. Hard to see what separates him from some of the other offensive superstars that are still to come.
Crosby - Weak Smythe. Has some good postseasons but also some really bad ones. Health issues cut short his prime, and as such his trophy case isn't what it probably should be. Competition for some major awards in his peak (2010-2015) was pretty weak.

 

[DannyGallivan]

So here's my "piss in the cheerios" take on each player up for voting. Also known as "why X player isn't #5 overall".

Hull - Best Winger. Best Center. Best Goalie. Best Dman. Six Teams. One Cup. That's a problem.
Beliveau - Lots of team success on a stacked team. Offensive performance doesn't necessarily stand out from a lot of the guys up in this and probably the next two rounds.
Roy - There's another goalie in this vote that has better accolades (at least in the regular season). And he generally won his Cups behind very good teams.
Hasek - No Cups until he went to a powerhouse. There are very legitimate questions about his commitment to his team.
Richard - Most of his dominance came in a league that was roughly AHL-quality. Lots of all-stars, but outside of Howe there wasn't much in the way of competition for those all-stars.
Harvey - Offensive numbers aren't staggering, and it seems that the entire Habs roster outside of the Rocket gets credit for being great defensively, so it's hard to know how much credit should go to him versus the rest of his squad (including a likely top-3 definitely top-5 goaltender of all time)
Bourque - Peak seems a little lower than others (I would personally dispute this), and he didn't have a lot of postseason success. His Cup came as a mercenary.
Shore - Hart trophies are probably not as impressive as they appear at first blush. Relative lack of postseason success for a team as good as the Bruins.
Morenz - Good resume, but it's hard to tell if he was even the best forward in his era. Hard to see what separates him from some of the other offensive superstars that are still to come.
Crosby - Weak Smythe. Has some good postseasons but also some really bad ones. Health issues cut short his prime, and as such his trophy case isn't what it probably should be. Competition for some major awards in his peak (2010-2015) was pretty weak.

You convinced me... they all stink!
As a comic in all seriousness, I really don't have much to add in the negative vein, but I'll try.

1. Perhaps for some, Hull's jump to the WHA has removed too much potential ammo for 5th place.
2. Beliveau's individual trophy case is slightly light in the Art Ross department (although you alluded to that). For such a long career, I'd expect more "best in the league" and less "among the best in the league" accolades per season.
3. Roy. The bulk of the season is played in the regular season, and Hasek's trophy case is much better in that regard. Although you can't deny Roy's playoff brilliance, Hasek has two more Harts and twice as many Vezinas as he does.
4. Hasek. There's one goalie with three more Conn Smythe trophies.
5. Richard. No Art Ross Trophies and only one Hart.
6. Harvey. Stats don't really back up his reputation.
7. Bourque. Lacked the "eye-test impact" of an Orr, Potvin or Robinson.
8.Shore. Was there something fishy in all those Hart Trophies... was he given the award for excellence or was the league trying to market a star?
9. Morenz. Lots of sizzle... questions about the steak.
10. Crosby. Injuries turns a "slam dunk" into more questions. Like to see more playoff dominance. Sometimes overshadowed by teammate Malkin.

 

[K Fleur]

Hasek always struck me as a player who if you just trophy count he looks better than he actually was.

Same with the other superstar Czech player of that time.

 

[bobholly39]

So here's my "piss in the cheerios" take on each player up for voting. Also known as "why X player isn't #5 overall".

Hull - Best Winger. Best Center. Best Goalie. Best Dman. Six Teams. One Cup. That's a problem.
Beliveau - Lots of team success on a stacked team. Offensive performance doesn't necessarily stand out from a lot of the guys up in this and probably the next two rounds.
Roy - There's another goalie in this vote that has better accolades (at least in the regular season). And he generally won his Cups behind very good teams.
Hasek - No Cups until he went to a powerhouse. There are very legitimate questions about his commitment to his team.
Richard - Most of his dominance came in a league that was roughly AHL-quality. Lots of all-stars, but outside of Howe there wasn't much in the way of competition for those all-stars.
Harvey - Offensive numbers aren't staggering, and it seems that the entire Habs roster outside of the Rocket gets credit for being great defensively, so it's hard to know how much credit should go to him versus the rest of his squad (including a likely top-3 definitely top-5 goaltender of all time)
Bourque - Peak seems a little lower than others (I would personally dispute this), and he didn't have a lot of postseason success. His Cup came as a mercenary.
Shore - Hart trophies are probably not as impressive as they appear at first blush. Relative lack of postseason success for a team as good as the Bruins.
Morenz - Good resume, but it's hard to tell if he was even the best forward in his era. Hard to see what separates him from some of the other offensive superstars that are still to come.
Crosby - Weak Smythe. Has some good postseasons but also some really bad ones. Health issues cut short his prime, and as such his trophy case isn't what it probably should be. Competition for some major awards in his peak (2010-2015) was pretty weak.

Good exercise.

Hull - 1 cup I agree, weak in this group. Not sure what u mean on the rest. 6 teams? He is the best winger here. Are you saying a winger is less valuable?
Beliveau - Agreed
Roy - Kind of agree. You have to justify Roy over Hasek before looking at Roy for #5 - but if you get there, his case at #5 isn't bad. Also "good teams" for cups. Maybe sort of - but compared to other cup winning teams in this group, he's in the lower half i'd say (Beliveau, Hasek 2002, Richard, Harvey, Bourque). The fact that he was a top 2 (or 1?) player in most cups, helps, and is probably better than most in this grouping.
Richard. AHL level is a bit much, but i agree competition was low in many years
Bourque. Agreed on lower peak. Agreed on cup.
Shore. Agreed on hart trophies.
Morenz. I think he's the best forward of his era, so don't really agree.
Crosby. You're centering on one specific smythe vs overall generalizations as you do with others. A smythe is extremely valuable to career, even if, if you were ranking each smythe this one is a bit weak. Also disagree on competition - his era is by far the highest of any other era (at least in quantity of candidates)

 

[bobholly39]

You convinced me... they all stink!

Agreed. Let's skip to round 3 and bring Jagr in =/

 

[The Macho King]

Good exercise.

Hull - 1 cup I agree, weak in this group. Not sure what u mean on the rest. 6 teams? He is the best winger here. Are you saying a winger is less valuable?
Beliveau - Agreed
Roy - Kind of agree. You have to justify Roy over Hasek before looking at Roy for #5 - but if you get there, his case at #5 isn't bad. Also "good teams" for cups. Maybe sort of - but compared to other cup winning teams in this group, he's in the lower half i'd say (Beliveau, Hasek 2002, Richard, Harvey, Bourque). The fact that he was a top 2 (or 1?) player in most cups, helps, and is probably better than most in this grouping.
Richard. AHL level is a bit much, but i agree competition was low in many years
Bourque. Agreed on lower peak. Agreed on cup.
Shore. Agreed on hart trophies.
Morenz. I think he's the best forward of his era, so don't really agree.
Crosby. You're centering on one specific smythe vs overall generalizations as you do with others. A smythe is extremely valuable to career, even if, if you were ranking each smythe this one is a bit weak. Also disagree on competition - his era is by far the highest of any other era (at least in quantity of candidates)

I'm saying the CBH had the best winger, best center, best D, and best goalie in the league and only had one Cup. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a team *as* stacked at the tops of their position with as little postseason success (although I will defer to the wisdom of the group if a similar situation exists).

Comparatively, for awhile the Habs had best C, 2nd best W, Best D, and Best G, and won 5 straight. Admittedly this is ignoring the rest of the roster, but I'm just pointing out that a talented team like those BHs having that little success should sound some alarm bells.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Where I'm at at the top of my order right now...

Beliveau - Most complete player probably available to us here. He just has no weaknesses and he has a ton of strengths. While his offensive numbers aren't otherworldly, they're still really, really good even for where we're at right now and he played the best defense among the available forwards by no small margin...he's the only one I would say was reliably well above average even, and he's an all-timer. Playoff beast. Technical skills for days. Quite possibly the most well-rounded center in the history of the game.

Hull - Absolute monster. Dominant offensive force. Could play center and left wing, took faceoffs, physical imposing to backchecking forwards who tried to tackle to him and couldn't. The best offensive force left on our plate by a comfortable margin. More well-rounded from an offensive productivity point of view when compared to the other goal-scorer available in Richard. Probably just about the fastest player in the league of relevance. Loses points from accolades perspective for jumping ship, perhaps unfairly...if Rocket gets 1945, Hull deserves a WHA season at the least. He's probably the absolute least to blame for the Blackhawks failures...coaching/Mikita/Hall, perhaps in that order, deserve more of the blame from stat/video/accounts...Hull was a horse. So good, that it might almost be enough to give Beliveau's well-roundedness a run for his money...my avatar is upset at me for that remark...

Harvey - Strong #1 d-man in an era where he had to face the best competition night in and night out and often did it while dragging around fringe NHL partners like Dollard St. Laurent and the would-be-forgettable-if-he-wasnt-always-screwing-up Al Langlois...Modernized the defenseman position in the post red-line world. Measuring him in points takes away from how valuable he was in transition to the Canadiens. He got the puck to the centers so that they could create and he babysat for the wingers that were too slovenly to backcheck effectively (Richard, Geoffrion). One of the first players that I can identify on film who could actually control the tempo of the game...Shore had a quality to him, but his game was always fast...there's not a lot of evidence suggesting that he had a dimmer switch...he could speed it up, but I don't think he could slow it down. Harvey could - with the puck on his stick - go "ok, let's take a breath...maybe make a change...get our wits about us...then we'll go." That value is stronger than people who aren't around the game will give it credit for...

I think I'm Bourque next still...I'd like to watch one more game from the 1988 to 1990 or so area and just see the maturation level...if it's as marked as I think it is (recalling from past viewings), I think I'm going to like him just fine in this spot...if it's not as drastic, I'll open up the floor...

 

[MXD]

So here's my "piss in the cheerios" take on each player up for voting. Also known as "why X player isn't #5 overall".

Hull - Best Winger. Best Center. Best Goalie. Best Dman. Six Teams. One Cup. That's a problem.
Beliveau - Lots of team success on a stacked team. Offensive performance doesn't necessarily stand out from a lot of the guys up in this and probably the next two rounds.
Roy - There's another goalie in this vote that has better accolades (at least in the regular season). And he generally won his Cups behind very good teams.
Hasek - No Cups until he went to a powerhouse. There are very legitimate questions about his commitment to his team.
Richard - Most of his dominance came in a league that was roughly AHL-quality. Lots of all-stars, but outside of Howe there wasn't much in the way of competition for those all-stars.
Harvey - Offensive numbers aren't staggering, and it seems that the entire Habs roster outside of the Rocket gets credit for being great defensively, so it's hard to know how much credit should go to him versus the rest of his squad (including a likely top-3 definitely top-5 goaltender of all time)
Bourque - Peak seems a little lower than others (I would personally dispute this), and he didn't have a lot of postseason success. His Cup came as a mercenary.
Shore - Hart trophies are probably not as impressive as they appear at first blush. Relative lack of postseason success for a team as good as the Bruins.
Morenz - Good resume, but it's hard to tell if he was even the best forward in his era. Hard to see what separates him from some of the other offensive superstars that are still to come.
Crosby - Weak Smythe. Has some good postseasons but also some really bad ones. Health issues cut short his prime, and as such his trophy case isn't what it probably should be. Competition for some major awards in his peak (2010-2015) was pretty weak.

... Hahha, I really like this!!!

Even though the underlined is definitely outrageous and the lone completely indefensible statement. It probably won't be before Charlie Gardiner that we'll assess a goalie who won the Cup with a worse team than those Canadiens teams (yes, Brodeur's first cup was with an ARGUABLY worse team, but it's wasn't worse), and to be honest, I think he's the only one.

Not that those Canadiens teams were bad -- very good is probably not a bad qualifier if we consider all teams in the league at a given point -- it's just that teams like those are usually NOT winning the Stanley Cup.

... Which means that every thing else is defensible. You should really continue doing this

 

[The Macho King]

... Hahha, I really like this!!!

Even though the underlined is definitely outrageous and the lone completely indefensible statement. It probably won't be before Charlie Gardiner that we'll assess a goalie who won the Cup with a worse team than those Canadiens teams (yes, Brodeur's first cup was with an ARGUABLY worse team, but it's wasn't worse), and to be honest, I think he's the only one.

Not that those Canadiens teams were bad -- very good is probably not a bad qualifier if we consider all teams in the league at a given point -- it's just that teams like those are usually NOT winning the Stanley Cup.

... Which means that every thing else is defensible. You should really continue doing this

I think those Habs teams get underrated personally. I mean, they're not dynasty-level teams of course, but they were still pretty solid (especially the '93 team). Like - in a post-lockout world where kinda middling teams win the Cup behind some streakiness from a key player or two at the right time, I don't think those Habs teams would stand out as particularly bad at all.

But your point is taken. This is a league where in recent memory you have three dynasties with at least 4 Cups to their name, and in that group the Habs (and the Flames) stick out quite a bit.

 

[DannyGallivan]

But your point is taken. This is a league where in recent memory you have three dynasties with at least 4 Cups to their name, and in that group the Habs (and the Flames) stick out quite a bit.

Without getting off topic too much, don't downplay the talent level of the Flames' Cup winner. Tons of talent on that team.