1975 - 1976 to 1987 - 1988

[Sinter Klaas]

From the 1975-1976 season, all the way to the 1987-1988 season, the Stanley Cup was awarded 13 times. Yet during that stretch, only 3 different franchises were awarded the Cup, with the Canadiens winning 5 times and the Isles and Oilers winning 4 times. You can even add 5 more seasons to the mix above and still only result with 5 different Cup winning franchises over 18 seasons.

As someone who didn't follow the sport during that time, I am curious if the lack of parity among the winners disturbed or upset anyone? I can imagine many fans who were not followers of the teams above were more than a little bit envious of watching those dynasties collect Cup after Cup. Or was this era of the NHL (not the style of play) more attractive than what the NHL saw in the 1990's and today.

Also, was free agency a direct result of this stretch, making it harder to keep a team intact because of other teams being able to pluck a player from a winning team with a tempting contract, was it hastened by it, or was free agency not directly related to the rise of dynasties.

Click to read more...

 

[golfortennis]

Free agency was a direct result of the players finally figuring out that Alan Eagleson was using them as his pawn to build his empire. Remember, too, that free agency was never even really true free agency like you see in baseball for a very long time. St. Louis kind of broke the mold in 1990 by signing Scott Stevens, but paid for it with 5 first round picks. The following year they signed Brendan Shanahan, and compensation rules being what they were, the Devils asked for Scott Stevens as compensation, and got exactly that. It was set up for teams not to sign free agents, because a free market would drive up salaries. Teams most certainly did not want players choosing their employer unless it was because the particular team didn't want them any more.

I don't think people were disturbed because what you had back then were great teams that really drew people's attention. I was only old enough to follow the Oilers in their prime, but let me tell you everyone knew what they were doing at all times, and I have a hard believing that was not the case for New York and Montreal as well. Having a great team that teams are trying to knock off is always better for a league in my opinion. It sounds great to say any team can win, and may sell a few tickets in a couple of markets that may not, but when nobody draws constant attention that attention can be fleeting.

 

[Trottier]

Message boards did not exist at the time.

As such, chronic whining was virtually nil.

People recognized those three great teams for what they were...instead of wasting time clamoring to make every team "equal".

Enlightened times.

Free agency had nothing to do with breaking up the best run and most tlaented teams. It was strictly a collective bargaining issue.

I'm in the minority (and not because my team happened to be one of the three to dominate during that period) and believe that having a perennial favorite(s) makes for an interesting league. Moreso than the homogenized, spin-the-wheel-each-year random lottery Cup winner we have now each season, thanks to the annual deconstruction of rosters via too-liberal free agency and artificial (and draconian) spending caps.

Just my opinion.

 

[golfortennis]

Message boards did not exsit at the time.

As such, chronic whining was virtually nil.

People recognized those three great teams for what they were...instead of wasting time clamoring to make every team "equal".

Enlightened times.

Free agency had nothing to do with breaking up the best run and most tlaented teams. It was strictly a collective bargaining issue.

I'm in the minority (and not because my team happened to be one of the three to dominate during that period) and believe that having a perennial favorite(s) makes for an interesting league. Moreso than the homogenized, spin-the-wheel-each-year random lottery Cup winner we have now each season, thanks to the annual deconstruction of rosters via too-liberal free agency and artificial (and draconian) spending caps.

Just my opinion.

While I am in favor of free agency because I always take the players' side on labor issues, I'm in agreement with the rest of your post. What did the Islanders in, 19 consecutive playoff series? 19!! That is unreal. I really do not see how that is less interesting than what we have now. By the second playoff run, the question is will someone knock them off, and by the end....well it took a team as great as Edmonton to knock them off. Dynasties are good for leagues.

 

[Sinter Klaas]

From a certain standpoint, I can see how studying and watching a dynasty unfold can be exciting to watch for history's sake, and watching how long it will take for someone to knock off that dynasty, however, the prospect of another Detroit Cup or a Patriots Superbowl, doesn't excite me at all.

Those teams have had their moments in the sun and while I give immense credit to the builders of those teams for consistently putting forth rosters to keep up their competitive ways, I think it was more palpable to see a team like the Carolina/Hartford franchise finally hoist the Cup after decades of losing and turmoil, players like Wesley and Andreychuk hoisting Cups after long fruitless careers. Those are the stories that are more meaningful to me, to see a franchise or player finally attain victory, instead of seeing if a team or a franchise can get enough rings to cover their second hand.

 

[lextune]

however, the prospect of another Detroit Cup or a Patriots Superbowl, doesn't excite me at all.

Move to New England.

We're dying for another Patriots Superbowl here....lol

We may have won 3 in four years, but the last one was four years ago. The undefeated regular season of '08, (and the loss of Brady for all of '09) has made us the hungriest team/fan base on the planet again.