1990 Playoffs: Who wins the cup if the Jets finish the job in round 1?

[Buck Aki Berg]

A comment on one of the other boards had me looking at Dave Ellett's 2OT goal in game three of the 1990 Smythe Division Semifinal that gave the Jets a 3-1 series lead over the Oilers. Considering the Oilers won the cup that year, I think we know how games 5, 6, and 7 turned out


EDIT: I could watch this video a zillion times and never get bored - such a powerful moment in playoff hockey history

If the Jets made good on one of three opportunities they had to knock out the Oilers, they would have played Los Angeles in the second round. Winnipeg finished ten points and three wins ahead of LA in the standings against and went 5-1-1 in the season series, outscoring LA 36-23 in the process (including three wins by four or better).

Not to underestimate the Kings' miracle upset of the Flames in the first round, but it seems to me that Winnipeg had LA's number that season, so I'd imagine most to be putting them in the conference finals against Chicago, who despite winning the Norris Divisoion, weren't exactly a powerhouse that season, finishing only 8 games over .500.

With Calgary upset by LA, and if Winnipeg had been able to up-end Edmonton, would the path have been cleared for Boston to claim their sixth Stanley Cup, or could Chicago have outmatched the Bruins in the finals (or could Los Angeles or Winnipeg have run the table)?

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

I think the simple answer is Boston. They are the team that makes it to the final out of the Wales, and with Bourque and Neely at their very best, I don't see them losing to anyone else from the Campbell.

 

[Big Phil]

Boston for sure. Take away the Oilers and the Bruins should have had no problem with the Hawks. I mean who was the Hawks goalie? I know Belfour played a bit in the playoffs but wasn't it Jacques Cloutier? Even if it is Belfour the truth is he needed another decade before he finally shed his "choker" label in the first place. Bruins win the Cup and the idea of Neely in the HHOF is much less controversial because we can assume he'd have been a big part of it

 

[seventieslord]

Boston for sure. Take away the Oilers and the Bruins should have had no problem with the Hawks. I mean who was the Hawks goalie? I know Belfour played a bit in the playoffs but wasn't it Jacques Cloutier? Even if it is Belfour the truth is he needed another decade before he finally shed his "choker" label in the first place. Bruins win the Cup and the idea of Neely in the HHOF is much less controversial because we can assume he'd have been a big part of it

In fairness to Belfour, he was a stanley cup finalist just two years later, and a conference finalist three years after that. He didn't come out of nowhere, stop choking, and win the 1999 cup.

 

[tony d]

I think it would have been Boston, another question that gets posed in that case is does Colorado still win the Cup in 2001 without Ray Bourque?

 

[jamiebez]

I will go to my grave believing the Jets would have made it to the Finals, but lost to the Bruins. It's been 20 years and I still can't believe we lost that series

Ray Bourque and Cam Neely would be even bigger heroes in Boston (if that's possible) and the Jets would at least have one successful playoffs to hang their hat on, as opposed to being known as the team that can't get out of the second round.

I think it would have been Boston, another question that gets posed in that case is does Colorado still win the Cup in 2001 without Ray Bourque?

That's the next logical question.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I think it would have been Boston, another question that gets posed in that case is does Colorado still win the Cup in 2001 without Ray Bourque?

That's actually a really interesting spinoff question. If Ray lifts the Cup in 1990, which we all seem to think is a given if the Jets don't have that poorly-timed three-game losing streak, he likely finishes his career in Boston.

I think with or without Bourque, the Avs win their division (Edmonton was second, 25 points back), in which case they likely draw Los Angeles in the first round. Los Angeles had upset Detroit in the first round, and proved to be a formidable opponent for Colorado in the second round, bowing out in 7 games. Personally, I think the only thing that pushed Colorado by Los Angeles was the win-it-for-Ray mentality that really brought the team together. I think Colorado is out in the first two rounds without Bourque, and you'd see Los Angeles playing St. Louis in the conference final.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's actually a really interesting spinoff question. If Ray lifts the Cup in 1990, which we all seem to think is a given if the Jets don't have that poorly-timed three-game losing streak, he likely finishes his career in Boston.

I think with or without Bourque, the Avs win their division (Edmonton was second, 25 points back), in which case they likely draw Los Angeles in the first round. Los Angeles had upset Detroit in the first round, and proved to be a formidable opponent for Colorado in the second round, bowing out in 7 games. Personally, I think the only thing that pushed Colorado by Los Angeles was the win-it-for-Ray mentality that really brought the team together. I think Colorado is out in the first two rounds without Bourque, and you'd see Los Angeles playing St. Louis in the conference final.

Which means a possible dynasty for NJ (2000, 2001, 2003). I think NJ easily beats LA or St. Louis in the finals in 2001. Of course, would Lou L have still traded Arnott and Sykora away during if the team had won it all in 2001? The guys he got back (Langenbrunner/Niewendyk and Friesen) were keys in 2003.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

The Avs werent in good shape down the stretch in 2000. If they dont have Bourque they likely get knocked out by Detroit. After 3 straight years of failure including a first round upset in 98, the disastrous Theo Fleury experiment in 99, and a second round loss in 2000 do they go a different direction?

Assuming they make no other changes, the Avs would've started the 2000-01 season with Adam Foote and Jon Klemm as their best defenders. Probably a second pairing of Aaron Miller and Martin Skoula. I dont think that team has championship aspirations.

 

[seventieslord]

The Avs werent in good shape down the stretch in 2000. If they dont have Bourque they likely get knocked out by Detroit. After 3 straight years of failure including a first round upset in 98, the disastrous Theo Fleury experiment in 99, and a second round loss in 2000 do they go a different direction?

Assuming they make no other changes, the Avs would've started the 2000-01 season with Adam Foote and Jon Klemm as their best defenders. Probably a second pairing of Aaron Miller and Martin Skoula. I dont think that team has championship aspirations.

they were a wealthy team; they'd have had someone in place of Bourque there.

 

[kmad]

they were a wealthy team; they'd have had someone in place of Bourque there.

Who was available who would have had a similar impact?

 

[Fidel Astro]

Jets win the Cup, and as a result, are far more successful the next six years and never get relocated to Phoenix.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

they were a wealthy team; they'd have had someone in place of Bourque there.

Is there a list of players traded at the 2000 deadline and who were UFA's in summer 2000 so we can see possible replacements? Obviously you cant replace Bourque but adding 2 solid defenders plus Blake along with Footer might've been a possible plan.

Although the Avs never dipped heavily into UFA in those days.

 

[Big Phil]

In fairness to Belfour, he was a stanley cup finalist just two years later, and a conference finalist three years after that. He didn't come out of nowhere, stop choking, and win the 1999 cup.

Except he was known as a playoff choker until then. In 1992 he was not good in the final at all. In 1995 he let in some crucial overtime goals that could have changed the series either way. For example, vs. Detroit in the semis in Game #3 he lets in a blooper of a shot from inside the blueline on a harmless rush from Konstantinov, it's the overtime winner and Detroit practically wins the series up 3-0.

Up until 1999 he was often considered the guy who couldn't win the big game for sure. This is why he was ignored in the 1996 World Cup and 1998 Olympics and then finally added in the 2002 Olympics

 

[seventieslord]

Who was available who would have had a similar impact?

I'm not saying there would necessarily have been someone with a similar impact - though I could see them throwing together a package for a Robert Svehla, Teppo Numminen, or another excellent defenseman on a bad team. But even without Bourque and those guys you have to think they have someone else in that spot, not just nobody with everyone else moving up a spot on the depth chart. This is the high-spending avs we're talking about.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'm not saying there would necessarily have been someone with a similar impact - though I could see them throwing together a package for a Robert Svehla, Teppo Numminen, or another excellent defenseman on a bad team. But even without Bourque and those guys you have to think they have someone else in that spot, not just nobody with everyone else moving up a spot on the depth chart. This is the high-spending avs we're talking about.

a couple things to remember:

- around the time they got bourque, pierre lacroix used to brag about having never signed a UFA that wasn't one of his own guys. so it's not likely they would have gotten a big name UFA defenseman in the summer of 2000 if bourque is still a bruin.

- this was lacroix's "big spender" era and he liked to make a splash at the trade deadline, getting fleury, bourque, and blake in consecutive years. usually, this wasn't because he had a hole to fill, but because the prospect of picking up an impending superstar UFA on the cheap was too good to pass up. plus, lacroix couldn't take the chance that a game-changing player would land in detroit, st. louis, or dallas-- "let detroit have their tomas sandstroms and dmitri mironovs, but they're not going home with theo fleury and rob blake." so i'm not sure you could say he would have been actively seeking a svehla or numminen if bourque hadn't been on the market.

- also, remember that ozolinsh was still on the team when they got bourque. basically, they went through the '99-'00 regular season with the same d-corps as the '00-'01 regular season (foote, klemm, miller, de vries, and skoula), only with bourque instead of ozolinsh. so again, i don't think lacroix is spending his spring on the phones desperately trying to land a defenseman to shore up his team if there's no bourque.

- if they never get bourque, they never trade ozolinsh to carolina for a grab bag of picks. keep in mind that the ozolinsh deal happened because 1. bourque made him expendable, and 2. the bourque deal made it urgently necessary to replenish the prospect pool, which was already weakened from the fleury deal.

- it wasn't until bourque retired that lacroix actively tried to pick up a defenseman. they had to give up aaron miller to get blake, and bourque retiring left them one d-man short. that summer, lacroix signed todd gill, who if i recall correctly was his first ever UFA signing. after gill flamed out and was released, they picked up kasparaitis at the deadline. this was the first time in the big spender era where lacroix wasn't saying to himself, "there's a superstar on the market and i'm sure as hell not going to let detroit or dallas get him," but getting a guy at the deadline to fill a need.

so the question might more accurately be, if bourque retires a bruin, do the avs still win the cup in '01 with ozolinsh and blake? and one other variable would be, is st. patrick as hungry that spring if he's not carpooling to the rink with bourque wearing that goofy 16W hat?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Chicago

 

[God Bless Canada]

Boston didn't have much depth back then. They had Neely and Bourque, but nobody else from an offensive perspective who made you say "we have to stop this guy." Yes, they had Craig Janney, who was a world-class playmaker, but the perception was that if you stopped Neely, Janney wouldn't be a factor.

I think LA beats Boston. I think Winnipeg has an excellent shot of beating Boston. If Calgary could have advanced out of the Smythe, I think they overwhelm Boston, but Calgary had this mental hang-up with a) Gretzky; and b) the Oilers.

Nobody in the Patrick was going to do it that year. And while the Norris was emerging from years of craptacular hockey, nobody in the Norris was at the level of a team that would beat the Bruins, or the Smythe champion.

 

[HullToSelanne]

Well, Grapes said that the Cup winner would come out of that series, so I'd say the Jets.

 

[Big Phil]

Well, Grapes said that the Cup winner would come out of that series, so I'd say the Jets.

Do you really see Bob Essensa carrying a team to the Cup? I mean he might have just been the worse goalie to win the Cup ever, even worse than Niemi. And while it's impossible to say anything bad about Hawerchuk I just can't see him carry the offensive load on a team who had one lone HHOFer (him). And it isn't as if Thomas Steen or Pat Elynuik were playing like HHOFers either at that time, just regular 60-70 point guys. Could they have even beaten the Kings? I doubt Gretzky lets that happen, who stops him? Or would the Flames have even lost the series vs. the Kings if they knew an easier opponent like Winnipeg was there?

Either way, even if they do get past these teams they probably don't beat Chicago and wouldn't have a prayer against Boston either.

 

[kmad]

but the perception was that if you stopped Neely,

Everything I've read about the 1990 playoffs indicates that that wasn't possible.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Do you really see Bob Essensa carrying a team to the Cup? I mean he might have just been the worse goalie to win the Cup ever, even worse than Niemi. And while it's impossible to say anything bad about Hawerchuk I just can't see him carry the offensive load on a team who had one lone HHOFer (him). And it isn't as if Thomas Steen or Pat Elynuik were playing like HHOFers either at that time, just regular 60-70 point guys. Could they have even beaten the Kings? I doubt Gretzky lets that happen, who stops him? Or would the Flames have even lost the series vs. the Kings if they knew an easier opponent like Winnipeg was there?

Either way, even if they do get past these teams they probably don't beat Chicago and wouldn't have a prayer against Boston either.

honestly, i think a hot essensa at the top of his game was no worse than niemi, maybe even osgood. osgood is very solid when he's playing well, and he was steadier from game-to-game than essensa, but essensa was fantastic when he got hot, and seemed to have a higher ceiling. whether he could get hot for four rounds, or carry that jets team... well those are certainly debatable points.

there are a number of goalies who lost in the finals that i wouldn't bat an eyelash to mention '90 essensa alongside: casey, hrudey, moog, snow/'97 hextall, or in recent years roloson, emery, leighton. some of those guys may be more consistent and had much longer and more successful careers, but at their best, none of those guys had that giguere or ranford gear.

 

[jamiebez]

Do you really see Bob Essensa carrying a team to the Cup? I mean he might have just been the worse goalie to win the Cup ever, even worse than Niemi. And while it's impossible to say anything bad about Hawerchuk I just can't see him carry the offensive load on a team who had one lone HHOFer (him). And it isn't as if Thomas Steen or Pat Elynuik were playing like HHOFers either at that time, just regular 60-70 point guys. Could they have even beaten the Kings? I doubt Gretzky lets that happen, who stops him? Or would the Flames have even lost the series vs. the Kings if they knew an easier opponent like Winnipeg was there?

Either way, even if they do get past these teams they probably don't beat Chicago and wouldn't have a prayer against Boston either.

The Jets teams of that era generally did pretty well against the Gretzky-era Kings, so I think they would have had a shot. Other than Gretzky (and yes, I know he's GRETZKY), that Kings team wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. The Jets were 10 points ahead of them in the standings.

The reason the Jets jumped out to that lead in that series is that their role players - the Moe Mantha's and Doug Evans' - stepped up their games a lot. They were doing it as a team, a lot like Edmonton did in their 2006 run. That, and Messier and Kurri were completely invisible. Messier never really got going in that series at all, although Kurri killed us with the winner in Game #6.

And Essensa was a pretty damn good goalie from about 1990-1993. The problem in that series was that Bob Murdoch insisted on getting Stephane Beauregard in there and he was 1-3 in the series.

 

[DaveG]

- if they never get bourque, they never trade ozolinsh to carolina for a grab bag of picks. keep in mind that the ozolinsh deal happened because 1. bourque made him expendable, and 2. the bourque deal made it urgently necessary to replenish the prospect pool, which was already weakened from the fleury deal.

And that brings up yet another question... does Carolina even make the Stanley Cup Finals once, yet alone win it, without Kevyn Adams or Bret Hedican?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The Jets teams of that era generally did pretty well against the Gretzky-era Kings, so I think they would have had a shot. Other than Gretzky (and yes, I know he's GRETZKY), that Kings team wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. The Jets were 10 points ahead of them in the standings.

The reason the Jets jumped out to that lead in that series is that their role players - the Moe Mantha's and Doug Evans' - stepped up their games a lot. They were doing it as a team, a lot like Edmonton did in their 2006 run. That, and Messier and Kurri were completely invisible. Messier never really got going in that series at all, although Kurri killed us with the winner in Game #6.

And Essensa was a pretty damn good goalie from about 1990-1993. The problem in that series was that Bob Murdoch insisted on getting Stephane Beauregard in there and he was 1-3 in the series.

as i recall, paddock switched to beauregard in game 4, which in his defense did change the momentum of the game and get them the come from behind win in OT (multiple OTs i think?). at that point though, you have a 3-1 lead. i don't care how good beauregard was, essensa didn't exactly crap the bed and had won two games of his own. the smart play is to put your starter back in and if he loses again, then go back to the backup because you still have two more cracks. but even if you do go with the backup in game 5, you certainly don't put the starter back in for game 6 after you lose game 5. and of course, you don't switch goalies for a third time for game 7. it's like the führer wanted to lose that series.

essensa was not a guy i would be excited to face in an early 90s smythe division playoff series (unlike, say, hrudey whom i would have picked up from the airport). he just seemed like the kind of guy where you'd be in big trouble if he got into the zone.

i remember being so relieved in '92 (as a canucks fan) when they started itchy scratchy tabaracci instead of essensa in the playoffs. the jets still jumped out to a 3-1 lead, but then pavel bure ate tabby for lunch, scoring 4 goals and 7 points in games 5 and 6.