Best team to never win a cup?

[Lafleurs Guy]

i'd take the '96 wings over '95. maybe the '93 pens too. but i think the point of the thread is a team with a nucleus that mostly stayed the same for 3-5 years.

of the teams listed in the OP, the flyers from '84-'89 are easily the best. howe was their leader, mccrimmon by his side; poulin, who i always thought was their most important forward; propp and kerr; marsh and crossman; young guys like tocchet, zezel, craven, and later mellanby; softies like sinisalo and eklund; grinders like the sutter twins; lindbergh, then froese, then hextall-- that was one hell of a core and they stayed together, and played really well, for an impressively long stretch.

i don't know who i would put ahead of those guys... the flames of the same period almost qualified for best ever to not win status. maybe the bruins after the esposito/hodge for park/ratelle trade.

I remember those teams, they were great. If Tim Kerr is healthy in '87, I think they win the cup.

 

[Peter9]

From about 1970-71 to about 1973-74 the Rangers were as good as any team in the regular season.

Boston Bruins - 460 points.
Montreal Canadiens - 424 points.
N.Y. Rangers - 414 points.
Chicago Black Hawks - 412 points.

However, in the playoffs they always seemed to be one player short whether it was Orr in 1972, or Parent in 1974. They also had an interesting playoff history with the Black Hawks. They sweep them in 1972, but are eliminated by them both the year before (1971) and the year after (1973). Of course, over these four years the Rangers eliminated the Canadiens on two occasions (1972 and 1974). The two years in which they didn't face the Rangers in the playoffs saw the Habs take the Cup (1971 and 1973).

Yes, and that is why I nominated the Rangers of that time as candidate for best team never to win the Cup. But nor were they ever the best team in the league during this time. They never once finished a season on top of the league in points during this time. The Bruins and the Canadiens both did and they each also managed to win the Cup during this time. That is what I meant when I wrote: "Anyway, I think the Rangers of the early to mid 1970s are a good candidate, although the Bruins were better and, some of that time, the Canadiens as well."

Accepting your figures as accurate for the four-season span you specify, the Bruins' superiority in points works out to 9 points a season, which is a pretty good margin, and the Bruins finished ahead of the Rangers in points in all four seasons as well as winning the Cup in one of those seasons. The Canadiens' superiority in points works out to only 2.5 points per season, which is why I said they were only better than the Rangers "some of that time," as in 1972-73, when they finished 18 points ahead of the Rangers as well as winning the Cup.

It simply is not defensible to say the Rangers were the best team in the NHL at any point in the early to mid 1970s or even overall during that period. But a strong case can be made that they were one of the best teams never to win the Cup.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Point

Yes, and that is why I nominated the Rangers of that time as candidate for best team never to win the Cup. But nor were they ever the best team in the league during this time. They never once finished a season on top of the league in points during this time. The Bruins and the Canadiens both did and they each also managed to win the Cup during this time. That is what I meant when I wrote: "Anyway, I think the Rangers of the early to mid 1970s are a good candidate, although the Bruins were better and, some of that time, the Canadiens as well."

Accepting your figures as accurate for the four-season span you specify, the Bruins' superiority in points works out to 9 points a season, which is a pretty good margin, and the Bruins finished ahead of the Rangers in points in all four seasons as well as winning the Cup in one of those seasons. The Canadiens' superiority in points works out to only 2.5 points per season, which is why I said they were only better than the Rangers "some of that time," as in 1972-73, when they finished 18 points ahead of the Rangers as well as winning the Cup.

It simply is not defensible to say the Rangers were the best team in the NHL at any point in the early to mid 1970s or even overall during that period. But a strong case can be made that they were one of the best teams never to win the Cup.

You raise an interesting point. Season by season or blended standings over a handful of consecutive seasons tend to show the relative strength of a team within a league. On the other hand they are not an accurate barometer about match-ups between two specific teams.

The Rangers with the Walt Tkachuk line had the right defense to handle the Canadiens but could not adapt to the Bruins. The Canadiens had the right defensive approach, ability to reduce the effectiveness of Orr and Hull, to handle the Bruins and Hawks but had problems with the Rangers.

The Hawks / Rangers series were interesting as goaltending was the factor. Giacomin and T. Esposito had a habit of getting hot or cold - giving up backbreaking goals.

 

[SCORE4]

Snipped this from the 2010 Hall of Fame thread.



This would make for a good discussion. Which team is the best not to win a cup?

80s Flyers? Early 90s Bruins? Present day Sharks? Early 2000s Senators? 90s Blues? 70s Sabres?

Late 70's Bruins

 

[Axxellien]

Chicago:

I remember the General consensus in 1961, was that the Hawks were the Team of the era & would win Several more Stanley Cups during the Upcoming Decade, attaining the status of Dynasty....The ulterior losses to Detroit in the mid 1960s, the heartbreak of 65 & 71...Their failure to win more Prince Of Wales Trophies....

 

[lovetherangers]

Early '70s Rangers for my pick as a team with the best nucleus

Was gonna pick them as well. The G.A.G. line was hands down the best line in hockey at the time.

Another pick would be the 91-92 Rangers, with Hart winner Messier, and Norris winner Leetch. Along with future HOF Mike Gartner. The team finished 50-25-5 for 105 points, and had 5 30 goal scorers.

 

[edog37]

Eh, the present day Sharks are good, but not nearly the best team ever in this position. There really is only one Hall of Famer, in his prime, on the roster, and that's Joe Thornton. Rob Blake is going to be in the Hall, but trust me, he's not quite in his prime anymore.

I'll vote for the 1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins. They had Mario at his very, very best, Jagr was becoming a superstar, and the same team that had won the last two Stanley Cups. Damn you, David Volek, for screwing up a Lemieux vs. Roy Conference Finals. That said, I still think the Habs win, because Patrick Roy was simply not going to let them lose that year.

Pens would have blasted Montreal that year.....would have probably swept them...

 

[token grinder]

maybe not the best team not to win a cup, but for sure the best team to not win a playoff series--the post lockout nashville predators

forsberg
arnott
sullivan
dumont
hartnell
timonen
zidlicky
suter
weber
vokoun
mason
legwand
erat
radulov
kariya
zanon

lotta talent to suck

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

maybe not the best team not to win a cup, but for sure the best team to not win a playoff series--the post lockout nashville predators

forsberg
arnott
sullivan
dumont
hartnell
timonen
zidlicky
suter
weber
vokoun
mason
legwand
erat
radulov
kariya
zanon

lotta talent to suck

Forsberg and Kariya were over the hill, and Suter and Weber weren't stars yet. The rest of the players are a motley collection of lesser stars and role players. Looks like the roster of a typical first round loser to me, no offense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pens would have blasted Montreal that year.....would have probably swept them...

I love logic like this. "We lost in the first round, but we would have swept the team that actually won it all!"

(92-93 Pens are definitely one of the best teams ever to lose in the first round, though).

 

[KidCanada*]

1929-30 Bruins

- 38-5-1
- 21-1-0 home record
- 17-4-1 road record
- .875 best winning percentage of all time
- 51% more points than 2nd place in a 44 game season
- 0.84 more goals per game than 2nd best offense
- most goals in a 50 game or less season
- 0.3 goals against per game better than 2nd best defensive team
- longest winning streak at 14 games stands until the 1982 islanders
- longest consecutive home winning streak at 20 games (still stands)
- tied then record of 17 game undefeated streak (separate streak from the 14 game winning streak)
- weiland shattered the scoring record with 73 points
- gainor-weiland-clapper line with 102 goals equals the pittsburgh pirates goals for the season

 

[R S]

2003 Avs.

Selanne
Kariya
Tanguay
Duke
Sakic
Forsberg
Blake
Foote
Morris

 

[edog37]

I love logic like this. "We lost in the first round, but we would have swept the team that actually won it all!"

(92-93 Pens are definitely one of the best teams ever to lose in the first round, though).

it was second round. The Pens beat themselves that playoff year, they were 2X defending champs, loaded, President's Trophy winners, etc. Montreal had to only beat a weak Isles team & a so-so LA team....

It was very clear to Pens fans that the '92-'93 team was lacking something the preceding Cup winners lacked. Call it killer instinct, lack of drive, whatever, something was off....

but let's face it, this entire thread is pure conjecture anyway....

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Pens would have blasted Montreal that year.....would have probably swept them...

Hmm ... a team that lost a playoff series to Glenn Healy would have beat Patrick Roy in 1993 ... personally I couldn't even begin to name the Isles top 5 scorers in the Pens series and yet they still beat Mario, Jagr, Francis etc ...

Montreal had to only beat a weak Isles team

And how did the powerful Pens do that spring against the same weak Isles team ???

Don't forget that the same team that beat the Pens in 7, proceeded to subsequently lose in the next round in 5 games to Montreal.

 

[toquerasta]

The 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

 

[Bonzai12]

2003 Avs.

Selanne
Kariya
Tanguay
Duke
Sakic
Forsberg
Blake
Foote
Morris

Hands down the winner. And you forgot Patrick Roy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

2003 Avs.

Selanne
Kariya
Tanguay
Duke
Sakic
Forsberg
Blake
Foote
Morris

Good on paper, terrible on the ice. Kariya and Selanne were awful that year, largely due to injuries and if I remember correctly, Sakic was walking wounded too.

Also, Sakic had no chemistry with Kariya and Selanne, which really isn't surprising in retrospect, given how Kariya and Selanne played.

 

[doug hamilton]

The 1924-25 Hamilton Tigers.

If their owner hadn't been a cheap jerk and paid the players what they deserved then there wouldn't have been a strike.

Tigers would have been favourites to win the league and then beat the western league team.

Might even have kept hockey in Hamilton for a while.

 

[Blizzard]

I love logic like this. "We lost in the first round, but we would have swept the team that actually won it all!"

(92-93 Pens are definitely one of the best teams ever to lose in the first round, though).

Talented, yes. But a team, no. The organization was in disarray after those Cups. Which is the exact reason a "team" like the far lesser talented Islanders beat them.

 

[Thordic]

Another pick would be the 91-92 Rangers, with Hart winner Messier, and Norris winner Leetch. Along with future HOF Mike Gartner. The team finished 50-25-5 for 105 points, and had 5 30 goal scorers.

That "team" did win the Cup a few years later, so I'd say they are disqualified.

I think the purpose of this thread is not a single season, but a "team" identified by a team core of players over a period of time. Like the early 70's Rangers. You had an identifiable core of players who were around for a number of years and during that time the Rangers were one of the top teams in the league. And at the end of the day, they never won a Cup. I would say that Rangers team is eligible throughout the Emile Francis years, as the core of the team was there throughout his tenure.

 

[lovetherangers]

That "team" did win the Cup a few years later, so I'd say they are disqualified.

I think the purpose of this thread is not a single season, but a "team" identified by a team core of players over a period of time. Like the early 70's Rangers. You had an identifiable core of players who were around for a number of years and during that time the Rangers were one of the top teams in the league. And at the end of the day, they never won a Cup. I would say that Rangers team is eligible throughout the Emile Francis years, as the core of the team was there throughout his tenure.

Several others have mentioned single seasons, so I added the 91-92 Rangers who I think may have been better than the 93-94 version. But it is all a moot point anyway, as this exercise is merely opinions.

 

[Analyzer*]

2005-2006 Senators.

Pretty sure that was the team with Chara, Redden (still good) Volchenkov, Spezza, Heatley, alfredsson, Hasek (though was hurt) Phillips (still with a stride in his step), Havlat too iirc (though hurt ?) they had a very good team. Once they signed Hasek, I pretty much said they would win the cup. Until Hasek went down, that sucked. Was hoping for the cup to be back in Canada, especially close to me.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

1992-1993 Pittsburgh Penguins
1985-1986 Edmonton Oilers
1970-1971 Boston Bruins

 

[Forsbergwannabe]

Hands down the winner. And you forgot Patrick Roy.

Actually the year the avs had Kariya and Selänne was in 2004, which is a year after Roy retired, so they had aebischer in net instead.

 

[member 30781]

87 Flyers