Sentinel
Registered User
I don't think Wayne Gretzky himself can convince you on this or any other Detroit-related issue.You haven't convinced us.
I don't think Wayne Gretzky himself can convince you on this or any other Detroit-related issue.You haven't convinced us.
So the old yarn that begins with: "It all started because the circus was in town ..." originally ended with: "... and that's how the LEAFS got screwed ..."?
I don't disagree with your post. Playing through injuries is part of why it's hard to win a Cup. Especially if you're trying to repeat.
However, the Penguins in 2017 played Ottawa and Nashville in the last two rounds. Not exactly legendary opponents. Yes, they were without Letang, but on paper Pittsburgh was a lot stronger than either of those teams. That's not comparable to the Red Wings in 2009, who faced a good Chicago team without Lidstrom or Datsyuk for most that series. They beat Chicago in 5, had a few days off, and then played back to back games against a really strong Pittsburgh team.
I also don't believe travel is a big deal. Pittsburgh to Detroit is a one hour flight.
Look at my argument as a whole. You’re doing the same thing The Panther did. Just focus on two days off and leave out the 3 in 4. Combined, that is extreme as the NHL has ever gone for an accelerated early Finals schedule. That is what the league changed to from the long delay they had originally planned. I have no problem with them changing it but why accelerate things a much as possible when both teams finished the last series so early and it departed from the original plan so much?
Sure, compare it with other Finals series with only 2 days off, compare the Datsyuk injury with others, say a back to back isn’t the end of the world. Combined though, the league really added to a disadvantage one team already had. The league really looked like bunch of Pens fans here even if that’s not the reason.
You start by mentioning two teams that went 7 games in the CF and then had a quick start. You are helping prove my point here. You mention the ‘93 Leafs playing so many games as well but how do those apply to the ‘09 Red Wings who actually knocked out the Hawks in 5 and limped into the next round? It doesn’t. It was an extremely strange situation for the league to suddenly flash the most accelerated start to the Finals they could possibly come up with in that scenario. They had lots of time with both series finishing early but chose to rush into the first 3 games like never before.
Nobody was asking for a long layoff either, just not an accelerated schedule when one team was clearly on the mend. What a kick to the stones it is to see your team already playing at 70 or 80% cause of injuries and then the league decides to “try something different” and condense the early Finals schedule. The Red Wings were reeling from the conference finals that had Lidstrom and Ericsson having surgery and needing to rush back to the finals and play 3 in 4, while missing Datsyuk and Draper to start the series, along with Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all playing with publicized injuries. So no, not just Datsyuk being affected here.
The Pens clearly loved the quick start to the series because they were fully aware of the Red Wings situation. The Red Wings clearly hated it for obvious reasons. Anyone who thinks it was fine wouldn’t be saying the same thing if it happened to their team. The NHL decided to change it to an outlier schedule that would clearly benefit one team and make things as tough as possible for the other. How can you keep pretending that is fine?
The delayed schedule towards the end of the series gave the Wings some chance to recover but the damage was already done. The Pens got more confidence from playing an injured and run down team 3 in 4 early in the series, which was exactly what that team needed after getting dominated the year before, and that 3 in 4 had a cumulative affect on wearing down the beat up and older team even more.
I don’t buy the Conan excuse the league provided either. That show premiered one night, which Was June 1 (Monday). Not being able to play that one night caused this schedule? Is that really how this works? Nah.... Frankly, why the NHL did it is irrelevant. That’s not how they should run things and it certainly contributed to a “crushing defeat”.
Like I showed you last time, go back and compare that early schedule with any other in modern times and you’ll see it was unparalleled and an odd time for Bettman to pull it out due to how quickly the CF ended. Haven’t done it since either. It was a one-time gift to Crosby and the Pens and they still nearly blew it.
Just watching the NFL network and their usual "Top 10" lists which I love and it got me thinking, what are hockey's most crushing defeats? I'll limit it to 5 with some honourable mentions. Here is the stipulation, it has to be broadly recognized as a crushing defeat. It can't just be regional. For example, the Leafs losing to the Kings in 1993 is crushing among Leafs fans but it would never crack a top 5 or maybe even 25. Think about this as if you are a neutral fan. International hockey is included in this. It has to be a big game, an important game with championship implications. It can result in a blown lead, a choke job, a monumental upset or even just a bad gaffe. So here we go, this is my list, flame away!
#1 Penguins losing to the Islanders in 1993 - This one just hurts, and even seeing the replay on the Volek overtime goal makes me wince, to this day. There was so much on the line this year that would have made a Penguins Cup win so sweet. Mario getting cancer but still winning the scoring title, the 17 wins in a row which is still a record, the best record in the NHL, the prospect of a three-peat. It would have been interesting to see just how the Penguins and even how much more we would have viewed Mario had they won. That whole series was just an example of how to NOT close a series. The Pens had their chances to put them away but didn't. Even in Game 7 that had a 45-20 difference in shots on goal for the Pens you could almost see things slipping away. Then the bad goals in that game. Barrasso wasn't sharp and there was a goal at the blueline to make it 3-1 Isles. But the Pens tied it late and you figured this was a lot like the 1982 Isles, winning two Cups in a row and making a strong comeback in a clinching game in order to win it in overtime. But no, it didn't work out that way. Mario had that point blank chance in overtime right in front of Healy and 9 times out of 10 the goalie blinks and flops around like a fish out of water once they realize it is Mario but this was one time where Mario actually may have had a little too much patience and didn't shoot it quick enough. Then the overtime goal on a bad line change for the Pens. To this day I don't know whose fault it was. It looks like Francis got off and someone needed to get on in his place. The Islander goal was scored more or less with 4 Pens on the ice. That's Martin Straka who was understandably out of place once he got on the ice trying to get to Volek. Ahh, too bad. But yeah, this is the NHL's #1 upset of all-time I think and is right there as the most crushing defeat.
It's not the singular reason. Just one main reason that gets brought up. Yes, they won games 1 and 2, but they looked average in both games. Osgood carried them to those victories. They only looked good in game 5. Just ran out of gas the rest of the way. Winning two games is nice, but it's a 7 game series. They didn't have it in the tank for the long run. I think playing back to back hurt them more than Pittsburgh. If I run a marathon and have to play a tennis match afterwards, I might do OK in the beginning, but I'm not winning a long match.Why they accelerated it was because of the early finish for both series. Usually there isn't a sweep and a 5-game series on both sides. Normally at least one team goes 6 or 7. So in that case the expected start of the final was the next Saturday since it was expected that at least one series would go deep. They didn't. So that gave them the opportunity to start the final the previous Saturday and you know as well as I do that a lot of that probably had to do with viewership. You'll get more eyes on the screen on Saturday and Sunday than the weekday. Throw in the Conan thing interrupting everything and it explains why they did what they did. Besides, none of that mattered. Detroit didn't necessarily outplay the Pens, but they did win both of them. Would you have scrapped a 2-0 series lead just so the series could start on, say, Wednesday? I would guess come Sunday night no one in Detroit could have cared less after the game that there were back to back games.
Here is something pretty fascinating though. The 2008 and 2009 finals were played by the same teams. Other than the unusual back to back games, the truth is, the 2008 Cup final was played in the same fashion. May 24th to June 4th. 6 games. 2009 was played from May 30th to June 13th in 7 games. 2008 was played in 11 days in 6 games. 2009 was played in 14 days in 7 games. There is literally no difference at all. The only thing is the back to back, which Detroit won anyway. Other than that the 2009 Cup final had two times where the games were three days apart, with 2008 just having one. If Wings fans think that a singular back to back game is the reason they lost a Cup then they probably are seeing it because they want to. But it isn't reality. They were banged up, that is true, but they were just not a good enough team to be a dynasty. Think of this, the 1983 Cup final was a lot like the 2008 Cup final with experience vs. Youth. But the 1984 Cup final was a lot like the 2009 Cup final where the younger team got more experience and the older team was starting to wear down. It was accurate right? The 2010 Wings didn't do a deep run either right?
Lastly, why wouldn't the NHL have fixed the 2010 playoffs for the Pens if they did the 2009 playoffs? Why not fix it that the Pens beat the Habs in 2010? You can't tell me that another Pens/Flyers match up in the final is better ratings than the Habs. Not to mention a Pens/Hawks Cup final.
What I've read in the past about the schedule conflicts was that original MSG made more money from the circus than from hockey (the most money coming from boxing matches). And not unlike what you see in multipurpose arenas out in the Western U.S. with annual rodeo events, the Old Gardens in the first part of the 20th Century always hosted the circus in April. This Gerald Eskenazi article from the NY Times goes into more detail about the annual circus tradition @ MSG.... I am just pointing out that there was another time there was much different circumstances that forced the schedule to change. I have no idea why they would schedule the circus at MSG at that time though. It wasn't as if there wasn't a good possibility the Rangers could have been in the final. ...
Would Chris Chelios have been engraved in 2009 had they won? I always wondered that because he was on the team but didn't meet the pre-requisite, I don't know if they would have petitioned for him or not.I think it also doesn’t help that prior to 2009, there was always a reason why Detroit didn’t win. Bill Ranford’s fault. Manny Legace’s fault. Paul Coffey’s fault. Andreas Lilja’s fault. Curtis Joseph’s fault. Someone the fans could make “the other” so that blame was never on the team as a whole for why they didn’t win every Stanley Cup.
So really, it’s Mitch Albom’s fault. Probably didn’t help that the team itself went from complaining about the schedule to complaining about the speed with which everyone shook hands as if Chris Chelios hadn’t been on their roster for 10 years.
That’s why I don’t think anyone with large amounts of success is going to be on the wrong end of a crushing defeat. No one in Buffalo or Vancouver is getting their violins ready because Detroit has to play a back-to-back.
Out of respect management probably would put him on the Cup.Would Chris Chelios have been engraved in 2009 had they won? I always wondered that because he was on the team but didn't meet the pre-requisite, I don't know if they would have petitioned for him or not.
Out of respect management probably would put him on the Cup.
That was the year where Babcock benched him for the Winter Classic in Chicago. Chelios also lost his spot in the lineup to Lilja the season before. I sometimes forget he was even on those two teams, sadly.
I remember watching that game and wondering why an almost 50 year old legend who's from Chicago, and used to play there, wasn't playing more in that game. I wasn't surprised several months ago to read an interview from Chelios bashing Babcock and his wounded pride.Just when you think you’ve remembered all of the reasons to dislike Mike Babcock...
I was going to say Flames losing to LA in 1990 round 1. It started their downward spiral from top team into pure garbage and they didn't win another series until 04.
It's more just a pathetic and annoying whimper of a loss than crushing.
The Wings were never up 3-1 in that series. You're thinking of 2008. Though maybe you aren't. I heard Pierre McGuire say the same about the 2009 Finals during a broadcast this season. Maybe in hindsight everyone remembers that Detroit was up 3-1.As a Wings fan I never took 09 to be that crushing a defeat. I felt like the signs were obvious, the 3-1 lead built on smoke and mirrors. Of course, you hope you can get away with one last triumph, but it felt a bit like fighting vs time itself. I deep down expected to lose game 7.
For me the loss vs the Ducks in 07 was far more crushing. At that time you don't know there's a Cup in 08, and I already felt like that team was good enough to win the Cup. That series felt really unfortunate to lose in spite of only going 6 games. The Ducks were excellent, but the Wings could and maybe should have beaten them. I still think if Lidstrom's shot is a goal rather than hitting the post the Wings win the series and the Cup. It's an emotional truth, not one you can prove. But the Sens did not seem to pose a serious threat in the Finals and that turned out to be true for the Ducks.
The Wings were never up 3-1 in that series. You're thinking of 2008. Though maybe you aren't. I heard Pierre McGuire say the same about the 2009 Finals during a broadcast this season. Maybe in hindsight everyone remembers that Detroit was up 3-1.
I think it also doesn’t help that prior to 2009, there was always a reason why Detroit didn’t win. Bill Ranford’s fault. Manny Legace’s fault. Paul Coffey’s fault. Andreas Lilja’s fault. Curtis Joseph’s fault. Someone the fans could make “the other” so that blame was never on the team as a whole for why they didn’t win every Stanley Cup.
So really, it’s Mitch Albom’s fault. Probably didn’t help that the team itself went from complaining about the schedule to complaining about the speed with which everyone shook hands as if Chris Chelios hadn’t been on their roster for 10 years.
That’s why I don’t think anyone with large amounts of success is going to be on the wrong end of a crushing defeat. No one in Buffalo or Vancouver is getting their violins ready because Detroit has to play a back-to-back.
The organization at the time was a role model for the whole league. They played the game the right way with skill, team play, and discipline.
I doubt neutral fans wanted to see Crosby win the Cup. The hockey media was already shoving him down everyone's throats before that. At the same time, I'm sure neutral fans didn't want Detroit to win another Cup either....and I think we’re back to why neutral fans would not consider the 2009 Detroit Red Wings to be a crushing defeat. The narrative that whenever Detroit loses, it is “despite” reason XYZ. That in 2009, it extended beyond Detroit media and the fans to the team itself who couldn’t even lose graciously and had to complain about handshakes and Jay Leno and a blown call and a non-suspension would make it difficult for a neutral fan to see them in a sympathetic light.
Losing in 1997 - or even in 1998 given what happened to Vladimir Konstantinov and Sergei Mnatsakanov - would have been crushing, because there were reasons neutral fans would want them to win.
But in 2009? When their Finals are more notable for them complaining about being screwed over and disrespected than anything they did on the ice? When many neutral fans were happily dunking on Marian Hossa for chasing the Stanley Cup in the wrong city?