TequilaBay
Registered User
- May 30, 2019
- 108
- 153
In the '90s, Boston never won any championships
- Thread starter TequilaBay
- Start date
Doctor No
Registered User
Boo f***ing hoo for them.
Between 1979 (Supersonics) and 2014 (Seahawks), no Seattle major pro sports team won a championship. By which point, the Sonics had been stolen and driven away.
And there are cities worse off than that.
Between 1979 (Supersonics) and 2014 (Seahawks), no Seattle major pro sports team won a championship. By which point, the Sonics had been stolen and driven away.
And there are cities worse off than that.
Toronto hasn't won anything since 1993. Unless you count the Argos or whatever the soccer team is called. Will that change anytime soon?
Staniowski
Registered User
Buffalo. 4 straight super bowl losses and the Flyers and Brett Hull. So close in 07, you can thank my RANGERS for giving them an extra hard time in round 2 which fatigued them.
tony d
Registered User
It was a tough decade for sports in Boston back then. The past 2 decades though have been quite good to be a Boston sports fan. If they win the Cup they'll be the champs in 3 of the 4 sports. Don't know if any city has ever been the champ in 3 of the 4 major sports at the same time before. I've been a sports fan for 30 yrs. and I don't think it's ever happened.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Lol.
The Bruins went to the 1990 Stanley Cup Finals and followed that up with two exciting conference final runs, Cam Neely a repeated 50-goal scorer and Ray Bourque the best defenseman of the era, winning the Norris trophy 3 times that decade, ... 8 times that decade a Norris trophy finalist!!!!).
It was a fun time to be a Bruins fan. It was a hard-working competitive team (Not super talented after Neely's injury and Moog's retirement except for Bourque and a passing center, Oates. The best of the rest were pluggers like Tony Donato, Glen Wesley and Don Sweeney. Not the deepest team in talent but a proud team to support. I recall encountering several happy Bruins fans that decade. (It didn't get negative until the early 2000's with the failed rebuild and trade of Thornton.)
They won playoff series in 5 postseasons, only once missing the playoffs before 2000.
Plenty of NHL teams and fan bases would be ecstatic to have such a decade!
The Bruins went to the 1990 Stanley Cup Finals and followed that up with two exciting conference final runs, Cam Neely a repeated 50-goal scorer and Ray Bourque the best defenseman of the era, winning the Norris trophy 3 times that decade, ... 8 times that decade a Norris trophy finalist!!!!).
It was a fun time to be a Bruins fan. It was a hard-working competitive team (Not super talented after Neely's injury and Moog's retirement except for Bourque and a passing center, Oates. The best of the rest were pluggers like Tony Donato, Glen Wesley and Don Sweeney. Not the deepest team in talent but a proud team to support. I recall encountering several happy Bruins fans that decade. (It didn't get negative until the early 2000's with the failed rebuild and trade of Thornton.)
They won playoff series in 5 postseasons, only once missing the playoffs before 2000.
Plenty of NHL teams and fan bases would be ecstatic to have such a decade!
Last edited:
TequilaBay
Registered User
- May 30, 2019
- 108
- 153
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
The Patriots were so bad in the early 90's they almost relocated to St. Louis in 1993. Also Hartford in 1998.
St. Louis Stallions - Wikipedia
How the Patriots Almost Became Connecticut’s Team
St. Louis Stallions - Wikipedia
How the Patriots Almost Became Connecticut’s Team
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
If the Blues win that would give St.Louis the big four "Grand Slam" titles:
1958-Hawks (basketball)
1999-Rams (football)
Multiple-Cardinals (baseball)
Granted two of the teams left town.
My Best-Carey
1958-Hawks (basketball)
1999-Rams (football)
Multiple-Cardinals (baseball)
Granted two of the teams left town.
My Best-Carey
alko
Registered User
Those early 90s Bruins were unfortunately the victim of the wrong place wrong time scenario. They were a good team with good players it just so happened their opponents just had better personnel(Edmonton and Pittsburgh). IMO if there was any year they really choked on it it was 91 they had the 2-0 series lead in the cf if Neely doesn't go down in Game 3 and they win either Game 3 or 4 in Pittsburgh they probably win that series and beat Minnesota in the cup final. I think those teams needed 1 more offensive fore in addition to Neely, they wound up getting that in Adam Oates later on but by that time their window had closed.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
exactly where the fan hatred for Jacobs comes from.
he had a team on the brink of potentially multiple Cups, and refused to pony up the $ to add that 1 missing piece. He was content to sit and collect the revenue from some playoff series.
the hatred grew from there as Bourque's career waned on being wasted until ultimately traded to a team that cared about winning.
Lets say if 91 does ultimately go in their favor do you think Bourque retires a Bruin or does he ask for the trade in 00 to try and win another cup?
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
It's funny, for a while there it was really easy to cheer for the Boston teams.
Patriots were a historically inept franchise that won their first Super Bowl as a scrappy underdog, and their second as a likeable favorite.
Celtics had a proud history and were a lot of fun to watch during the Bird/McHale/Parris era. Basically up until they hired Pitino.
Red Sox had the insane streak without a title, and were always fighting uphill against the Yankees. After '86 it really seemed that the gods owed them one.
Bruins were just kind of there I guess, without much identity in the late 90s and early 00s. But their 2008-11 was a really great story arc.
As late as 2004 (when the Pats denied the Eagles a SB and the Sox had their "Idiots" dream season) the Boston teams still had sort of a good-guys vibe. Lovable losers who had finally turned the corner to make good. Seems to me the balance turned toward Black Hat status sometime around 2007 with the Pats' shot at a perfect season, Sox/Yankees monopolizing the limelight in MLB, the Celtics getting into the super-team game and all but buying a dynasty, and the Bruins taking on a meathead identity to give the city a contender in all 4 sports. A decade later it's pretty easy to cheer against all four of them, if only through sheer fatigue of hearing about them.
Patriots were a historically inept franchise that won their first Super Bowl as a scrappy underdog, and their second as a likeable favorite.
Celtics had a proud history and were a lot of fun to watch during the Bird/McHale/Parris era. Basically up until they hired Pitino.
Red Sox had the insane streak without a title, and were always fighting uphill against the Yankees. After '86 it really seemed that the gods owed them one.
Bruins were just kind of there I guess, without much identity in the late 90s and early 00s. But their 2008-11 was a really great story arc.
As late as 2004 (when the Pats denied the Eagles a SB and the Sox had their "Idiots" dream season) the Boston teams still had sort of a good-guys vibe. Lovable losers who had finally turned the corner to make good. Seems to me the balance turned toward Black Hat status sometime around 2007 with the Pats' shot at a perfect season, Sox/Yankees monopolizing the limelight in MLB, the Celtics getting into the super-team game and all but buying a dynasty, and the Bruins taking on a meathead identity to give the city a contender in all 4 sports. A decade later it's pretty easy to cheer against all four of them, if only through sheer fatigue of hearing about them.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 28,855
- 38,436
I don't know, honestly. He seemed pretty burnt out and dissatisfied with the way Sinden was running the team by then. I always felt like the chasing a cup narrative was more of a front for asking out than anything.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I remember the "Curse of the Bambino" was strong at that time. I am just going by memory, but after 1986 against the Mets the whole "curse" idea was a big deal with the Red Sox. They had so many times after 1918 to win it and always seemed to lose in Game 7 of the World Series. Then the whole thing happened in 2003 against the Yankees with Aaron Boone's home run and you figured that the curse was actually real, until 2004.
Look, like them or not, the city of Boston is a major sports town. They love all of their teams and every single one of them has great history. In each sport if you say the name Bruins, Patriots, Celtics and Red Sox it has a following. Hard to believe a city so celebrated with sports championships was actually on "hard times" back then.
In all honesty, traditionally the "loser" cities are ones like these:
Buffalo - No championships, lost in heart breaking fashion in the NFL and NHL
Minnesota - Really, not much to celebrate at all historically. The less you say about the Timberwolves the better. The Wild and Northstars have never done anything and I could start a riot if I bring up the things about the Vikings. Their entire city has two championships with the Twins, that's it. Thanks Kirby Puckett, God rest your soul or else this city would have nothing.
Cleveland - 2016 was legendary with Lebron but this is a loser of a sports city. The NHL's Barons barely lasted the Indians have won just twice and own the longest current drought in baseball from 1948 and the Browns haven't won in 55 years, but do at least have good history at that time and before that.
Atlanta - There was a comparison in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago showing the amount of championships the city of Boston had compared to Atlanta. Boston had somewhere in the 30s, while Atlanta had one with the Braves in 1995. That's just horrible.
Other cities like Denver was thought to be traditional losers before the Avs won in 1996, then again in 2001 and the Broncos have won 3 times starting in 1997.
Philadelphia for a city of it's size and the fact there are 4 in every sport and have been for ages has less than you'd think but I will stick to Buffalo, Minnesota, Atlanta and Cleveland as the biggest losers.
Look, like them or not, the city of Boston is a major sports town. They love all of their teams and every single one of them has great history. In each sport if you say the name Bruins, Patriots, Celtics and Red Sox it has a following. Hard to believe a city so celebrated with sports championships was actually on "hard times" back then.
In all honesty, traditionally the "loser" cities are ones like these:
Buffalo - No championships, lost in heart breaking fashion in the NFL and NHL
Minnesota - Really, not much to celebrate at all historically. The less you say about the Timberwolves the better. The Wild and Northstars have never done anything and I could start a riot if I bring up the things about the Vikings. Their entire city has two championships with the Twins, that's it. Thanks Kirby Puckett, God rest your soul or else this city would have nothing.
Cleveland - 2016 was legendary with Lebron but this is a loser of a sports city. The NHL's Barons barely lasted the Indians have won just twice and own the longest current drought in baseball from 1948 and the Browns haven't won in 55 years, but do at least have good history at that time and before that.
Atlanta - There was a comparison in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago showing the amount of championships the city of Boston had compared to Atlanta. Boston had somewhere in the 30s, while Atlanta had one with the Braves in 1995. That's just horrible.
Other cities like Denver was thought to be traditional losers before the Avs won in 1996, then again in 2001 and the Broncos have won 3 times starting in 1997.
Philadelphia for a city of it's size and the fact there are 4 in every sport and have been for ages has less than you'd think but I will stick to Buffalo, Minnesota, Atlanta and Cleveland as the biggest losers.
Boston fans have come to learn that it was Sinden and not Jacobs who was the penny pincher.
The low point came in June 2001 when 25,000 Bruins fans saluted Ray Bourque as a Cup champion - for Colorado
STANLEY CUP IN BOSTON?
"Harry fell asleep 22 years ago and he is still sleeping," a reference to a statement by Sinden in the Boston Globe earlier this week. Asked for his reaction to Bourque's winning a title, Sinden said he fell asleep before Game 7 ended Saturday.
Sinden was awake and seething Wednesday, though. He reportedly asked city officials to cancel the rally because he felt there should be no Stanley Cup rally in Boston unless the Bruins are hosting.
"I think it's unnecessary," Sinden said on Boston's WEEI Wednesday morning. "I think our admiration is for Ray, certainly not for anybody else. ... It's somewhat embarrassing."
But considering the Bruins haven't been in the playoffs the past two years and haven't played for a Cup in 11 years, it could be awhile before they are holding a rally at City Hall.
"The Red Sox will probably win a World Series before the Bruins win a Cup," said Mike Moreira of Taunton, Mass. "That's how bad it is."
Of course, the title drought goes beyond hockey. Boston hasn't hosted a title party since the Celtics last won an NBA championship in 1986. Sports fans in Boston will apparently take any title they can get, even if they are gazing at Denver's Stanley Cup.
