Teams that should have won the cup but didn't because of injuries

[LizzaBruins]

My bet is on The 91 Bruins, they had a great season and most of the players hit their prime. They played great in the playoffs eliminating two rival teams Hartford and Montreal, the they play the pens up 2-0 in the series, game 3 Ulf Samuelsson gives Neely a dirty blow to the knees and the Bruins go lose 4 straight to them. If Neely hadn't been injured the Bruins probably would have took the series in 5 and would have easily beaten the North Stars for the cup.

Click to read more...

 

[Trottier]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

Agreed.

To answer the original question, I'm still of the belief that the 2001 Devils would have won the Cup if Randy McKay hadn't been injured before the finals. He was a role player, but they had nobody to replace his role. Two of the team's biggest strengths were their checking line and powerplay. Losing McKay hurt the checking line (he was Bobby Holik's right wing for years) and killed the second PP unit (resulting in Gomez and Mogilny playing nothing but an ineffective perimeter game). I think his presence on the checking line and/or second PP unit would have probably made a difference in a 7 game series.

But you know what? The team that beat them was missing one Peter Forsberg, a much bigger loss for obvious reasons. And they prevailed, despite his loss, as Cup winners do.

 

[Dreakon13]

Maybe I'm a bit of a homer, but the 05-06 season. The Sabres had a hell of a team that year and played with pretty much nothing but AHLers on their blue line in the conference finals, due to injuries. I think we definately could've beaten Carolina that year and had a hell of a Stanley Cup finals appearance if it weren't for that.

My personal opinion of course.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Maybe I'm a bit of a homer, but the 05-06 season. The Sabres had a hell of a team that year and played with pretty much nothing but AHLers on their blue line in the conference finals, due to injuries. I think we definately could've beaten Carolina that year and had a hell of a Stanley Cup finals appearance if it weren't for that.

My personal opinion of course.

that was my answer too.

that team kept on trucking all the way to the conference finals even though they lost almost their entire d-corps. they never trailed in the playoffs until henrik tallinder, who was their best player that spring, went down in game three of the conference finals. they would go on to lose jay mckee for game seven, as the canes took the deciding game to get to the finals.

tallinder, numminen, mckee, and kalinin were all out. that left them with lydman (a legit top four guy and one half of their excellent shutdown pairing), campbell (powerplay specialist/defensive liability at this point), and four AHLers (rory fitzpatrick, nathan paetsch, jeff jillson, and doug janik). they were also without tim connolly, who was leading the team in playoff scoring until he got hurt in round two.

that was the best offensive depth they ever had, and the tallinder/lydman pairing was playing out of their minds, leading the league in playoff +/- by a mile when tallinder went down. they came so close to beating the canes anyway that you have to think they make the finals if they don't have a young brian campbell and two AHLers in their top four, with two more AHLers on their bottom pair. hard to imagine them losing to the oilers.

when healthy:

hecht briere dumont
drury connolly pominville
vanek roy afinogenov
kotalik gaustad grier

pyatt mair novotny

tallinder lydman
numminen kalinin
mckee campbell

miller
biron

 

[Crossfire Hurricane]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

"Deserve" is a very subjective term, but there are certainly a lot of teams that were good enough to win a Cup in a given year, if not for injuries.

 

[Rhiessan71]

05/06 Oilers
No way in my mind that that series goes 7 games if Roloson wasn't run over in game 1. Oil in 6.

 

[Trottier]

"Deserve" is a very subjective term, but there are certainly a lot of teams that were good enough to win a Cup in a given year, if not for injuries.

Such speculation may mean something to some. That's fine (and the basis of this harmless thread topic, of course).

It doesn't to me, anymore than saying that I'd have Angelina Jolie if I only had Brad Pitt's looks and wealth.

You either get it done or not. Talk is cheap when it comes to success....in my opinion.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Most recently - The 2009 Red Wings.
Despite losing over 72 man-games to injury in those playoffs they still took Pittsburgh (3 man-games lost) to 7 games and outscored them over the course of the series.

I have to think just one of Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Rafalski, Hossa, Cleary, Draper, or Ericsson could have made the difference if slightly more healthy. That wacky, rushed schedule certainly did not help matters either.

Ah well, injuries are part of the game and kudos to Pittsburgh for stepping it up in the end.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

You either get it done or not. Talk is cheap when it comes to success....in my opinion.

To me, the process is more valuable than the result, in hockey as well as pretty much everywhere else in the randomness-soaked existence that is life.

Let's say you are the GM of the Carolina Hurricanes in the summer of 2006, and you just won the Cup. Do you enter the next season thinking you have the best team in the league, because, hey, after all, you have the Cup ring and talk is cheap and the playoffs prove who is best and success is all that matters? If you do, then I think that's a serious error in judgment.

Maybe that's what Carolina did, they didn't do too much to change their team and they figured Cam Ward was ready to be a starting goalie and the end result was that they missed the playoffs the year after they won it all.

That's not to say Carolina didn't "deserve" their win, or that their Cup rings should be revoked. Of course not. But I don't think it is at all inappropriate to point out that Ottawa, Buffalo, or Edmonton would all have been stronger contenders (and perhaps even favourites over the 'Canes) if not for injuries.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Not saying they would have won for certain, but I wonder what would have happened last playoffs if the Canucks defence hadn't been decimated.

But injuries are a part of the game. A lot of things have to come together for a team to catch the big fish.

 

[rocsfeather]

Most recently - The 2009 Red Wings.
Despite losing over 72 man-games to injury in those playoffs they still took Pittsburgh (3 man-games lost) to 7 games and outscored them over the course of the series.

I have to think just one of Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Rafalski, Hossa, Cleary, Draper, or Ericsson could have made the difference if slightly more healthy. That wacky, rushed schedule certainly did not help matters either.

Ah well, injuries are part of the game and kudos to Pittsburgh for stepping it up in the end.

I think it's just Pittsburgh being the better team when Detroit had a 2-0 series lead. Losing 4 out of 5 games is their own fault.

 

[Ilya Kovalchoke*]

2009 Washington Capitals
2010 Washington Capitals
2011 Washington Capitals

 

[Trottier]

To me, the process is more valuable than the result, in hockey as well as pretty much everywhere else in the randomness-soaked existence that is life.

Let's say you are the GM of the Carolina Hurricanes in the summer of 2006, and you just won the Cup. Do you enter the next season thinking you have the best team in the league, because, hey, after all, you have the Cup ring and talk is cheap and the playoffs prove who is best and success is all that matters? If you do, then I think that's a serious error in judgment.

Maybe that's what Carolina did, they didn't do too much to change their team and they figured Cam Ward was ready to be a starting goalie and the end result was that they missed the playoffs the year after they won it all.

That's not to say Carolina didn't "deserve" their win, or that their Cup rings should be revoked. Of course not. But I don't think it is at all inappropriate to point out that Ottawa, Buffalo, or Edmonton would all have been stronger contenders (and perhaps even favourites over the 'Canes) if not for injuries.

Injuries are excuses. Always. That is my opinion.

I respect your perspective on hockey and life. Fully. And, to an extent, can relate to it as it relates to the latter.

That said, I wouldn't try that line - "To me, the process is more valuable than the result" - out in the real world, be it as an NHL GM or any other competitive business.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

This is pretty unrelated, but it just reminds me of:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding#The_Kerrigan_attack

 

[Ilya Kovalchoke*]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

I don't think this thread is at all about who deserves to win, but rather who should have won. Meaning a team like Pittsburgh in 93 should have won or a team that was decimated by injuries should have won.

Obviously any team that does wins deserves it.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think it's just Pittsburgh being the better team when Detroit had a 2-0 series lead. Losing 4 out of 5 games is their own fault.

They were certainly the better team, as it was, but I dare say a healthy Datsyuk (Hart nominee that year) could have made a difference in the 2 1-goal games they lost over the 4 Finals games he missed. Lidstrom requiring surgery on his testicles just prior to the series didn't help either. Or the countless other players injured, or the fact the series started 2 days earlier than normal, or the fact of the unprecedented 4 games in 6 days, or some of the calls (6 men on the ice for 21 seconds for example).

Lol, but I'm not bitter at all

 

[VMBM]

Jean Ratelle/NY Rangers in 1972, although a healthy Ratelle probably wouldn't have changed things so much that the Rangers would have won it. But I'm sure GAG-line would have been more effective. Looks like it was Brad Park, though, who was always the key player when the Rangers, and later Bruins, were playing in the playoffs - not Ratelle.

 

[overpass]

Maybe I'm a bit of a homer, but the 05-06 season. The Sabres had a hell of a team that year and played with pretty much nothing but AHLers on their blue line in the conference finals, due to injuries. I think we definately could've beaten Carolina that year and had a hell of a Stanley Cup finals appearance if it weren't for that.

My personal opinion of course.

From another homer viewpoint, the Ottawa Senators were loaded that year but the dropoff from Hasek to Emery was enormous. With a healthy Hasek, I think they probably beat Buffalo. Emery was awful in that series.

 

[FinHockey]

2010 Philadelphia Flyers. Had Emery been injured Chicago's drought would've continued. Just my opinion though.

 

[rocsfeather]

They were certainly the better team, as it was, but I dare say a healthy Datsyuk (Hart nominee that year) could have made a difference in the 2 1-goal games they lost over the 4 Finals games he missed. Lidstrom requiring surgery on his testicles just prior to the series didn't help either. Or the countless other players injured, or the fact the series started 2 days earlier than normal, or the fact of the unprecedented 4 games in 6 days, or some of the calls (6 men on the ice for 21 seconds for example).

Lol, but I'm not bitter at all

All valid points but i'll still stick with 1 win in 5 games is their own fault. To each their own.

Also being a hockey fan is no fun unless you're bitter about something. Makes the games more interesting that way.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Every team that wins the Cup deserves/earns it. As such, no team that didn't win it "deserved" it.

Just my opinion.

OP never used the word "deserve".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

OP never used the word "deserve".

No, but he did say "should have" which sort of insinuates that they deserved it.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

No, but he did say "should have" which sort of insinuates that they deserved it.

Proper wording for this thread should go something like this...

"What teams probably would have won the Cup had they been more durable?"


Keeping your body healthy, whether it is through physical training, diet, or just plain not putting yourself in a risky position is a part of the game. While there is a portion of luck (or I guess bad luck) involved in getting injured, there is also a portion of luck in everything else about hockey as well.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The 1917 and 2005 cups are the only ones not won by a deserving team...