Years you thought your team should have won the Cup

[ecemleafs]

That 8th seed had one of the most dominant runs through the playoffs though in recent memory, actually in history. That team overachieved and the Rangers were closer to winning the last two seasons. I also think that the 2012 Kings were a far bigger threat than the 2014 Kings we lost to.

we still finished with 14 more points than them.

 

[dr robbie]

93 Pens is the easy answer for me. Coming off of back-to-back cups and winning the president's... you kind of have high expectations :-\

Even though I've had high hopes for the Pens since Crosby, I don't think I've ever thought that they should have won the cup (except 09 of course). Even in 08 I didn't think they should have won.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, the Pens 90s' is a weird one. Nobody expected them to win in '91, or even do well in the playoffs... and then they won the Cup. Then, in '92, it at times seemed like they'd regressed -- Badger Bob was gone, Lemieux was in and out, and the Rangers and Chicago seemed dominant. Nobody expected them to win then, either, and they won the Cup again.

Then, in '93, everybody expected them to win, and they lost.

The 2009 Cup, however, I did sort-of expect them to win.

 

[Voight]

93 and 2010 pens

Shocked you didn't put the 2013 team that went all-in at the deadline.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

96 Detroit. After the Avs beat us, all I could think was "if a team that good, isn't good enough to win the cup, how are we ever going to win one?"

 

[LightningStorm]

I definitely thought the Stars could've won a second cup during the coaching tenures or Hitchcock and Tippett, and 2003 is the year I thought a chance for another cup slipped through their fingers the most.

In hindsight, 1998 is a year we really could've won it had Nieuwendyk not gotten injured the first game of the playoffs. He had his best regular season as a Star that year and we struggled to score after he went down (for example, we only scored 9 goals total in our 5 game series victory over Edmonton). It still would've been tough beating Detroit, and I take nothing away from them repeating that season. But our struggle to score combined with Nieuwendyk winning the Conn Smythe the next season has at times made me wonder about the 98 WCF vs Detroit. Our struggles scoring in the 98 playoffs also lead to us signing Brett Hull that offseason.

As for 2000, despite getting back to the finals and having a chance at repeating, I don't really view it as a missed opportunity. The Devils were simply better than us. The 2000 Stars team wasn't the same team that won the President's trophy the previous 2 seasons in addition to winning the cup the season before. While they were still among the best defensively (finishing 2nd, 1st and 3rd in GA the 3 respective years from 1998-2000), their offense really dipped this season, finishing 21st in GF after being 3rd and 8th the 2 previous years. We got outplayed by Colorado in the WCF that year and won because Belfour stole the series for us. Then in the finals we run into a New Jersey team who was our equal at shutting down opponents but could score more. People remember the Devils as a trapping team during that era when they won 3 cups, but the 2000 team could score, as the finished 2nd in GF that season (and lead the league in goals the next season). I've seen that most Devils fans consider the 2000 team to be the best of their 3 cup winning teams. Basically, the 2000 Stars team was fortunate to make it back to the finals and lost to a Devils team who was better, so I don't view it as a missed chance.

2003 was the year I thought we let a chance at a 2nd cup slip through our fingers. After Hitchcock and Belfour flamed out in 2002 (resulting in us missing the playoffs), we brought in Dave Tippett as our coach and retooled our roster. Marty Turco had an unbelievable first season as a starting goalie posting a then record 1.72 GAA. We were 6th in GF and 3rd in GA, and all this added up to us being the first seed in the West. Then Detroit and Colorado both lose in the first round and I believed the West was easily ours. Then Giguere comes along with his insane 2003 playoffs, and we lose the first 2 games at home in OT and never recover (including allowing a game tying goal with under a minute to go in the 3rd in game 2). Mentions Giguere's performance those playoffs instantly brings back the bad memories of this series for me. If we could've won this series, I definitely think we beat the Wild in the 2003 WCF.

I also believe we could've beaten the Devils had we had a rematch with them in 2003. This time we could've had home ice, plus our offense was much better this time around than in 2000 while our D was just as elite. Also, remember earlier when I said the 2000 team wasn't like the low scoring trapping team the Devils are remembered as during this era? The Devils team everyone remembers as a trapping team was the 2003 team, who was tied for first in GA but only 14th in GF. The Stars and Devils were once again defensive equals, but this time home ice and offense would've been in the Stars favor. And while I've heard the consensus among Devil fans is that the 2000 team was their best cup winning team, I've also heard similarly that 2003 was the weakest of the three, which I would agree with.

As for the Lightning, I don't really think they've blown a huge chance at a 2nd cup. 2011 was a last ditch run to get one more cup during the St. Louis/Lecavalier era, and it was apparent that it was a one year wonder. And our loss to the Blackhawks in the cup last season was a case of a young team having to learn how to win in their first deep playoff run, especially since they were playing the Blackhawks, the team that currently knows how to win best in those big games.

 

[Canucks21]

Canucks
1994, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Thanks Chicago

 

[Zero Pucks Given]

For the Kings...

1993. **** you Habs. That is all.

 

[kingdok]

Somewhere in the 00's for the Habs. It ended the streak of a least a cup per decade.

They didn't have the team for it though but that's just a minor detail...

 

[Edmonton East]

01 Devils

 

[Sentinel]

Wings 95 (trap!), 96 (if 62 wins aren't good enough...), 99 (injuries killed the threepeat), 03 (Giguerre), and 09 (NHL).

 

[Randy Marsh]

Flyers:

1987 - Take the Oilers to 7 games without Tim Kerr. Imagine if they had him?

1999 - Eric Lindros is playing the best hockey of his career. He goes down with a collapsed lung and the Flyers lose to the Leafs in Round 1 despite outscoring them.

2004 - Flyers take Lightning to 7 games despite having a defense so banged up that Sami Kapanen has to play D. It was the alst hurrah for LeClair, Recchi, Primeau, Roenick and company.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

If we're talking on paper, I don't think there's any one season where the Sharks were the best team in the Conference with the possible exception of '09. For the most part they were only a top two or three team in the West even at their best.

However if we're talking years where they had the best chance, you have to go with 2004. They were in the WCF against a very beatable Flames team, and had they not been missing arguably their best forward at the time (Sturm), I think they would've at least made the Finals. I still don't know what the hell happened the last two games of that series.

HM, 2006: If Roloson doesn't make that glove save, I think they make it to the Finals that year as well.

 

[blogofmike]

Flyers:

1987 - Take the Oilers to 7 games without Tim Kerr. Imagine if they had him?

1999 - Eric Lindros is playing the best hockey of his career. He goes down with a collapsed lung and the Flyers lose to the Leafs in Round 1 despite outscoring them.

2004 - Flyers take Lightning to 7 games despite having a defense so banged up that Sami Kapanen has to play D. It was the alst hurrah for LeClair, Recchi, Primeau, Roenick and company.

Or the 1980 Flyers. Offsides Isles goal to tie Game 6 and all that.

 

[patnyrnyg]

For the Rangers, it is definitely 1992. Up 2 games to 1, up 3-1 in game 4, going home for game 5. Richter gives up that terrible goal to Francis from the neutral zone to start the comeback. Pens ran the table from there winning games 4, 5, 6 and then sweeping both Boston and Chicago.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Or the 1980 Flyers. Offsides Isles goal to tie Game 6 and all that.

the off-sides goal was earlier, but yeah that 80 Flyers team was great. 35 game unbeaten streak.

 

[Voight]

Flyers:

1987 - Take the Oilers to 7 games without Tim Kerr. Imagine if they had him?

1999 - Eric Lindros is playing the best hockey of his career. He goes down with a collapsed lung and the Flyers lose to the Leafs in Round 1 despite outscoring them.

2004 - Flyers take Lightning to 7 games despite having a defense so banged up that Sami Kapanen has to play D. It was the alst hurrah for LeClair, Recchi, Primeau, Roenick and company.

No offence but I really doubt Tim Kerr would be the difference in them beating Edmonton. It was a Close series but I don't think they beat them even with Kerr.

 

[The Pale King]

Tim Kerr could have made a huge difference in that series. All the games were close aside from one 4-1 Oilers win. Even if he just chips in a PP goal or two, that could swing the series in Philly's favour. He missed all of the Conference finals and SCF and still led the playoffs in PP goals with 5.

It's far from a sure thing that the Flyers take the series with him in it, but the guy was easily their leading regular season scorer, and had it going pretty good in the playoffs too prior to the shoulder thing. Fuhr played pretty deep in his net, could definitely see a slot scorer like Kerr causing him serious problems over the course of a series.

I'd love to see some game logs from the finals, can't seem to find individual ones, but I'd imagine the Flyers struggled without Kerr in that regard. They were only average there with him. He was pretty much the game-plan.

 

[The Panther]

Tim Kerr could have made a huge difference in that series. All the games were close aside from one 4-1 Oilers win.

Nah.

The Oilers could have won that series in 4-straight, and probably should have. As it was, they had a 3 games to 1 lead, and only lost one game (in Philly) because they blew a 3-0 lead.

The '87 Flyers deserve a ton of credit for stretching that series to 7, but it was only stretched to 7 because the Oilers allowed it to be so by blowing leads they'd normally never give up in games three and five.

 

[The Pale King]

As it was, they had a 3 games to 1 lead, and only lost one game (in Philly) because they blew a 3-0 lead.

They had a 3 games to 1 lead, WITHOUT playing against Tim Kerr. I'm not denying that happened, I'm saying the series, in particular the first two games could have gone differently had Kerr been in the lineup. You don't retroactively add the guy into the gamelogs post-mortem. You try to predict how the series would have gone from puck-drop in game one with the theoretical lineup changes.

Dynamite slot presence in his absolute prime against a defense that didn't exactly excel at clearing the crease area, and a goalie who plays deep in his net? It could have been a huge issue for the Oil.

Kerr was 27, bounced back from the shoulder injury in the 87 playoffs, and AGAIN led the playoffs in PP goals in 89. We're talking about a 4th overall offense losing their clear offensive star. Kerr's 95 points to Peter Zezels 72 aren't like Gretzky's 183 to Kurri's 108, but that's still a pretty clear drop. Especially on a much more conservative team offensively.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

'89 for the Habs. That year alone used to be why I hated the Flames. Made adopting the Oilers as my second team when I lived there even easier.

 

[Randy Marsh]

Nah.

The Oilers could have won that series in 4-straight, and probably should have. As it was, they had a 3 games to 1 lead, and only lost one game (in Philly) because they blew a 3-0 lead.

The '87 Flyers deserve a ton of credit for stretching that series to 7, but it was only stretched to 7 because the Oilers allowed it to be so by blowing leads they'd normally never give up in games three and five.

I think the Oilers really underestimated the Flyers resiliency in that series. They scored first in every game but Game 7 and the Flyers kept battling back. Gene Hart even said after the goal that "At least the Oilers don't have to worry about blowing another 2-0 lead"

 

[Voight]

Dynamite slot presence in his absolute prime against a defense that didn't exactly excel at clearing the crease area, and a goalie who plays deep in his net? It could have been a huge issue for the Oil.

Kerr was 27, bounced back from the shoulder injury in the 87 playoffs, and AGAIN led the playoffs in PP goals in 89. We're talking about a 4th overall offense losing their clear offensive star. Kerr's 95 points to Peter Zezels 72 aren't like Gretzky's 183 to Kurri's 108, but that's still a pretty clear drop. Especially on a much more conservative team offensively.

On the flip side, do you not think the Oilers would focus on containing him, since hew as the Flyers best forward? That would limit his effectiveness and chances.

 

[Super Fadio Bro]

As a non-Stars fan, I'm pretty sure they would have won a cup in 2000 had the Flyers finished off the Devils in the ECF.

As for the Red Wings, 1995, 96, 2007 and 2009 were their best chances winning the cup.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

1993, 1996, 2013.

That's about it. 2010 is a stretch, but once the Caps lost, the East was wide open.