Of these 3 teams, did they underachieve, overachieve, or met expectations in the Salary Cap era

[bobholly39]

Pittsburgh overachieved. I actually considered voting for "met expectations" because I think so highly of Crosby and also Malkin - but in the end, 3 cups has to be overachieved. Making the playoffs every single season of their prime (until last 2 years) is also very special. It's the most successful team of the cap era - so, overachieved.

Washington - underachieved. It's lesss about the 1 cup, that would fall under "met expectations". It's more about the never getting past round 2 outside of the cup year. It's close either way since a cup is nice, but I would have liked to see a little more playoff success from that core

Boston - met expectations. I initially voted underachieved, but changed to "met expectations". I have no problem with the 1 cup (like caps), and unlike Caps they've had a lot of really deep runs (2 more finals, etc). So - overall I'd say met expectations. Reason why i considered underachieved is because they also have some really, really bad playoff losses (last year to FL, or 3-0 to Philly, etc).

 

[Plastic Joseph]

I feel like honestly no matter how good you are in a salary cap like the NHL has the expectation can never be 3 cups, ever. That's just too hard - so in saying that Pens exceeded expectations. I think they were "expected" to win at least 1 and everyone knew there was a good chance they won multiple but 3 is exceeding under any circumstances.

Caps - Met them - winning a cup is super hard to do and they did it. Congrats to them, nobody was "expecting" multiple cups from that core IMO.

Bruins - Met them as well. Won a cup, went to multiple finals. Honestly 2011 may have given them unrealistic inflated expectations. They weren't expected to win that cup and they did, and they still made multiple finals after that.

 

[Rpenny]

as stated. They all won cups and the is always the outcome you want. Also, we are 20 years of having the cap--so that is a pretty long time

 

[wetcoast]

And yet most generational guys have won a Cup.

Is McDavid the only one who hasn’t thus far?

It obviously is going to get tougher as more teams are in the league.

By contrast, I know plenty of well constructed teams that haven’t won a Cup. You would probably include every President’s Trophy winner in there who fell short in the post-season.

If the criteria for a well constructed team is winning the Cup, then you are gaming the question.

Only one team wins the SC in a year so more often than not and the ratio is quite high the SC winner doesn't have a generational player on the team and that was my point.

Heck usually the SC ten doesn't have the Hart winner on it either, nor the Norris or Vezina winner.

 

[NyQuil]

Only one team wins the SC in a year so more often than not and the ratio is quite high the SC winner doesn't have a generational player on the team and that was my point.

Heck usually the SC ten doesn't have the Hart winner on it either, nor the Norris or Vezina winner.

2 of the 3 teams listed in this poll have generational players so my expectations for them will be altered accordingly.

The odds for generational players winning Cups at some point in their career are almost perfect.

It’s the playoffs where injuries and match-ups don’t always go your way, and there’s a cap, so it’s not going to be the same as the teams in the past.

But I still hold them to a higher standard because it’s something they have that can’t be willed into being through shrewd roster construction.

 

[King Woodballs]

Pitt and Bos met
Washington Under

 

[wintersej]

Penguins are borderline "met expectations" and "overachieved" for me. I don't mean "overachieved" as an insult, but winning 3 cups is really difficult.

Capitals are firmly "underachieved" for me. Yeah, they had that 1 cup, but they got out of the 2nd round literally once with Ovi. Considering the talent they've had over the years, only having 1 deep run is definitely not meeting expectations.

Bruins would be "met expectations" for me. Maybe you can argue only 1 cup wasn't enough, but they made 3 cup finals and went on numerous deep runs. Winning cups are hard, so I don't feel right criticizing them for only having 1 cup. The difference between them and the Capitals is them going on far more deep runs while not getting an Ovi caliber franchise player with a high pick.

Bruins not winning in 2019 or last year puts them in the underachieving camp for me. But it could go either way. The fact that regular season wise they are the best team in the cap era makes it hard to accept only getting it done on the playoffs once.

 

[Oneiro]

Pittsburgh did what I'd expect. They were never super amazing at building a team in their history but they have two of the best to ever do it.

Washington underachieved big time given how much was in the pool.

Boston is one of the most overrated franchises ever, beating up on one of the worst divisions in hockey for years. Bad trades and poor drafting for "CuLtUrE!" Bergeron was a fantastic player, as was Chara, but they needed a top end playmaker and some better puck movers for nearly the entire time they kept losing in pivotal moments. And management never addressed it properly. Overachieved.

 

[wetcoast]

2 of the 3 teams listed in this poll have generational players so my expectations for them will be altered accordingly.

Sure between them they have 4 SC and 5 appearance in the finals but Washington has only advanced past the second round in basically 20 years.

The odds for generational players winning Cups at some point in their career are almost perfect.

Not really with 32 teams and the salary cap, the NHL isn't like the NBA in this regard.

It’s the playoffs where injuries and match-ups don’t always go your way, and there’s a cap, so it’s not going to be the same as the teams in the past.

This comes up all the time with SC talks about great players and teams but the math is harder with 32 and the salary cap making just for completely different league dynamics.

But I still hold them to a higher standard because it’s something they have that can’t be willed into being through shrewd roster construction.

Still the vast majority of the time the SC winner doesn't have a generational talent.

 

[NyQuil]

Sure between them they have 4 SC and 5 appearance in the finals but Washington has only advanced past the second round in basically 20 years.

Not really with 32 teams and the salary cap, the NHL isn't like the NBA in this regard.

This comes up all the time with SC talks about great players and teams but the math is harder with 32 and the salary cap making just for completely different league dynamics.

Still the vast majority of the time the SC winner doesn't have a generational talent.

And virtually every generational player has won a Cup except for McDavid, including 5 players post-expansion.

Name another generational player who failed to win a Cup?

 

[NyQuil]

Still the vast majority of the time the SC winner doesn't have a generational talent.

Naturally, because there are only one or two in the league at any given time.

If there were more, they wouldn’t be generational.

It just so happens that 2 of the 3 teams here have one.

 

[wetcoast]

Naturally, because there are only one or two in the league at any given time.

If there were more, they wouldn’t be generational.

It just so happens that 2 of the 3 teams here have one.

That sort of goes back to my main point though that team construction is probably more important to winning a SC than having a generational player and even more so in the post lockout era.

 

[NyQuil]

That sort of goes back to my main point though that team construction is probably more important to winning a SC than having a generational player and even more so in the post lockout era.

I don’t disagree - I just think it’s easier if you have one.