The President's Trophy deserves way more respect.

[SnowblindNYR]

Is it not a curse though?

Even if you don't believe in that stuff.

A team that has the post-season locked down will do things differently than a team whose GM or owners want to win the regular season and get a trophy for it.

I don't know.

Just pointing out that even the players dont care about the President's Trophy, and it's thus become a curse, which is probably stupid, but it is what it is.

The job is not done, f*** that trophy. That's the attitude I'd want to feel.


You nailed it.

'nuff said.

Yeah, f*** winning as much as possible! Let's embrace losing games in the regular season. You're not as hard as you think you are.

 

[The Macho King]

Is this just a stealth Rangers thread to mitigate the embarrassing banner?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Is it not a curse though?

Even if you don't believe in that stuff.

A team that has the post-season locked down will do things differently than a team whose GM or owners want to win the regular season and get a trophy for it.

I don't know.

Just pointing out that even the players dont care about the President's Trophy, and it's thus become a curse, which is probably stupid, but it is what it is.

The job is not done, f*** that trophy. That's the attitude I'd want to feel.


You nailed it.

'nuff said.

No it’s not a curse. The 2013 Hawks and 08 Wings won both in the last 16 years. It just doesn’t correlate to best team in the league because often when teams know they’re going to comfortably make the playoffs they’ll take their foot off the gas and save some energy for the post season.

Not sure why @SnowblindNYR is throwing such a hissy and saying teams embrace losing though lol

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

No it’s not a curse. The 2013 Hawks and 08 Wings won both in the last 16 years. It just doesn’t correlate to best team in the league because often when teams know they’re going to comfortably make the playoffs they’ll take their foot off the gas and save some energy for the post season.

Not sure why @SnowblindNYR is throwing such a hissy and saying teams embrace losing though lol

So we're kinda getting on the same page here maybe?

2 teams in the last 16 years won the regular season, then went on to win the Stanley Cup.

Those are pretty bad odds.

Curse or no curse.

 

[3074326]

With the obvious exceptions of resting goalies and sometimes resting players late in seasons coaches strategize to win every game. Maybe not to the same extent as the playoffs but coaches want to win the Presidents' Trophy not because it's the Presidents' Trophy but because you won as many games as possible. Why do people pretend like coaches or players don't care about winning games in the regular season? As someone pointed out the cup winner is almost always a top team in the regular season.

Nobody thinks that. Nobody is saying that.

You've answered the question in your own post. Teams have proven that they value health over winning late-season games by sitting their best players. Indicating they don't really care all that much about those particular games.

The President's Trophy winner doesn't usually win the cup, therefore it "doesn't matter." Still a nice accomplishment though.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Nobody thinks that. Nobody is saying that.

You've answered the question in your own post. Teams have proven that they value health over winning late-season games by sitting their best players. Indicating they don't really care all that much about those particular games.

The President's Trophy winner doesn't usually win the cup, therefore it "doesn't matter." Still a nice accomplishment though.

It's a nice accompliment for sure.

Imagine being a CEO of a billion dollar corporation, and you own an NHL team, and you have an interview with someone in your office and you have your President's Trophy in there,

and they say.......Woah nice trophy, what's that?

"President's Trophy for most points in the regular season"

Cool, did you win the Stanley Cup?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

No it’s not a curse. The 2013 Hawks and 08 Wings won both in the last 16 years. It just doesn’t correlate to best team in the league because often when teams know they’re going to comfortably make the playoffs they’ll take their foot off the gas and save some energy for the post season.

Not sure why @SnowblindNYR is throwing such a hissy and saying teams embrace losing though lol

I'd love an example of a team that overtook the best team because the best team was comfortably making the playoffs but the Presidents' Trophy winner weren't comfortably making the playoffs. I'd love to hear of all of these PT winners that weren't comfortably making the playoffs until they lucked into the best record in the NHL.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Nobody thinks that. Nobody is saying that.

You've answered the question in your own post. Teams have proven that they value health over winning late-season games by sitting their best players. Indicating they don't really care all that much about those particular games.

The President's Trophy winner doesn't usually win the cup, therefore it "doesn't matter." Still a nice accomplishment though.

Considering the PT winners are making the playoffs you'd think they would sit their players as well. This is not the NFL there aren't a ton of games players are sat, maybe one at the end. Maybe a couple. And if some teams do it then the PT teams are also doing it since they're not a bubble team. And it has been proven time and time again that the PT teams have won most of the cups of any of the seeds. Are you expecting the PT teams to win more than 50% of the time while representing only 1/16 of the teams in the tournament?

No one including the OP would rather win a PT than a cup. But the idea of these fans that are so damn hard that only winning a cup means anything is hilarious. Why would you not strive for excellence in BOTH the regular season and the postseason?

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I'm gonna say it - it's not all just about winning the Cup.

Watching those Capitals regular season juggernauts was a whole lot of fun in the regular season. That's like six months of consistent entertainment. April might've sucked most of the time, but hey. I got over it by October.

And yeah, I think the Bruins and Capitals have been more successful than the Kings in the salary cap era.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I'm gonna say it - it's not all just about winning the Cup.

Watching those Capitals regular season juggernauts was a whole lot of fun in the regular season. That's like six months of consistent entertainment. April might've sucked most of the time, but hey. I got over it by October.

And yeah, I think the Bruins and Capitals have been more successful than the Kings in the salary cap era.

As a fan only two teams, one that has won two Super Bowls in my fanhood and one that never won a cup since I was a fan (I was alive but not a fan in 94), the Rangers have given me a lot more pleasure overall in my lifetime than the Giants have. I barely remember when the Giants were even competitive. Last year was a fun year for the Rangers, when I had months of entertainment and winning. 3 games where they looked bad to finish the season against a great team does not take away from that.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I'd love an example of a team that overtook the best team because the best team was comfortably making the playoffs but the Presidents' Trophy winner weren't comfortably making the playoffs. I'd love to hear of all of these PT winners that weren't comfortably making the playoffs until they lucked into the best record in the NHL.

Could you rephrase that please? I honestly don't understand what you're saying.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Could you rephrase that please? I honestly don't understand what you're saying.

You said that often teams that are comfortably making the playoffs take their foot off the gas in order to save themselves for the playoffs. But Presidents' Trophy teams by definition are comfortably making the playoffs, so wouldn't they also take their foot off the gas?

 

[Midnight Judges]

>Can anybody seriously claim that they've been more successful than the Capitals and Bruins

Even caps and bruins players would say the Kings have been more successful in the salary cap era.

Nope.

 

[x Tame Impala]

You said that often teams that are comfortably making the playoffs take their foot off the gas in order to save themselves for the playoffs. But Presidents' Trophy teams by definition are comfortably making the playoffs, so wouldn't they also take their foot off the gas?

Maybe not if they haven't won a Cup already. I said I know for certain the Hawks would take their feet off the gas. I'm positive the Lightning did as well. Maybe the Rangers, Panthers, Bruins, etc...had something to prove to themselves having not won the Cup yet? So they went balls to the wall all season trying to maintain their excellent play in hopes it carries into the playoffs.

-Bruins won the PT in 2013/14 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Rangers won the PT in 2014/15 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Nashville won the PT in 2017/18 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Tampa smoked the whole league in 2018/19 with a whopping SIX more ROW than 2nd place and all it got them was a first round exit. The next year they finished 4th and won the Cup, the year after they finished 8th and won the Cup. Both years with incredible rosters.
-The Bruins won in 2019/20 after blowing a SCF game 7
-Avs came out in 2020/21 with everything to prove as the new elite team on the block, won the PT, lost to Vegas (handedly) in the 2nd round, came back and won the Cup the following year with a better roster but finished 2nd

Whereas the more seasoned and successful teams know the regular season means little beyond making the playoffs, not even the seeding/home-ice matters that much. It's not that they don't care about winning, just that it's not worth it trying to be the best regular season team when you have to save your legs for the postseason.

 

[byrath]

If an eastern team has 110 pts and the western has 109 pts in a year when there is a significant difference in caliber between the conference, how much should the fans appreciate that 1 pts difference ? How much of a let-down a shoutout going the other way should be ?

Pretty much what I was thinking. People will remember the huge season the Bruins recently had. Usually though the Presidents Trophy winner is just a top5 team that had some good luck.

 

[Sun God Nika]

I for sure put respect on the P Trophy. hell its a symbol of how dominant my team was in the past, still much rather have a cup for it but proud the sens have something to show for an era of dominance even if it was just for the regular season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Maybe not if they haven't won a Cup already. I said I know for certain the Hawks would take their feet off the gas. I'm positive the Lightning did as well. Maybe the Rangers, Panthers, Bruins, etc...had something to prove to themselves having not won the Cup yet? So they went balls to the wall all season trying to maintain their excellent play in hopes it carries into the playoffs.

-Bruins won the PT in 2013/14 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Rangers won the PT in 2014/15 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Nashville won the PT in 2017/18 after losing the Cup Final the year before
-Tampa smoked the whole league in 2018/19 with a whopping SIX more ROW than 2nd place and all it got them was a first round exit. The next year they finished 4th and won the Cup, the year after they finished 8th and won the Cup. Both years with incredible rosters.
-The Bruins won in 2019/20 after blowing a SCF game 7
-Avs came out in 2020/21 with everything to prove as the new elite team on the block, won the PT, lost to Vegas (handedly) in the 2nd round, came back and won the Cup the following year with a better roster but finished 2nd

Whereas the more seasoned and successful teams know the regular season means little beyond making the playoffs, not even the seeding/home-ice matters that much. It's not that they don't care about winning, just that it's not worth it trying to be the best regular season team when you have to save your legs for the postseason.

Boston, Tampa, and even NYR have all had success in the regular season and at least semi-success in the playoffs before their PT win. Are you telling me that Marchand and Bergeron didn't know that the PT was meaningless or something in 22-23. All of this is anecdotal anyway. I don't buy that PT is magical spot that only also ran organizations go. And if that's the case then the #2 or #3 team deserves more respect rather than the PT team, still doesn't change anything.

Pretty much what I was thinking. People will remember the huge season the Bruins recently had. Usually though the Presidents Trophy winner is just a top5 team that had some good luck.

Top 5 team that had some good luck describes most, if not all Stanley Cup winning teams.

 

[byrath]

Top 5 team that had some good luck describes most, if not all Stanley Cup winning teams.

Also completely true, at least since the salary cap.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also completely true, at least since the salary cap.

Even then, look at Montreal against Boston in 1979. Look at the Islanders going down by 2 late against the Pens in the first round of one of their cups.

 

[Miri]

If your argument is that 82 games is a more precise measurement of a team's effectiveness I would disagree. You may think the more games eliminates variance but there's issues with that, subjectively of course...

1) There's a sporadic level of competition over the regular season. Teams don't play the same amount of games against each other. If it were a 64 game season perhaps you'd have a point but there are 18 games for each team in the regular season that are different from one team to the next.

2) Players get called up more frequently, players get injured more frequently, teams make trades, coaches get fired, etc...Rosters, and therefore the level of competition the team is bringing, is much more dynamic in the regular season than in the playoffs. Yes there are injuries in the playoffs but the rosters are much more set in stone.

3) 10-20 games of the season are decided in 3v3 OT or Shootouts. I love this format personally because the Regular Season is long and games have to end relatively quickly so players aren't exhausted or overly-injured. However this is obviously not how games end in the playoffs. Continuous OT is clearly the most accurate reflection of how a tied hockey game should play out until we find a winner.

4) Because of this OT format and the loser point, teams can and IMO do sometimes play "not to lose" as opposed to play to win. Ensuring at least one point out of two makes sense over the course of a long season.

5) Teams don't play to win the President's Trophy. They play to make the playoffs, be as healthy as possible before they start, and be ready to go come playoff time. Frequently teams will rest players towards the end of the season if they're comfortably in a playoff spot and "have nothing left to play for" before the playoffs start.

All of these dampen the significance of the President's Trophy. It's not that it doesn't matter, just that the league isn't structured around it's importance. The playoffs are the true test. Fans can writhe their hands about small sample sizes and luck being a factor but I think that's nonsense. When the playoffs start the chips are down. How effective are you as a player and how effective are you as a team to win games when it's most needed? Can you do that over 2 months and 4 rounds of the most intense hockey in the world? If so then you get to be crowned as a Stanley Cup Champion.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh yeah, i definitely think that more games during regular season are better reflection of actual quality of a team. Sure, there is certain variance too, as you named it, but its still less than play-off variance.

Perhaps the discussion should not be strictly confined to winning the PT itself, moreso more broadly to winning the most games during regular season - and being up there in thus regard multiple years in a row. That shows certain level of consistency, but because you dont get Cup for consistency, people here scoff about PT and being good in regular season in general as a nothingburger. Thats what bugs me. When Montreal randomly made it to the SC finals in 2021, did it made them better team than whoever won the PT that year (and was probably more consistently winning team both in regular season and playoffs, in the year prior and year after)? I for one think not. But by your logic, it was, cause cup is th only thing that matters, and Montreal got closest to it.

So i guess we will have to disagree on this. Anyway, i respect your points, even if i disagree, its not about everything, there is lot of truth to what you wrote, that i cant refute, at worst its up to discussion. Surely the guy, who used the word “dumb” in the first place, would not say so, if you made your thoughts on the topic this concise right away.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Oh yeah, i definitely think that more games during regular season are better reflection of actual quality of a team. Sure, there is certain variance too, as you named it, but its still less than play-off variance.

Perhaps the discussion should not be strictly confined to winning the PT itself, moreso more broadly to winning the most games during regular season - and being up there in thus regard multiple years in a row. That shows certain level of consistency, but because you dont get Cup for consistency, people here scoff about PT and being good in regular season in general as a nothingburger. Thats what bugs me. When Montreal randomly made it to the SC finals in 2021, did it made them better team than whoever won the PT that year (and was probably more consistently winning team both in regular season and playoffs, in the year prior and year after)? I for one think not. But by your logic, it was, cause cup is th only thing that matters, and Montreal got closest to it.

So i guess we will have to disagree on this. Anyway, i respect your points, even if i disagree, its not about everything, there is lot of truth to what you wrote, that i cant refute, at worst its up to discussion. Surely the guy, who used the word “dumb” in the first place, would not say so, if you made your thoughts on the topic this concise right away.

Some people like to go to extremes with their perspective. But overall I think the President's Trophy gets it's proper respect. It's not the Stanley Cup, but the PT gets it's fair share of respect.

 

[ScottyMascotty]

The "Cup or bust" mentality has always been pretty toxic. It does not suit very well for the league of 32 teams where it's only one true trophy to win. Add to this salary cap parity, draft/trade system, and the fact that if your current core has aged and past its prime, you may need to wait a lot of years before your team will again be just good enough to have a realistic chance for a playoffs.

It leads to very good teams being underaprecciated for a long time because they didn't win the Cup...right until they do. From last 6 Cup winners, 4 of them have won the Presidents trophy in a year or two before they won the Cup. And then the narrative changes completely, with the appearance of revisionist history.

Add to this random and chaotic nature of the sport itself and injuries. There is a significant chance that management can do everything as good as it can realistically be possible, build the proper core, find right coach and depth players, ensure winning culture among the organization...and still not win the Cup because of whatever, f.e., random bounce in OT, your best player injure himself by falling awkwardly, opponent's goalie suddenly playing best hockey of his entire career, etc. That unpredictability and randomness makes the sport fun in such a unique way, but doesn't make a lot of hockey conversations fun. "Cup or bust" mentality doesn't really make the Cup win sweeter, but it makes losing much more bitter and increase the overall stress.

Any time i see hockey discussions, there are too many "chokers" and "losers" for me to handle.

In European soccer, there are more than one trophy each team can win every year, such as national cups, and although they often considered as lesser ones, they're still legit. The system works the way that if your club is strong and has a good chance for winning trophies, it is likely to remain for a long-long time. And even if your club is not that rich and succesful, it still could win national cups for example (because it doesn't require to play with a lot of teams or with any team for a lot), which would be a pinnacle of its existence.