Where does the Ray Bourque Cup win rank all time in NHL history?

[GMR]

Unless you're a fan of Detroit or New Jersey, it was a feel good moment.

Just not for me.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Can't eye roll hard enough at this garbage.

"Complimentary pieces" don't have:

2nd in Norris
AS-1
59 points, highest among D on the team
Play 26:06 a night
Play 28:32 a night in the playoffs

It's surprising Bourque had anything left in the tank for the 2001 playoffs. He had to do some heavy lifting during the regular season. Blake was only a trade deadline acquisition, and Foote was injured and only played 35 games. Bourque played 2,088 minutes (#3 in the league).

For much of the year, Colorado's 2nd through 5th defensemen consisted of Martin Skoula, Jon Klemm, Greg de Vries and Aaron Miller. This was a team that easily won the President's Trophy.

 

[Dread Clawz]

Yeah it was cool and all, but Lanny and Andreychuk's wins were much more satisfying for me.

 

[Albatros]

Can't eye roll hard enough at this garbage.

"Complimentary pieces" don't have:

2nd in Norris
AS-1
59 points, highest among D on the team
Play 26:06 a night
Play 28:32 a night in the playoffs

That PP, too, relied on Sakic and Forsberg much more so than Bourque. When Rob Blake joined he took over instantly, with much better even-strength contribution. Indeed, it was a Rob Blake cup as much as a Ray Bourque one.

 

[The Panther]

That's one way to see it, another is that Boston's long cupless drought coincides largely with his time with the Bruins despite them usually being one of the stronger teams in the league. They won in 1972 and in 2011, but not 1979-2000. That's of course not to say that Bourque is to blame, but if he was not the problem he was also not the solution.

This is one of the worst takes I've ever seen on the History Forum.

 

[Albatros]

This is one of the worst takes I've ever seen on the History Forum.

Arguments are always better than tantrums.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's surprising Bourque had anything left in the tank for the 2001 playoffs. He had to do some heavy lifting during the regular season. Blake was only a trade deadline acquisition, and Foote was injured and only played 35 games. Bourque played 2,088 minutes (#3 in the league).

For much of the year, Colorado's 2nd through 5th defensemen consisted of Martin Skoula, Jon Klemm, Greg de Vries and Aaron Miller. This was a team that easily won the President's Trophy.

Bourque was used to it in Boston.

Still, at age 40, truly remarkable.

 

[Moose Head]

Never cared for him, so him winning it had little meaning to me personally. I was indifferent to be honest. Would rather a guy like Park, Rattelle Middleton or Nealy had won one, looking at former Bruins.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Never cared for him, so him winning it had little meaning to me personally. I was indifferent to be honest. Would rather a guy like Park, Rattelle Middleton or Nealy had won one, looking at former Bruins.

Very curious as to why you never cared for Bourque.

None of the guys you mentioned were originally Bruins, all acquired in trades.

 

[67 others]

Avs were 4-0 on the road with Bourque in 1999-2000.

I get the feeling you are drastically underrating Bourque's impact on the Avs.

He is. A full year with Bourque's transition game propelled some avs to their best season ever. Foote became rock solid learning from Bourque. Sakic blew his career high out of the water during the lowest scoring era.

People also forget the bruins squads he rolled with were not exactly star studded lineups when compared to cup winners at the time.

 

[Big Phil]

But why couldn't he do that with Boston in any of the years they had a pretty great team as well? I love Bourque. All of your points about him are totally correct and I acknowledged that. I just think it takes a bit away that it happened in Colorado and not New England. And I'm not a Bruins homer or anything.

I think it was because Bourque was the defensive AND offensive star for the Bruins so much of the time. That's hard to do, especially on a penny pinching Bruins team which was a player or two from the Cup but wouldn't budge. Let's just think for a second and imagine the Bruins without Bourque. Are they anywhere near a Cup? Nope. Not in 1988, not in 1990 or 1991 or any of the other close years. When did he ever have another elite defenseman around him in Boston to lighten the load? Park was at the end of his career, Don Sweeney was solid, but not spectacular. It was all Bourque. This is with Craig Janney as his centre too. Janney wasn't bad, but again, this was an example of Sinden's cheapness. Or Jeremy Jacobs. And yet Bourque still led them to a Cup final twice.

 

[Big Phil]

I think it is right up there in Stanley Cup history as one of those moments. Most people loved that he won it. Most could understand why he wanted to pursue the Cup in 2000 knowing Boston didn't have a shot at it. Even most Bruins fans I would think were happy at least for him. I don't know if anyone has had more relief or elation hoisting the Cup than Bourque. You feel every inch of his 22 year career, the frustrations, the close calls, the loyalty, etc. when he lifts that Cup. You knew this guy deserved it. There is one angle where it shows Bourque's son (Chris?) in the background seeing his dad lift the Cup. He's maybe 9 or 10 a the time. You see his lift quivering while watching his dad lift the Cup. I mean come on, you can't be human if that doesn't give you goosebumps. I think that is what it is all about.

Even Bettman didn't screw up the ceremony, he actually said the right thing, the perfect thing, before introducing the Cup. "There is someone who has been waiting a LONG time to win this...................." that was pretty cool. Everyone knew who it was. Remember Mission 16W? I can. The Avs from day one of training camp that season were making it their mission to win that Cup for not only themselves but Bourque. The 16W meant 16 playoff wins. And they did it. We complain about players leaving great teams for more money. I can remember Mike Keane leaving Colorado after 1997 to go to the Rangers for an insane amount of money for him and he said it was his "desire to win a championship" which was malarkey! But when a player actually wants to win one because he knows he has a year or two left, why don't we celebrate that? Especially if he did all he could like Bourque did.

 

[67 others]

That's one way to see it, another is that Boston's long cupless drought coincides largely with his time with the Bruins despite them usually being one of the stronger teams in the league. They won in 1972 and in 2011, but not 1979-2000. That's of course not to say that Bourque is to blame, but if he was not the problem he was also not the solution.

Strange take. In his prime, he was outscoring the forwards quite often while still playing rock solid defense. After the Janney' and Neely's, the team was quite bereft of scoring talent in the era of the odd man rush. The teams they played often had 2nd liners with more points than the bruins first liners.

It is what it is. Not many teams could beat those Oilers squads they ran into in the finals twice. But if you replaced a burridge or kluzak here and there with a messier/simpson 2nd line or to the usual lidstrom comparisons, swapped them for a 2nd line Fedorov or Murphy or chelios helping on A different D pairing, it may have looked different. I don't think anyone in the world would trade a Janney or oates for a Gretzky/Messier or an Yzerman or Fedorov in those years, and that was with a 3 time selke winning draper on the 3rd line.

In short, I don't think even Bobby Orr alone replacing Bourque would be enough to change those outcomes.

Some folks were lucky to be on spending teams with good GM's and owners. Some were blessed with drafting talent. Some just chugged along with a few stars and ran into those teams.

 

[Albatros]

It is what it is. Not many teams could beat those Oilers squads they ran into in the finals twice.

The 1990 Oilers were slight underdogs against Boston.

Also otherwise the Bruins were often eliminated as favorites, or equals in the case of the 1980s Habs who did it four times back-to-back in the first round, including three sweeps.

Somewhat ironically the 1988 and 1990 Habs were probably the only two teams that the Ray Bourque Bruins ever won as underdogs themselves.

So it's true that Bourque had impressive point totals for a defenseman, but it's also true that out of his last 15 playoff series in Boston he was a minus player 13 times. It's not an unproblematic legacy.

 

[67 others]

The 1990 Oilers were slight underdogs against Boston.

Also otherwise the Bruins were often eliminated as favorites, or equals in the case of the 1980s Habs who did it four times back-to-back in the first round, including three sweeps.

Somewhat ironically the 1988 and 1990 Habs were probably the only two teams that the Ray Bourque Bruins ever won as underdogs themselves.

So it's true that Bourque had impressive point totals for a defenseman, but it's also true that out of his last 15 playoff series in Boston he was a minus player 13 times. It's not an unproblematic legacy.

Lol. By what metric?

At the time the bruins were considered the underdogs bud. Any underdog narrative that existed early season was because Gretzky was gone, and that was erased halfway through the season when they realized messier was going superman

He had more than impressive totals. Every coach In the league had him pegged as one of the best defensive defensemen and voted him as such accordingly. +/- is an unreliable stats that paints a team picture more often

 

[Albatros]

Lol. By what metric?

The Bruins won the Presidents' Trophy with 101 points and were unbeaten against the Oilers in the regular season.

 

[67 others]

The Bruins won the Presidents' Trophy with 101 points and were unbeaten against the Oilers in the regular season.

Lol. Different conference. They played more playoff games In that short series than regular season games and Janney didn't leave to go to emergency after the first game.

Also the Dallas stars were the presidents trophy winners in 98, but not many people picked them over Detroit

 

[Albatros]

'98 Detroit had +500 odds already before the season, '90 Edmonton +1200 (Boston +800).

 

[67 others]

'98 Detroit had +500 odds already before the season, '90 Edmonton +1200 (Boston +800).

Yes and preseason betting odds were still believing in the "no more Gretzky " effect, which they quickly learned wasn't a thing.

It had the LA kings at better odds than either of the finals teams, and had Calgary and Montreal ahead of everyone. Try again

 

[Albatros]

The Flames were the reigning champions and had a fantastic roster, definitely the team to beat in '90.

 

[67 others]

Yes, and they got stomped in 6 by Gretzky's Kings, who got steamrolled in 4 by messier's Oilers.

While we are at it, why not point out why Gretzky could not win a cup with the kings? Because saying "Gretzky could not get it done" applies just as easily to that scenario as it does Bourque to the Bruins the way you word it.

 

[buffalowing88]

I think it was because Bourque was the defensive AND offensive star for the Bruins so much of the time. That's hard to do, especially on a penny pinching Bruins team which was a player or two from the Cup but wouldn't budge. Let's just think for a second and imagine the Bruins without Bourque. Are they anywhere near a Cup? Nope. Not in 1988, not in 1990 or 1991 or any of the other close years. When did he ever have another elite defenseman around him in Boston to lighten the load? Park was at the end of his career, Don Sweeney was solid, but not spectacular. It was all Bourque. This is with Craig Janney as his centre too. Janney wasn't bad, but again, this was an example of Sinden's cheapness. Or Jeremy Jacobs. And yet Bourque still led them to a Cup final twice.

Oh man, I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with a post and disagreed at the same time.

In terms of agreeing. You are so right and this never comes up. He had some of the worst pairings you can imagine beneath him and even the guys paired with him weren't worth anything. I never considered that and I really had to go back and check and man....why on Earth did they not support him better. Ouch.

On offense though I'm going to disagree with the understanding that I get your point. People blamed Jacobs for everything and honestly this was one of the periods in Bruins history where I think he was fairly loose with the purse strings. So that's on the front office I guess. But it wasn't like the team wasn't two lines deep. They didn't have stars outside of Neely during the heyday (I don't consider Oates the heyday and I presume you don't either), but Linseman was and is so underrated. They had decent production on offense. They were 7th in 88 in GF, when I think they should have won it.

But thank you for the points. I'm a little stunned by the lack of defenders they had on that squad. 19 y.0. Glen Wesley was pulling way too much weight.

 

[Sexy Necksy Garland]

I don’t wanna read through all of the bickering but I think there are too few people who just don’t care about it, because of how he jumped to a powerhouse. I don’t see it as cheapening anything. I also don’t see it as memorable whatsoever. Great player joins great team and great result ensues. Wet fart noise.

Some people hang a bear pelt on their mantle after they shot it, while it was in captivity, from up in a fort. I’m not saying that’s what Ray’s Cup win is worth, but it’s closer to that than it is some special memorable thing.

 

[buffalowing88]

I don’t wanna read through all of the bickering but I think there are too few people who just don’t care about it, because of how he jumped to a powerhouse. I don’t see it as cheapening anything. I also don’t see it as memorable whatsoever. Great player joins great team and great result ensues. Wet fart noise.

These are the kinda contributions that really matter.

 

[Sexy Necksy Garland]

These are the kinda contributions that really matter.

Critique my edit addition.