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

[buffalowing88]

Critique my edit addition.

Was that a metaphor? You've got plenty of posts but I'm just not following that one. Probably me just being tired haha. I'll revisit in a bit.

Again, Bourque deserves that Cup. I just cannot forget that he walked away from a legacy imo to do it.

 

[Sexy Necksy Garland]

Was that a metaphor? You've got plenty of posts but I'm just not following that one. Probably me just being tired haha. I'll revisit in a bit.

Again, Bourque deserves that Cup. I just cannot forget that he walked away from a legacy imo to do it.

I don’t know what you actually thought of my original post.

My base point is I don’t really think much either way. I don’t blame Ray for it but I sure don’t think he’s some special treasure for it. Good player added to a good team and it worked out well? Yawn.

 

[Sentinel]

As soon as Detroit lost to LA that year (an abomination of sorts), I rooted for Colorado all the way because of Bourque. That should tell you something. His Stanley Cup was one of the most magical moments in all of NHL history. And Gary Thorne's (I think) final scream "RAY BOURQUE!!" when Sakic handed Bourque the Cup was epic.

I only wish he didn't retire right then and there. Set the bad example for Hasek next year.

 

[The Macho King]

He was an all-time great player who got to go out on top. How can you not love it? Other comparables - Andreychuk or MacDonald - meh, they were fine players who just played a long time. Bourque is an all-time great who was still an elite player - it was much more satisfying.

Also I don't give a rat's ass that he was traded to do it. He served his dues in Boston, and Boston was no longer in a window where they were going to be competitive. It was the right move to give Ray a chance to get his name engraved, and it doesn't cheapen it at all in my book. Like - maybe in an ideal world he gets to win it in Boston - but considering that was an impossibility, this was as satisfying as you could ask.

 

[hacksaw7]

I don't want to sound like a salty Devils fan but I probably will

Even if I didn't have a dog in the fight, honestly I've never cared much for these storylines of guys who have played forever chasing their first Cup except if they're lifers on my team. That's the special connection you have, the guys who were there during the dark days, who STAYED like Daneyko, MacLean, Driver (who then left and is still dead to me). Bourque winning it on the Avalanche was very meh . I liked him as a player, respected him a ton, but could care less if he wins a Cup or not. My opinion of him as a player remains unchanged. But of course I also understand those who perhaps idolized Bourque latching on to Colorado when he ended up there, that's fine. It's just Bourque's lack of a championship never seemed to be some great glaring wrong that needed to be righted. Ted Williams never won a WS. Sittler, Gartner, Ciccarelli, Howell, Oates, Perreault, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Neely, Lundqvist, Kariya and others never won a Cup either. It's not like all legends have them and Bourque was some glaring omission that needs to win one.

Plus above all else I want to see good hockey. For a 7 game series between the two best teams in the league...this was an absolutely terrible series in terms of quality of play and competitive back and forth games.

 

[Meloun]

There is no doubt that Bourque is one of the all-time greats. He had a great last season with Colorado, where he finally won a cup. I completely understand his decision to go cup hunting, but I would have had even more respect for him if he decided to finish his career with Boston. To exaggerate a bit, just think about Kopitar joining Team Canada to win an Olympic…

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Man, a lot of people need to go read up on how cheap and terrible of an owner Jacobs was, it was Dollar Bill Wirtz bad.

For instance, it was Jacobs and Sinden that forced Bourque to go to arbitration to get fair pay rather than paying him his worth willingly. They also routinely neglected to pay the price to get the 1 missing piece that would've made the 87-92 Bruins a Cup winner. They nickel and dimed on the back of Bourque for 20 years happy to collect the playoff ticket revenue.

Ray Bourque didn't owe this franchise or owner a damn thing. He stayed and ate sh*t sandwiches for far longer than any other star would have.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

I don't think they ought to have beaten the Oilers though in 1988. And 7th in goals for, that's not bad, but again how much of that is their Norris winner Bourque? Well, we can look it up. He was on the ice for 163 goals of the 300 they scored. That's a lot of mustard. That defense corps was not very deep after him in 1988. I think he was doing the heavy lifting that season as well.

 

[The Panther]

Boston went through a mid-80s dip in 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87 -- they were very mediocre all three of these years, getting bounced in the first round (as usual) by Montreal -- before they started molding into the late-80s / early-90s' model team (Bourque, Neely, basically) in 1987-88. They had a pretty good season that year with 94 points, 7th-best in offense and 3rd-best in defense.

Their strength was defense. Now, did they have a great core of star D-men like Washington did, with Langway, Stevens, and Murphy? No, they did not.

Ignoring Bourque for a moment, here's who they had on defense in the regular season (30 games or more played):
- Glen Wesley (37 points, +21): 19-year-old rookie
- Allen Pederson (6 assists in 78 games): then, a 2nd-year player; out of the NHL by late 20s
- Michael Thelvén (31 points): Swedish defenseman in third year; out of the NHL by the end of 1989
- Gord Kluzak (37 points, +18): already injured so much he'd just missed 2 of the past 3 seasons entirely; after this year, he'd play 13 more NHL games total (good player, though).
- Reed Larson (34 points, age 31): veteran PP-guy with big shot was starting to get washed-up; bar one game, he was done with the NHL eleven months after this season ended.
- Frank Simonetti (5 points in thirty games): American D, career minor-leaguer. Never played again after this season.

Now, I ask you: How could this rag-tag group of defencemen, whose best performer was a 19-year-old, possibly be the third-best defensive team in the NHL (and then go on to win the Conference)? It certainly wasn't because of the very average goaltending of Lemelin and Keans (also kind of washed up).

They had a nice mix of mid-level forwards, but when your third highest scorer is a guy known for nothing but checking (Steve Kasper), it's usually not exactly a deep group, either. The one guy who was close to Neely in goals (Geoff Courtnall) they traded away (with Ranford) to get Moog.

This was close to a one-man team: It was all about Ray Bourque.


I really don't understand who could fault Bourque for considering offers to join stronger clubs -- after 21 YEARS IN BOSTON (of cheap Harry Sinden player management) -- when the Bruins were clearly going nowhere anytime soon and he was down to his last season or two of play. Throw a rock in the air in the late 90s and nine players out of ten you'd hit were jumping around from team to team, chasing the bucks. Bourque could have done that many times earlier in Boston, but stayed with the club out of loyalty, signing for less than he deserved... and 21 years of that isn't enough for you?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't want to sound like a salty Devils fan but I probably will

Even if I didn't have a dog in the fight, honestly I've never cared much for these storylines of guys who have played forever chasing their first Cup except if they're lifers on my team. That's the special connection you have, the guys who were there during the dark days, who STAYED like Daneyko, MacLean, Driver (who then left and is still dead to me). Bourque winning it on the Avalanche was very meh . I liked him as a player, respected him a ton, but could care less if he wins a Cup or not. My opinion of him as a player remains unchanged. But of course I also understand those who perhaps idolized Bourque latching on to Colorado when he ended up there, that's fine. It's just Bourque's lack of a championship never seemed to be some great glaring wrong that needed to be righted. Ted Williams never won a WS. Sittler, Gartner, Ciccarelli, Howell, Oates, Perreault, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Neely, Lundqvist, Kariya and others never won a Cup either. It's not like all legends have them and Bourque was some glaring omission that needs to win one.

Plus above all else I want to see good hockey. For a 7 game series between the two best teams in the league...this was an absolutely terrible series in terms of quality of play and competitive back and forth games.

None of those players were on the same level as Bourque.

He's a consensus top 20 player of all-time.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't think they ought to have beaten the Oilers though in 1988. And 7th in goals for, that's not bad, but again how much of that is their Norris winner Bourque? Well, we can look it up. He was on the ice for 163 goals of the 300 they scored. That's a lot of mustard. That defense corps was not very deep after him in 1988. I think he was doing the heavy lifting that season as well.

Absolutely, the Bruins were badly overmatched against that Oilers team.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Man, a lot of people need to go read up on how cheap and terrible of an owner Jacobs was, it was Dollar Bill Wirtz bad.

For instance, it was Jacobs and Sinden that forced Bourque to go to arbitration to get fair pay rather than paying him his worth willingly. They also routinely neglected to pay the price to get the 1 missing piece that would've made the 87-92 Bruins a Cup winner. They nickel and dimed on the back of Bourque for 20 years happy to collect the playoff ticket revenue.

Ray Bourque didn't owe this franchise or owner a damn thing. He stayed and ate sh*t sandwiches for far longer than any other star would have.

I hate that Bruins fans keep repeating this story line.

Sinden & Jacobs were too cheap to get the one missing piece. But not too cheap to have a team that close every year? As a businessman, did Jacobs not understand that winning a Cup would return huge profits in Boston?

As much as they hate Harry Sinden, they figure he could just "add" that special one player to put them over the top. Who would that player have to be to make Boston a Cup winner over the dynasty Oilers or Mario's Penguins?

From 1976 thru 1988, the dynasty Canadiens, dynasty Islanders and dynasty Oilers won 12 of 13 Cups. Another Montreal team won the other. The next 4 seasons were Calgary, Edmonton again, and two Mario teams. Not much room for anyone else.

Considering the tragic injury history of Bobby Orr, Norman Leveille and Gord Kluzak I'd say Sinden did a great job of keeping Boston highly competitive for a couple decades plus.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I hate that Bruins fans keep repeating this story line.

Sinden & Jacobs were too cheap to get the one missing piece. But not too cheap to have a team that close every year? As a businessman, did Jacobs not understand that winning a Cup would return huge profits in Boston?

As much as they hate Harry Sinden, they figure he could just "add" that special one player to put them over the top. Who would that player have to be to make Boston a Cup winner over the dynasty Oilers or Mario's Penguins?

From 1976 thru 1988, the dynasty Canadiens, dynasty Islanders and dynasty Oilers won 12 of 13 Cups. Another Montreal team won the other. The next 4 seasons were Calgary, Edmonton again, and two Mario teams. Not much room for anyone else.

Considering the tragic injury history of Bobby Orr, Norman Leveille and Gord Kluzak I'd say Sinden did a great job of keeping Boston highly competitive for a couple decades plus.

It's the truth, look at the pieces they had and how they got them.

Bourque, Juneau, Janney, Linesman, Kasper...all drafted and on the internal pay schedule they kept.
Neely...diamond in the rough they got from dumping Pederson's money
Lemelin and Moog...2 good but inexpensive goalies

Players moved in the 87-92 time frame that would've been the difference in winning the Cup: Brett Hull, Coffey, Stastny, Graves, Oates, Francis, Iafrate

None of them dealt in blockbuster deals or for crazy returns.

In Jacob's eyes (then and still today) winning the Cup is not a profitable spend. The way he looks at it is he has a packed house every night no matter what, so spending more for a Cup doesn't add to his bottom line.

It's telling that the only time he has hired an outsider and spent real money was in 06 with Chiarelli and the Chara/Savard contracts. And that was only because the fans finally had enough and attendance tanked.

 

[MadLuke]

Very high, in part because of the presentation that help versus a lot of the history before.

Quality of footage and preservation, Bettman and Sakic played it perfectly to maximise the effect, the crowd and broadcast was in it, the history will be made ads peaked around that one, the retirement timing, the round 40 year's old season number.

Almost everything is perfect around it, Bourque not winning it with the Avs right away is either a big forgotten or arguably a plus, having went a full season with the team has a super all star, winning as the #1 instead on Rob Blake team could have been a cherry on top, but with Forsberg missing, the Big 3 + Roy did seem specially major to their success.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's the truth, look at the pieces they had and how they got them.

Bourque, Juneau, Janney, Linesman, Kasper...all drafted and on the internal pay schedule they kept.
Neely...diamond in the rough they got from dumping Pederson's money
Lemelin and Moog...2 good but inexpensive goalies

Players moved in the 87-92 time frame that would've been the difference in winning the Cup: Brett Hull, Coffey, Stastny, Graves, Oates, Francis, Iafrate

None of them dealt in blockbuster deals or for crazy returns.

In Jacob's eyes (then and still today) winning the Cup is not a profitable spend. The way he looks at it is he has a packed house every night no matter what, so spending more for a Cup doesn't add to his bottom line.

It's telling that the only time he has hired an outsider and spent real money was in 06 with Chiarelli and the Chara/Savard contracts. And that was only because the fans finally had enough and attendance tanked.

Bull crap. The guy is a billionaire. Spending more on a contract or two is chump change to him. Merchandizing skyrockets if Bruins won a Cup. Not to mention he could jack tickets, parking and concession prices and still get that full house.

As for the players you mentioned, the Bruins actually did acquire Adam Oates in that time frame.

The Hartford Whalers would never have traded Francis to Boston. And that was a blockbuster deal.

Adam Graves was a nobody when he signed with Rangers in 1991.

Al Iafrate was a -92 in 7 seasons in Toronto when he was traded.

Stastny was over the hill. In his prime Quebec offered him to Boston for Bourque. Harry hung up.

Brett Hull would have been a nice move, but he was hardly a superstar when Calgary traded him. Still, it's considered one of the worst trades ever made.

Bruins were not going to get Coffey from Edmonton. And his trade was pretty big as well. Seven players involved. Craig Simpson went to Edmonton. He had been the 2nd pick in the draft in '85. Huge playoff performer in two Oilers Cup runs.

 

[hacksaw7]

None of those players were on the same level as Bourque.

He's a consensus top 20 player of all-time.

Hawerchuk and Stastny belong up there with Bourque. And a lot of those other guys maybe didn't have the longevity, but had peaks of greatness that matched or exceeded Bourques (different positions I know) but they are legends in their own right. I would buy a ticket to see prime Perreault or prime Bure (another great without a Cup) before I do to see Bourque...no disrespect to him.

 

[hacksaw7]

Bull crap. The guy is a billionaire. Spending more on a contract or two is chump change to him. Merchandizing skyrockets if Bruins won a Cup. Not to mention he could jack tickets, parking and concession prices and still get that full house.

As for the players you mentioned, the Bruins actually did acquire Adam Oates in that time frame.

The Hartford Whalers would never have traded Francis to Boston. And that was a blockbuster deal.

Adam Graves was a nobody when he signed with Rangers in 1991.

Al Iafrate was a -92 in 7 seasons in Toronto when he was traded.

Stastny was over the hill. In his prime Quebec offered him to Boston for Bourque. Harry hung up.

Brett Hull would have been a nice move, but he was hardly a superstar when Calgary traded him. Still, it's considered one of the worst trades ever made.

Bruins were not going to get Coffey from Edmonton. And his trade was pretty big as well. Seven players involved. Craig Simpson went to Edmonton. He had been the 2nd pick in the draft in '85. Huge playoff performer in two Oilers Cup runs.

Graves was not a nobody. He was a known NHL role player who contributed to the Oilers 1990 Cup winning team. He was a physical, defensive minded forward whose offensive game hasn't developed yet

 

[Voight]

Bourque didn't really want to leave Boston, per se, did he? It was just a matter of him wanting to have a shot at a Cup and the Bruins weren't there when time was running out. The idea of leaving a place he loved playing to pursue the ultimate goal actually adds something to me, rather than cheapen it. I mean the guy even took the Cup to Boston, which says a lot about the way he felt about the city. I've always felt like he made a sacrifice to pursue a larger goal, which he thankfully achieved. As far as Cup wins I've seen, it's my personal favorite.

This is exactly it. If he really wanted to leave, he would have asked to be traded in the mid 90s when the team started falling apart. However by 2000, all he had left to win was a cup (one could argue Olympic Gold as well, but he did win multiple Canada Cups). He just wanted one (which turned into two) last tries at winning the whole thing and respect to Boston for sending him to what was easily the best choice.

As for the OP, its a top 5 Stanley Cup moment and league wide its also up there. He was universally liked & respected so I think the entire hockey world cheered when Thorne said "after TWENTY TWO YEARS... RAYMOND BOURQUE has won the STANLEY CUP!"

He was an all-time great player who got to go out on top. How can you not love it? Other comparables - Andreychuk or MacDonald - meh, they were fine players who just played a long time. Bourque is an all-time great who was still an elite player - it was much more satisfying.

Also I don't give a rat's ass that he was traded to do it. He served his dues in Boston, and Boston was no longer in a window where they were going to be competitive. It was the right move to give Ray a chance to get his name engraved, and it doesn't cheapen it at all in my book. Like - maybe in an ideal world he gets to win it in Boston - but considering that was an impossibility, this was as satisfying as you could ask.

Agree, but with Lanny it was cool that he scored in the clinching game, especially after being left out of the lineup previously.

 

[Voight]

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.

He carried them to the finals 2 times in 3 years. While he had some decent team mates, he was the focal point of those squads and carried the load at both ends of the ice. Not to mention in neither of those two runs did his goalies play very well. We often talk about how hockey is a team sport.... well perfect example, Bourque played at a super human level and could not win it by himself.

 

[67 others]

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.

Linesman scoring 70-80 points wasn't exactly mind boggling. That's like a 55 point forward by today's standards.

The league leaders at the time were scoring 110 to 168

 

[McGarnagle]

I hate that Bruins fans keep repeating this story line.

Sinden & Jacobs were too cheap to get the one missing piece. But not too cheap to have a team that close every year? As a businessman, did Jacobs not understand that winning a Cup would return huge profits in Boston?

As much as they hate Harry Sinden, they figure he could just "add" that special one player to put them over the top. Who would that player have to be to make Boston a Cup winner over the dynasty Oilers or Mario's Penguins?

From 1976 thru 1988, the dynasty Canadiens, dynasty Islanders and dynasty Oilers won 12 of 13 Cups. Another Montreal team won the other. The next 4 seasons were Calgary, Edmonton again, and two Mario teams. Not much room for anyone else.

Considering the tragic injury history of Bobby Orr, Norman Leveille and Gord Kluzak I'd say Sinden did a great job of keeping Boston highly competitive for a couple decades plus.

Agreed 100%, thank you. I always end up having to defend Jacobs against the allegations of them not winning a cup from 1986-1995 because he was cheap. I feel dirty defending him but it's not on him. Even before the first lockout and free agency becoming a thing, you couldn't just up and go buy free agents. And on the contrary, he ponied up big time for Oates in 1992 when he held out of St. Louis over money.

They didn't win a cup for three main reasons:
1. Competition - Imagine having a really good team that just happens to run into the dynasty Oilers twice and then peak Mario twice. It's hard for any team to get past that.
2. Injuries - Though every team deals with this, so not an excuse. But if Neely and Kluzak didn't blow out their legs, that team could've gone deeper into the mid-90s. Everyone knows what Neely was, but Kluzak is often forgotten, dude was only healthy for like a season and a half, but in 1988 when he was healthy he was a beast for that playoff run. There's a reason he was drafted so high. A shutdown defenseman like that would've taken the load off of Bourque too.
3. Harry Sinden was an imperfect GM. He made a lot of great moves during that era, but also some really dumb ones that hastened the premature end of the Bourque/Neely/Oates core. As much as they needed an established franchise goalie like Moog, trading Courtnall and Ranford for him turned out to be a mistake in retrospect. Later on dealing Juneau for Iafrate was a complete disaster. He was inventive in many ways in patching together a roster from year to year but you can clearly see that he had no long-term vision at all. He turned Garry Galley into Gord Murphy who was then thrown into the Jon Casey/Andy Moog trade, then let Casey walk after one year and had no replacement. No consistency, plus going from Milbury to Bowness and then dumping Bowness as soon as Sutter became available probably didn't help either.

In the end, how can anyone say that the problem was Jacobs? Pre-1994 and pre-unrestricted free agency, where exactly was he supposed to get expensive players? Other than trading for them, which they did in Oates and Moog. It's a false narrative. Jacobs's financial conservatism only affected the on-ice competitiveness of the Bruins after 1996 when salaries rose exponentially as teams like Detroit and the Rangers went open-season on big UFA contracts and the Bruins didn't in the name of financial solvency - which of course brought us to the big lockout in 2004.

 

[Albatros]

He carried them to the finals 2 times in 3 years. While he had some decent team mates, he was the focal point of those squads and carried the load at both ends of the ice. Not to mention in neither of those two runs did his goalies play very well. We often talk about how hockey is a team sport.... well perfect example, Bourque played at a super human level and could not win it by himself.

Well, what does carry mean? They beat the Habs, fair enough. But Buffalo, New Jersey, Hartford, Washington all were teams they absolutely had to defeat by default.

 

[weinsink]

Bourque got a ton of legacy votes that year. He was still good, but not on par with Zubov & co.

lol...just go away

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

As soon as Detroit lost to LA that year (an abomination of sorts), I rooted for Colorado all the way because of Bourque. That should tell you something. His Stanley Cup was one of the most magical moments in all of NHL history. And Gary Thorne's (I think) final scream "RAY BOURQUE!!" when Sakic handed Bourque the Cup was epic.

I only wish he didn't retire right then and there. Set the bad example for Hasek next year.

Yeah but at that point I mean what more did he have to accomplish. If he stuck around would he have cracked Canada's 02 lineup and would him being around in the 02 playoffs maybe been the tipping point for the Avs in 02. Woud have been intersting.

I don't want to sound like a salty Devils fan but I probably will

Even if I didn't have a dog in the fight, honestly I've never cared much for these storylines of guys who have played forever chasing their first Cup except if they're lifers on my team. That's the special connection you have, the guys who were there during the dark days, who STAYED like Daneyko, MacLean, Driver (who then left and is still dead to me). Bourque winning it on the Avalanche was very meh . I liked him as a player, respected him a ton, but could care less if he wins a Cup or not. My opinion of him as a player remains unchanged. But of course I also understand those who perhaps idolized Bourque latching on to Colorado when he ended up there, that's fine. It's just Bourque's lack of a championship never seemed to be some great glaring wrong that needed to be righted. Ted Williams never won a WS. Sittler, Gartner, Ciccarelli, Howell, Oates, Perreault, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Neely, Lundqvist, Kariya and others never won a Cup either. It's not like all legends have them and Bourque was some glaring omission that needs to win one.

Plus above all else I want to see good hockey. For a 7 game series between the two best teams in the league...this was an absolutely terrible series in terms of quality of play and competitive back and forth gaminteresting.them.

Well all the others that were mentioned Bourque was better than imo. As far as the 7 game series thing I agree totally but at the same time the 2 teams were polar opposites and the matchups were a wash in all departments except for 1 area the number 1 center. You had Sakic vs Arnott and Sakic had himself a series and possibly the best season of his career. I still think he should have won the Smythe and for that small area between 2001 (when Jagr started to decline) and 2005 (Jagr's resurgence and Sid and Ovies arrival) he was the best hockey player in the world imo.

Man, a lot of people need to go read up on how cheap and terrible of an owner Jacobs was, it was Dollar Bill Wirtz bad.

For instance, it was Jacobs and Sinden that forced Bourque to go to arbitration to get fair pay rather than paying him his worth willingly. They also routinely neglected to pay the price to get the 1 missing piece that would've made the 87-92 Bruins a Cup winner. They nickel and dimed on the back of Bourque for 20 years happy to collect the playoff ticket revenue.

Ray Bourque didn't owe this franchise or owner a damn thing. He stayed and ate sh*t sandwiches for far longer than any other star would have.

This to a tee. Another problem they had was they were victims of just having better teams in the way. You had the Gretzky Oilers in 88 and the remnants of them in 90. But that window between 91 and 93 was their time to do it. They had the Pens on the ropes in 91 but Neely got hurt, they get by Pittsburgh no doubt in my mind they beat Minnesota. In 92 well the Pens had thier number, but 93 was also where they blew it. They were the 2nd best team in the league that year but got swept by Buffalo however 3 of those games went to ot. They get by the Sabres I'm convinced they take it. For as good as Montreal was those playoffs they had Roy's number in the early 90s. The Isles and Kings would have probably been easy wins for them

 

[67 others]

OK, you're just being absurd.

That last comment kind of sealed the fact that he is either a hater, who tries to detract from one of the consensus top guys of all time, probably to prop up one of his inferior favorites, or he is trolling.

Legacy votes....lol. Ill be the first to admit Bourque wasn't 30 anymore. But other than Lidstrom and an often injured of playing hurt Pronger, a new generation of consistent elite young D were not jumping in to replace him, Chelios and Macinnis, Stevens, etc. Who all were top guys for the Norris in their aged final years just like they were in their late 20's early 30's. It was a pretty weak field of youngsters on D at the time.

1985 to 1995 was the golden age of two way Defensemen and probably the toughest saturated field to win a Norris in in Hockey history. There are several years you could argue Bourque was robbed of a Norris because of how the voters flip flopped back and forth deciding to give it to top offensive guys, then old school stay at home guys in a way they stopped doing in the 90's because the era of the odd man rush 100 times a game was ending.

And yeah, IMO Orr himself could not have propelled those bruins teams over the Oilers those years.