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

[The Panther]

No doubt the 1988 Bruins were completely outclassed by Edmonton and really had no hope (though games 1 and 2 were very close). Bourque himself commented once that he was listening to the player introductions at Northlands before game 1, and basically knew they were toast.

However, Bourque (like me -- I was 13/14 back then) thought the Bruins in 1990 did have a good chance and could (should?) have won it all. The 1990 Oilers' club not only didn't have Gretzky, it didn't have Coffey or Fuhr either. It was a 2nd-place club, while Boston was 1st overall. I was always surprised that the Bruins went down as quickly as they did. (As it happens, I was in Innisfail, Alberta, having dinner with my parents the evening of game three, which was the only game the Oilers lost. So, I missed that one. It's funny, the things you remember...).

Anyway, compared to '88, the '90 Bruins were much better. Neely was now a 50+ goal scorer and a borderline superstar, Bourque was at his absolute peak (almost won the Hart), Craig Janney scored at a 90-point pace, Bob Carpenter had a resurgent season, Brian Propp was added late in the year and was good, Glen Wesley was becoming a stud, young Greg Hawgood was surprisingly effective, and Andy Moog had a very solid season (as did Lemelin, though he was getting ancient).

Bruins were 12-4-4 in the final quarter of the season, while Edmonton went 10-8-2.

After the Bruins' big scare against Hartford in round one, they then went 8 and 1 in getting rid of Montreal and Washington, which were both pretty good clubs. So, unlike 1988, the Bruins weren't already gassed when the Finals started.

And they had home-ice advantage, a big factor with the Gahh-den.

And they had gone 5-0-1 against Edmonton in the previous two seasons.

So, what happened? Aside from game three when Edmonton was stymied a bit, the Oilers simply had no problem putting the puck in the net.

But why? The Bruins were the best defensive team all season.

Okay, so the Bruins would have been a bit heartbroken after losing game 1 -- after 115 minutes of hockey -- on a weak shot by a bench-warming Oiler, and that after they'd put 52 shots on Ranford. But you'd think, with home ice advantage, the Bruins would have summoned up their season's best effort for game two, which, by any logic, they should have had a great chance to win anyway.

Instead, their goaltenders (esp. Moog) put up some of the worst goaltending ever seen in Finals' history. Let's put it this way: in 25 minutes of hockey in game two of the Finals, Moog had a .250 save percentage. No, not a typo. This game made the '97 Flyers' goalie tandem look like Roy and Hasek.

Anyway, down 0-2 after two home games, I guess the Bruins were toast from that point on, facing hungry vets like Messier, etc.

But I just wanted to point out that I personally think the Bourque-era Bruins' best chance to win it all was not 1983, 1991, 1992, etc., but rather was 1990.

 

[voyageur]

For me I absolutely hate this era of hockey. My home team was gone. The team I adopted was the Canadiens and they were the shits. I found myself cheering for underdog Canadian teams, in the playoffs, in an era when the American teams were stacking up all the talent. After the first round I was disinterested, though I cheered on Johan Hedberg, who beat Hasek in game 7 of the 2nd round, wearing his Manitoba Moose helmet.

I was happy for Bourque.

I think Lanny Mc Donald wearing the C, scoring the go ahead goal in game 6 of the 1989 Stanley Cup, and winning Calgary's only Stanley Cup, and the only Stanley Cup won by an opposing team in the Forum, in his final game, was a pretty special moment in hockey, for those that remember it.

 

[Stephen]

Call me a black heart but Ray Bourque winning the Stanley Cup didn't really register with me too much sentimentally then and has really faded from memory since.

Random digression. When I look back on the LA Kings, Boston Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks of the 2010s who did manage to win at least one cup, I do look back on that late 80s, early 90s era and think about the cores of those respective teams and kind of think they deserved to win it then, with those groups more. Aesthetically, a Gretzky led Kings Cup somewhere in and around 1991, a Bourque and Bruins cup in the late 80s, a Blackhawks cup led by Roenick, Belfour, Chelios, just would have felt right.

 

[buffalowing88]

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

That's a fair point in retrospect. I still like Linesman but you contextualized it better than I.

 

[buffalowing88]

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.

Fair. Maybe he was Atlas Shrugged personified. Still think there are stats that will suggest that others have contributed more and stuck around. Crosby in '17 I would assume. I'm by no means badmouthing Bourque. I just believe he got his flowers as if he was a Sakic or Yzerman and he's just not them in that regard. Better player, but he needs to be docked for jumping ship.

 

[Big Phil]

Fair. Maybe he was Atlas Shrugged personified. Still think there are stats that will suggest that others have contributed more and stuck around. Crosby in '17 I would assume. I'm by no means badmouthing Bourque. I just believe he got his flowers as if he was a Sakic or Yzerman and he's just not them in that regard. Better player, but he needs to be docked for jumping ship.

But does he get docked more if he stays in Boston and retires in 2001 with no Cup at all? He wanted to win at the end of his career, but I think people forget it wasn't exactly a lock that Colorado was going to win either. The west was strong in those days and the Avs didn't have the Stars' number by any means. Even going into 2001, it was far from a done deal that they win. Remember, they had to win in Jersey in Game 6 just to force a 7th game. I think if anything you can argue quite successfully that the Avs don't win the Cup in 2001 without Bourque. And that adds to his legacy, no?

Everyone wants to win the Cup on just one team, but it can't always work that way.

 

[buffalowing88]

But does he get docked more if he stays in Boston and retires in 2001 with no Cup at all? He wanted to win at the end of his career, but I think people forget it wasn't exactly a lock that Colorado was going to win either. The west was strong in those days and the Avs didn't have the Stars' number by any means. Even going into 2001, it was far from a done deal that they win. Remember, they had to win in Jersey in Game 6 just to force a 7th game. I think if anything you can argue quite successfully that the Avs don't win the Cup in 2001 without Bourque. And that adds to his legacy, no?

Everyone wants to win the Cup on just one team, but it can't always work that way.

Man....I may have to concede this one. The West was probably the strongest a conference has ever been from 96-04. Bourque didn't join a sure thing, you're right.

And you're right that I really don't think they win without him that year. I still can't believe the path they got with the Kings that year. Not that they didn't put up a fight but it feels like the field didn't come to play once the postseason started. Even Colorado was underachieving a bit.

I'm gonna take the loss here. I'll let this argument end in agreeing. This is the fun part about these threads is getting the counterpoints. I still dock a minor point in my mind that he couldn't do it with Boston because Boston wasn't like...Florida at the time or something. They had resources and players, but @Big Phil proved a good point here. I've got nothing else to argue hah.

 

[Ben Grimm]

I don't know the answer to the thread title, but after Orr I consider him the best post-O6 dman.

 

[JackSlater]

But does he get docked more if he stays in Boston and retires in 2001 with no Cup at all? He wanted to win at the end of his career, but I think people forget it wasn't exactly a lock that Colorado was going to win either. The west was strong in those days and the Avs didn't have the Stars' number by any means. Even going into 2001, it was far from a done deal that they win. Remember, they had to win in Jersey in Game 6 just to force a 7th game. I think if anything you can argue quite successfully that the Avs don't win the Cup in 2001 without Bourque. And that adds to his legacy, no?

Everyone wants to win the Cup on just one team, but it can't always work that way.

He was going to get it from one crowd or another regardless. If he leaves and wins, he jumped ship and wasn't loyal to Boston, couldn't win a championship in Boston, needed a loaded team etc. If he stays in Boston and inevitably doesn't win a cup he's a loser, can't win with him, didn't care about winning, preferred being comfortable and a legend in Boston to actually competing for a championship. I don't think there's any doubt that Bourque is pleased with how things ended up going.

 

[reckoning]

I have never understood the criticism that Bourque (or Hasek to a lesser extent) get for winning Cups on new teams late in their career.

If Butch Goring stays with the Kings his whole career, he never wins a Cup; yet no one criticizes him for the success he had with Islanders. Rob Blake doesn't get put down for not winning a Cup in L.A. Brett Hull doesn't get bashed for not winning a Cup in St.Louis. Do Shanahan, Larionov or Fetisov win any Cups if they didn't end up in Detroit late in their career?

Most players are congratulated for being an important contributor to a Cup winning team. Except for Ray Bourque.

 

[buffalowing88]

I have never understood the criticism that Bourque (or Hasek to a lesser extent) get for winning Cups on new teams late in their career.

If Butch Goring stays with the Kings his whole career, he never wins a Cup; yet no one criticizes him for the success he had with Islanders. Rob Blake doesn't get put down for not winning a Cup in L.A. Brett Hull doesn't get bashed for not winning a Cup in St.Louis. Do Shanahan, Larionov or Fetisov win any Cups if they didn't end up in Detroit late in their career?

Most players are congratulated for being an important contributor to a Cup winning team. Except for Ray Bourque.

Hasek is criticized because he became an all-time malcontent in Buffalo the last few years. He deserves all of the criticism he gets. I don't have a huge issue with Bourque, I just don't think he was in a dire situation in Boston. They were competitive many, many years he was there. But @Big Phil already pointed out the heavy lifting he did. Hasek did heavy lifting for Buffalo but it feels almost a bit exaggerated these days, and this is coming from a Sabres fan.

We built an entire roster around him from 96-01. Just a ton of money towards respected, stay-at-home defensemen and gritty, two-way forwards. And in return, he pulls himself out of critical games in the playoffs, literally beats up the media, and bitches left and right about coaching. The amount of vitriol going towards Belfour and, to some extent, Roy, should be saved for Hasek. I appreciate what he did for the Sabres but at some point he became too much. Him celebrating that Red Wings win was a little gross. Thankfully, his true colors showed soon after and he decimated their chemistry, too. Guy screwed over CuJo and their coaches and I think that means something.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's just Bourque's lack of a championship never seemed to be some great glaring wrong that needed to be righted

i feel this

 

[Big Phil]

He was going to get it from one crowd or another regardless. If he leaves and wins, he jumped ship and wasn't loyal to Boston, couldn't win a championship in Boston, needed a loaded team etc. If he stays in Boston and inevitably doesn't win a cup he's a loser, can't win with him, didn't care about winning, preferred being comfortable and a legend in Boston to actually competing for a championship. I don't think there's any doubt that Bourque is pleased with how things ended up going.

Sort of how Mats Sundin was treated in 2008 when he wouldn't waive his no-trade clause from the Leafs. Sundin perhaps was loyal to a fault, and I can remember many a fan being angry at him for not moving on and getting us some value back in a trade. I thought "What's wrong with him loving Toronto and wanting to be there?" There are a lot of all-time greats that never won, but they still made the HHOF and had a great career. I would want to win, don't get me wrong, but I also would want to be Marcel Dionne (No Cups) over Gilbert Dionne (1 Cup).

Man....I may have to concede this one. The West was probably the strongest a conference has ever been from 96-04. Bourque didn't join a sure thing, you're right.

And you're right that I really don't think they win without him that year. I still can't believe the path they got with the Kings that year. Not that they didn't put up a fight but it feels like the field didn't come to play once the postseason started. Even Colorado was underachieving a bit.

I'm gonna take the loss here. I'll let this argument end in agreeing. This is the fun part about these threads is getting the counterpoints. I still dock a minor point in my mind that he couldn't do it with Boston because Boston wasn't like...Florida at the time or something. They had resources and players, but @Big Phil proved a good point here. I've got nothing else to argue hah.

Bourque is still beloved in Boston though if I recall. I can remember in 2016 being at Fenway Park for what was going to be David Ortiz's last couple of games as a Red Sox player. He was retiring. But the ceremony before hand had players from all 4 Boston teams (Celtics, Sox, Bruins, Patriots) come onto the field and give him sort of a big send off. I may be misremembering, but I can remember Orr and Bourque being part of the Bruins group and the crowd cheered them on. I don't think the Bruins were going anywhere, and my guess is Bourque wanted to retire very soon and knew this. Here is the question though. What if Bourque doesn't win in Colorado in 2001? Does he stay another year? Does he retire? Because he retired pretty soon after they won, within a few days if I recall. But if he retires without winning, does that change how people view the whole switch?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sort of how Mats Sundin was treated in 2008 when he wouldn't waive his no-trade clause from the Leafs. Sundin perhaps was loyal to a fault, and I can remember many a fan being angry at him for not moving on and getting us some value back in a trade. I thought "What's wrong with him loving Toronto and wanting to be there?" There are a lot of all-time greats that never won, but they still made the HHOF and had a great career. I would want to win, don't get me wrong, but I also would want to be Marcel Dionne (No Cups) over Gilbert Dionne (1 Cup).



Bourque is still beloved in Boston though if I recall. I can remember in 2016 being at Fenway Park for what was going to be David Ortiz's last couple of games as a Red Sox player. He was retiring. But the ceremony before hand had players from all 4 Boston teams (Celtics, Sox, Bruins, Patriots) come onto the field and give him sort of a big send off. I may be misremembering, but I can remember Orr and Bourque being part of the Bruins group and the crowd cheered them on. I don't think the Bruins were going anywhere, and my guess is Bourque wanted to retire very soon and knew this. Here is the question though. What if Bourque doesn't win in Colorado in 2001? Does he stay another year? Does he retire? Because he retired pretty soon after they won, within a few days if I recall. But if he retires without winning, does that change how people view the whole switch?

I don't think Bourque was concerned at all about his legacy. He simply had a burning desire to win a Cup. He had always stated that as his goal while in Boston.

 

[Professor What]

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!"

My favorite moment that night was when Bourque was being interviewed on the ice after the game. Someone skated by with the Cup and Bourque just stopped talking, his eyes lit up, and he turned to look at the Cup and said something along the lines of "That thing's beautiful, isn't it?" He was there, but he really wasn't. He was too busy floating on cloud nine.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't think Bourque was concerned at all about his legacy. He simply had a burning desire to win a Cup. He had always stated that as his goal while in Boston.

I agree. And if he never won one, he would easily be the best player to have never done so (Dionne, Park, usually come to mind as the best). And who would want an all-time great like him to never win it? Even Ovechkin would have had that gap in his career if he never won it.

 

[67 others]

Hasek is criticized because he became an all-time malcontent in Buffalo the last few years. He deserves all of the criticism he gets. I don't have a huge issue with Bourque, I just don't think he was in a dire situation in Boston. They were competitive many, many years he was there. But @Big Phil already pointed out the heavy lifting he did. Hasek did heavy lifting for Buffalo but it feels almost a bit exaggerated these days, and this is coming from a Sabres fan.

We built an entire roster around him from 96-01. Just a ton of money towards respected, stay-at-home defensemen and gritty, two-way forwards. And in return, he pulls himself out of critical games in the playoffs, literally beats up the media, and bitches left and right about coaching. The amount of vitriol going towards Belfour and, to some extent, Roy, should be saved for Hasek. I appreciate what he did for the Sabres but at some point he became too much. Him celebrating that Red Wings win was a little gross. Thankfully, his true colors showed soon after and he decimated their chemistry, too. Guy screwed over CuJo and their coaches and I think that means something.

LOL. The first bolded is a nice way of saying you had a starless squad carried by one of the greatest goalies of all time.
the second, Hasek had an MCL sprain. I know the media had a field day speculating he was "faking "it, but do you have any concrete proof?

History is in favor of players who sit out rather than aggravating injuries being in the right, and coaches and fanbases and general shaming them into sucking it up and possibly crippling themselves to be macho being very very wrong.

Which Vitriol towards Belfour and Roy are you referring to?

 

[ozzie]

He doesn't get enough credit for those 88 and 90 final appearances and those bruin teams. Championship's are just to highly valued (right or wrong), these accomplishments are easily forgotten. He gave it a good effort in Boston, he truly did. They kept running into the NHL's version of Jordan Bull, although 90 was definitely up for the taking.

I never saw Orr play, but for me its Bourque, Potvin, Lidstron and Coffey. Each one has their strengths and weaknesses, and when I look back, Bourque is probably the most well balanced, encompassing all of these greats into one and a somewhat quiet humble package.

The Gordie Howe of defensemen.

I do know if you put Bourque on the Oilers or Penguins of the 80's/90's, he'd be even more impressive and those teams would have been even better too.

The only negative thing I can say about Bourque is, if I recall he had a big of reluctancy playing for Canada when asked, a bit like Roy in that regard. But as I grow older, I've softened on that too.

I still prefer Potvin to all of them and Lidstrom was subline. As I said, Bourque had the best of everyone, not many can say that.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

It would have meant more if he had won it with the Bruins. As it was, his Cup with with the Av's was not much more than a human interest story.

 

[67 others]

It would have meant more if he had won it with the Bruins. As it was, his Cup with with the Av's was not much more than a human interest story.

A cup is a cup. He was a key player in that cup win and clutch in the playoffs even in times he did not win the cup. Which is often something folks use to detract from great players

 

[FerrisRox]

Happy for him to have won it, but him joining contenders solely for it after 22 years with a good team in Boston wasn't really all that special. And once Colorado retired his number it became even a bit of a farce. Positively memorable overall still, but I wouldn't rank it.

I agree with this.

It would be nowhere near my most memorable Stanley Cup wins. I have no issue with a veteran moving on at the end of his career to chase Stanley, but Colorado was already an elite team before he arrived and I think Colorado did more for Bourque than Bourque did for Colorado despite him still being an excellent defensemen at the time.

At the trade deadline in 1987, Los Angeles Kings General Manager Rogie Vachon went to Marcel Dionne, the great King that ever was, and told him there were three trades on the table and he felt Marcel had earned the right to pick his landing spot.

The three options were the Edmonton Oilers, the New York Rangers and the St. Louis Blues. Vachon assumed Dionne would take the Oilers, who were a league powerhouse and had won two of the previous three Cups. Dionne asked Vachon which package was the best, and he said they were largely the same, but truthfully the Oilers offer was behind the offers that New York and St. Louis had tabled.

With Gretzky and Messier slotted in ahead of him in Edmonton (though Messier might have taken the wing on a line with Dionne) he surmised he would be largely "a passenger" in Edmonton and the Cup win wouldn't really be his. He told Vachon he'd rather New York or St. Louis and Vachon ultimately traded him to the Rangers.

Dionne has said many people cringe when he tells that story and point out the Oilers (without him) won the '87 and '88 Cups, but he has no regrets. I understand his thinking, as a competitor. Again, this is no slight to Bourque, just another take on it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree with this.

It would be nowhere near my most memorable Stanley Cup wins. I have no issue with a veteran moving on at the end of his career to chase Stanley, but Colorado was already an elite team before he arrived and I think Colorado did more for Bourque than Bourque did for Colorado despite him still being an excellent defensemen at the time.

At the trade deadline in 1987, Los Angeles Kings General Manager Rogie Vachon went to Marcel Dionne, the great King that ever was, and told him there were three trades on the table and he felt Marcel had earned the right to pick his landing spot.

The three options were the Edmonton Oilers, the New York Rangers and the St. Louis Blues. Vachon assumed Dionne would take the Oilers, who were a league powerhouse and had won two of the previous three Cups. Dionne asked Vachon which package was the best, and he said they were largely the same, but truthfully the Oilers offer was behind the offers that New York and St. Louis had tabled.

With Gretzky and Messier slotted in ahead of him in Edmonton (though Messier might have taken the wing on a line with Dionne) he surmised he would be largely "a passenger" in Edmonton and the Cup win wouldn't really be his. He told Vachon he'd rather New York or St. Louis and Vachon ultimately traded him to the Rangers.

Dionne has said many people cringe when he tells that story and point out the Oilers (without him) won the '87 and '88 Cups, but he has no regrets. I understand his thinking, as a competitor. Again, this is no slight to Bourque, just another take on it.

Disagree.

Colorado had the best regular season in franchise history and won one of the two Cups they ever got, with Bourque.

As stated before, first team all-stars are usually significant contributors. Which Bourque was.

 

[Albatros]

Colorado had the best regular season in franchise history

Debatable. New overtime rules and two weak expansion teams in the West granted more points than in the mid-1990s, but they were better then.

 

[The Panther]

I agree with this.

It would be nowhere near my most memorable Stanley Cup wins. I have no issue with a veteran moving on at the end of his career to chase Stanley, but Colorado was already an elite team before he arrived and I think Colorado did more for Bourque than Bourque did for Colorado despite him still being an excellent defensemen at the time.

At the trade deadline in 1987, Los Angeles Kings General Manager Rogie Vachon went to Marcel Dionne, the great King that ever was, and told him there were three trades on the table and he felt Marcel had earned the right to pick his landing spot.

The three options were the Edmonton Oilers, the New York Rangers and the St. Louis Blues. Vachon assumed Dionne would take the Oilers, who were a league powerhouse and had won two of the previous three Cups. Dionne asked Vachon which package was the best, and he said they were largely the same, but truthfully the Oilers offer was behind the offers that New York and St. Louis had tabled.

With Gretzky and Messier slotted in ahead of him in Edmonton (though Messier might have taken the wing on a line with Dionne) he surmised he would be largely "a passenger" in Edmonton and the Cup win wouldn't really be his. He told Vachon he'd rather New York or St. Louis and Vachon ultimately traded him to the Rangers.

Dionne has said many people cringe when he tells that story and point out the Oilers (without him) won the '87 and '88 Cups, but he has no regrets. I understand his thinking, as a competitor. Again, this is no slight to Bourque, just another take on it.

Interesting, I've never heard Dionne tell this tale.

I've always wished that, in autumn '84, when the Canadiens were pushing Guy Lafleur out the door and into premature retirement, the Oilers had made him a great offer and that Guy had come to Edmonton for the '85, '86, and '87 runs.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Ray Bourque was 2nd in Norris voting this season as a 40 year old.

He was as big of a contributor to the Avs Cup win as anyone.