Who would have won the 04/05 Stanley Cup?
- Thread starter PanthersHockey1
- Start date
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,179
I will remind everyone that Ottawa was the Cup favourite at the beginning of the 2003-'04 season. Then they lost in 7 games in the first round to Toronto.
I don't get the overflowing love for Ottawa. They choked so many years before that especially in their best year in 2003. Then they lose in 2006 to Buffalo who they had no right losing to. Yeah, yeah, Hasek was injured but he was also 41 years old then and he wasn't the same difference maker he used to be either. That 2006 team should have won the Cup with Emery but they didn't. Other than the Game #1 debacle against Buffalo, goaltending was NOT the reason they lost.
So why is it different in 2005? They would still be the same old soft team from 2004. Alfredsson would have still mailed it in come playoff time as he usually did. That same team minus Hasek couldn't beat Toronto in 2004 so why is it so hard to believe the Leafs didn't have as good of a chance? I don't think there is much difference at all.
But I go with neither. Give me Tampa or the Red Wings. We all know the Wings would be in the mix as they always are so winning the Cup wouldn't be a shock. Tampa had just come off a Cup win and was young. If we assume they don't lose Khabibulin then they have all their pieces back from 2004. Give me them over Ottawa and their wishy washy play when the chips are down
I don't get the overflowing love for Ottawa. They choked so many years before that especially in their best year in 2003. Then they lose in 2006 to Buffalo who they had no right losing to. Yeah, yeah, Hasek was injured but he was also 41 years old then and he wasn't the same difference maker he used to be either. That 2006 team should have won the Cup with Emery but they didn't. Other than the Game #1 debacle against Buffalo, goaltending was NOT the reason they lost.
So why is it different in 2005? They would still be the same old soft team from 2004. Alfredsson would have still mailed it in come playoff time as he usually did. That same team minus Hasek couldn't beat Toronto in 2004 so why is it so hard to believe the Leafs didn't have as good of a chance? I don't think there is much difference at all.
But I go with neither. Give me Tampa or the Red Wings. We all know the Wings would be in the mix as they always are so winning the Cup wouldn't be a shock. Tampa had just come off a Cup win and was young. If we assume they don't lose Khabibulin then they have all their pieces back from 2004. Give me them over Ottawa and their wishy washy play when the chips are down
no one has mentioned calgary but they took the 04 Cup Champions 7 games (6 games if you ask flames fans)
Bill McCreary
Self-Righteous
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,179
Well they played so far over their heads it was crazy. I mean Shean Donovan scored 10 points and some big goals. Shean Donovan! Considering what happened post lockout with them there is no way they have a prayer in 2005.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,305
- 4,675
Yeah, I'm not buying the Ottawa love either, Phil.
They lost to a fossilized Leaf team in 2004, and considering they scored 0 goals in three of the losses, it's hard to see how Hasek would suddenly make the difference.
The cap gutted the Lightning, and losing Khabibulin was a death blow for them. If that doesn't happen they would remain formidable.
Mike O'Connell's complete mismanagement coming out of the lockout into the capped era sunk a Boston team that had finished 1st and 2nd in the east in 2002 and 2004. They may have been a threat out of the east in 2005.
They lost to a fossilized Leaf team in 2004, and considering they scored 0 goals in three of the losses, it's hard to see how Hasek would suddenly make the difference.
The cap gutted the Lightning, and losing Khabibulin was a death blow for them. If that doesn't happen they would remain formidable.
Mike O'Connell's complete mismanagement coming out of the lockout into the capped era sunk a Boston team that had finished 1st and 2nd in the east in 2002 and 2004. They may have been a threat out of the east in 2005.
cynicism
Registered User
- Aug 13, 2008
- 2,540
- 7
Defense and Goaltending are too weak. Gonch struggled in his brief tenure with the B's, the rest of the defense core are primarily undynamic defense-first types.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,699
- 47,236
I'm not convinced the Flyers would have been favorites, depending on how much 2004 took out of them. They hopefully would have convinced Ragnarsson to come back, but they lost Recchi (more because of the potential cap), LeClair was toast, they were losing Zhamnov and Malakhov, Amonte was trending downward. Roenick, don't know how much he had left. Kapanen was not a scorer anymore.
Like the Leafs, they were all-in on 2004. Richards, Carter, Umberger, and Sharp (as a sophomore) would have been asked a lot in increased roles as rookies, as they were in 2005-06. They still had Primeau and Gagne, and a healthy but aging Desjardins with Kim Johnsson and Pitkanen would be the strength of the defense.
Like the Leafs, they were all-in on 2004. Richards, Carter, Umberger, and Sharp (as a sophomore) would have been asked a lot in increased roles as rookies, as they were in 2005-06. They still had Primeau and Gagne, and a healthy but aging Desjardins with Kim Johnsson and Pitkanen would be the strength of the defense.
Last edited:
I certainly wouldn't call 2003 a choke, they lost in 7 to the Cup winning team in the conference finals and they weren't overwhelming favourites by any means. Also, Hasek was fantastic when he played in 2006, not his peak obviously but he was very much in the running for the Vezina before he went down and was very much a difference maker when he played.
Anyways, I don't think there's any answer but the kind of blind guess you could always give. We don't know who would win the Cup any more than we know who would win the Hart. For a lot of reasons, it could very well have been the year for Ottawa. They had an incredibly strong team with a ton of depth and a bunch of players in their peaks and would have had Hasek covering what had traditionally been their weakpoint. Obviously that doesn't guarantee a thing and they would've had competition but then I don't think you can say for sure that the Lightning and the Wings would certainly have beaten them. The Red Wings were smack dab in the middle of 3 bad playoff showings and were transitioning from the old guard to the new guard. The Lightning weren't seen as an especially strong champion and wouldn't have been any better of a bet to repeat than any of the post lockout champions. And then you get into a wild range of questions- does St. Louis play like he did in 03/04 or 05/06? Same question goes for Khabibulin, Lidstrom, Hull, etc. You can say that there's no reason for 2005 being their year, but is there any reason why 1961 was the only year for those Chicago teams? Or 1989 for Calgary? Maybe Alfredsson plays poorly in the playoffs, or maybe he plays like he did in 2007. Determining how well a team would play in a playoffs that never happened for a season that never happened would be in ever harder than determining how well this year's teams are going to do in the playoffs. Especially since we haven't really mentioned whether they're going with New NHL rules or not.
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,034
- 1,570
In the THN yearbook that came out that year previewing the 04-05 season, they gave Ottawa and Tampa grades of A. Philadelphia got an A-. Toronto, New Jersey, Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose all got B+. Of course, THN is usually wrong with their predictions.
Personally, I'm not getting the Ottawa love either. People may be overrating the effect Hasek would have. He was on the downhill part of his career, and only played 14 games the previous year.
It seemed like every season from '99 to '06 the Ottawa media would always trumpet about how this was Ottawa's year. They'd always say they've finally found that "missing ingredient", be it Barrasso or Bondra or Heatley etc.
Personally, I'm not getting the Ottawa love either. People may be overrating the effect Hasek would have. He was on the downhill part of his career, and only played 14 games the previous year.
It seemed like every season from '99 to '06 the Ottawa media would always trumpet about how this was Ottawa's year. They'd always say they've finally found that "missing ingredient", be it Barrasso or Bondra or Heatley etc.
Lots of teams just get bad luck. The best team in the league doesn't win the Cup most of the time.
Prior to '97, people said the same thing about the Red Wings. That they were a bunch of chokers, that Yzerman wasn't the right captain, etc.
Prior to '97, people said the same thing about the Red Wings. That they were a bunch of chokers, that Yzerman wasn't the right captain, etc.
Gonchar had 58 points both before and after the lockout. Jiri Slegr was no stiff either, the slowness of guys like Gill, O'Donnell and McGillis was exposed by Montreal, presumably they could've addressed that in a normal offseason but two of those guys are still in the league.
As it was they were 2nd in the East going into the lockout and would've certainly been one of the top contenders the following year, along with Tampa and Ottawa.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,179
I presume we are using the same pre lockout rules for 2004-'05. Plus no cap. Meaning certain teams don't get gutted.
All I can do is point towards the evidence that we DO have in front of us. Ottawa lost before the lockout when many pegged them as favourites and after the lockout. The odds of 2005 being that one year where things all fell into place is not out of the realm of possibilities, but for those that were familiar with Ottawa at that time these terrible things just so often happened to them at will. Remember 2007'-08? They started off the season fresh off a Cup final appearance with a 16-3-0 record. Believe it or not that is a better record than the 1977 Canadiens started off with. Well that was all the media needed to compare them to the '77 Habs. As it turned out the Sens blew the rest of the season away and squeaked in with an 8th place spot.
Why does this matter? Because these patterns were normal with Ottawa. Hey maybe it could have changed for just one year? We'll never know but I just think its safer to assume the more proven teams would have had a better crack at it. Tampa would have had a young team there and all the pieces in place for another run. Maybe they aren't the strongest team to ever lace up skates but there certainly was talk that they were capable of repeating immediately after they won. Tampa did accomplish it. They won important Game 7s. Detroit had the troops to do it as well. Or they had the troops who DID do it. Detroit's pattern of Cup wins fits in much better than anyone else's. 1997.......1998..........2002...........2005(?)........2008. It certainly would have shocked no one. In all honesty, I would pick Colorado before I'd choose Ottawa. Not only did they go deeper in 2004 than Ottawa but they had at least as stacked of a team. I'm not sure I would have bet YOUR money on Ottawa back then.
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,718
- 6,546
I don't think Tampa Bay would have repeated. Good team, but they fell apart quick.
I think one of the "big three" New Jersey, Colorado, or Detroit would have won it.
Detroit was transitioning better, so overall they have the clear edge. The Devils got killed in the '04 playoffs, but still had a good core. The Avalanche definitely fell off after '02, but if Peter Forsberg plays the same 60 games he played in '06 as opposed to the 39 he played in '04, they'd be a tough team to beat.
I think one of the "big three" New Jersey, Colorado, or Detroit would have won it.
Detroit was transitioning better, so overall they have the clear edge. The Devils got killed in the '04 playoffs, but still had a good core. The Avalanche definitely fell off after '02, but if Peter Forsberg plays the same 60 games he played in '06 as opposed to the 39 he played in '04, they'd be a tough team to beat.
FYI: Nylander signed his deal with the RANGERS before the lockout. But I see Detroit winning it in 05. they were still pretty stacked.
gifted88
Dante the poet
bruins309
Krejci Fight Club
- Sep 17, 2007
- 4,701
- 96
Cross out Rolston, Nylander, O'Donnell, and Knuble from that list because they were all signed by other teams in the summer of 2004. And then those teams got a 24% break off the top on the contracts, while the Bruins signed scrubs.
Oh well. No complaints now.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Cinderella teams don't win, so that doesn't matter.
I don't think the Wings would have won, they didn't really find that edge back until Hasek came back in 07.
I feel the Flyers would have done very well.
I don't think the Wings would have won, they didn't really find that edge back until Hasek came back in 07.
I feel the Flyers would have done very well.
No way? They still had the hottest goaltender on the planet at that time. As a Flames fan I think it sucks that we missed out on the potential of that year.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,179
But I think its important to look at the only evidence we have, and that's post lockout. In 2006 they still had the best goalie in the game (briefly). Kipper won the Vezina. Yet they didn't go anywhere in the playoffs and had much of that same team. Calgary in 2004 is a team who overacheived and were a great story for a couple months but they weren't winning it after that
