Why did Wayne Gretzky never win a cup.....(mod: after leaving Edmonton)

[Kingjordan]

I am curious to why everyone thinks The Great One never one a cup after he left the Oilers?

He won all four with the Oilers on some Super Teams, in 11 years players with the Kings, Blues and Rangers he never won another one...

 

[SashaSemin28]

Because Jacques Demers was a genius.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

I'm more curious why the Oilers have never offered him any kind of job since his retirement.

 

[Riseonfire]

Because the Stanley Cup is a team award...

I love when not winning one is held against players like it's their fault.

 

[Kingjordan]

Because the Stanley Cup is a team award...

I love when not winning one is held against players like it's their fault.

I do agree with you but if you are the greatest ever don't you elevate the play of players around you? Also not like he always played on bad teams

 

[false bobo]

I do agree with you but if you are the greatest ever don't you elevate the play of players around you

He did.

 

[Soundwave]

I'm more curious why the Oilers have never offered him any kind of job since his retirement.

They have but his family is all in LA these days, I think Phoenix was about as far away as he was willing to work and right now is more interested in spending time with his youngest kids.

 

[Whiston532]

If you were to go back and rematch all the teams I doubt (not much of a hockey history buff honestly, so i honestly dont know if its true) you'd think "Gretzky is letting the team down" as much as you'd think "the other members of the team might not be doing their part". Look at last years oilers, you had guys like Hall doing good, but other parts of the team didn't do well. If we ltheoretically looked back in say, Halls career down the road, would we say "why didn't hall elevate the team" ? No, yes he could've done more, but it's not up to one player.

 

[Oiltankjob Fail]

Because Mcsorley got caught with a illegal stick that's why

 

[Thesensation19*]

Because it is no easy task and several teams were great teams at the time. LA came close but it was not enough

 

[jack mullet]

Because it is no easy task and several teams were great teams at the time. LA came close but it was not enough

this.

Gretzky coming to LA helped a lot, but he is still one person. teams like Edmonton and Calgary were still stacked (and in their division), and out east Pittsburgh was turning into a powerhouse. there were also a couple great teams that didn't win the cup in the early 90s (hawks and bruins)

by the time gretzky got to St Louis and NY, he was on one of those veteran teams that had one shot at the cup. he only made the playoffs once with st. Louis and once with NY.

 

[shazariahl]

this.

Gretzky coming to LA helped a lot, but he is still one person. teams like Edmonton and Calgary were still stacked (and in their division), and out east Pittsburgh was turning into a powerhouse. there were also a couple great teams that didn't win the cup in the early 90s (hawks and bruins)

by the time gretzky got to St Louis and NY, he was on one of those veteran teams that had one shot at the cup. he only made the playoffs once with st. Louis and once with NY.

Exactly. The Kings actually weren't that good, he was with the Blues for less than a year, and the Rangers were pretty bad by the end. And the Pens had Lemieux, who by then was at the peak of his career, while Gretzky was in decline (especially after the 91 Canada Cup), not to mention the Pens had more depth.

Gretzky played well enough in 93 to carry the Kings all the way to the finals. They won game 1, then lost 2, 3, and 4 all in OT. A bit of luck, they could have easily won a cup. But frankly, Montreal was a better team and Roy was playing some of his best hockey ever (though Gretzky was as well), so while they had a chance, it wasn't some choke job or anything that they lost.

Gretzky missed some time in the early 90's with injuries as well, but still had a great post-season in 96. But the team just wasn't that good. Honestly, he didn't play for many good teams after Edmonton. Some of them were pretty decent, but there were always plenty of teams that were way better.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

LA didn't try to build a solid team around a Gretzky that was a different player than his glory days in Edmonton. LA management thought they could win by recreating the old Edmonton teams and it just didn't work. A lot of those guys were at the end of or exiting their primes when they were in LA.

The 91 team was the best they had and if Coffey wouldn't have been traded who knows what could have happened. The 93 team got hot at the right time but got beat by Roy, who was hotter.

 

[The Korean*]

I do agree with you but if you are the greatest ever don't you elevate the play of players around you? Also not like he always played on bad teams

You do but thats not as easy as it is in NBA.

In NBA superstars are THE team. In NHL depth is much more important to win.

 

[Stonewall]

If the Blues traded for Roy they would have been such a dynasty.

 

[double5son10]

Because Jacques Demers was a genius.

Because Guy Carbonneau belongs in the Hall.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Because Mcsorley got caught with a illegal stick that's why

You threw in the smiley face, but that really isn't far from the truth. Nobody has ever blown a 2-0 lead in the final coming home in the post-expansion era. No guarantees, but it's quite likely LA wins that Cup if not for the illegal stick.

 

[Trottier]

I am curious to why everyone thinks The Great One never one a cup after he left the Oilers?

He won all four with the Oilers on some Super Teams, in 11 years players with the Kings, Blues and Rangers he never won another one...

Because the team he joined following the Oilers (the Kings) was never Cup caliber defensively at any time during his time there. They certainly could score, but not defend (from goaltender out) at the level required to win it all. "Super teams" stop the puck. That includes his high powered Oilers, who learned how to bear down defensively when it mattered.

Because the Blues were never "super" and he was there for a nano-second.

Because the Ranger his first season there were good, but not good enough. Philly was better. And they regressed his last two seasons there.

If you truly deem any of those three teams super, you have a very low threshold for quality.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

You threw in the smiley face, but that really isn't far from the truth. Nobody has ever blown a 2-0 lead in the final coming home in the post-expansion era. No guarantees, but it's quite likely LA wins that Cup if not for the illegal stick.

That's a questionable conclusion.

Winning Game 2 would have increased L.A's chances of winning the series, but they did end up losing the next three games.

People talk about momentum - about how winning game (n) improves a team's winning probability in game (n+1). But there's no evidence for that.

In fact, the work that has been done suggests that there's no such effect.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Because the Stanley Cup is a team award...

I love when not winning one is held against players like it's their fault.

Basically this.

I do agree with you but if you are the greatest ever don't you elevate the play of players around you? Also not like he always played on bad teams

Did Wayne play poorly in the playoffs after he left Edmonton?

A big no there, his teams simply weren't good enough to win.

 

[WarriorofTime]

troll response: Gretzky was built for the 80s and couldn't adjust as the game started to get more defensive in the 90s.

real response: his teams weren't good enough

 

[Hardyvan123]

troll response: Gretzky was built for the 80s and couldn't adjust as the game started to get more defensive in the 90s.

real response: his teams weren't good enough

While there is some truth to that, it's more so in the regular season than for most of his post Edmonton playoffs.

considering his teams, his playoff line, and effectiveness, in the playoffs was still elite.

 

[Crease]

Pre-salary cap, it was very hard for any player to win the Stanley Cup without a very strong supporting cast.

 

[shazariahl]

Because the team he joined following the Oilers (the Kings) was never Cup caliber defensively at any time during his time there. They certainly could score, but not defend (from goaltender out) at the level required to win it all. "Super teams" stop the puck. That includes his high powered Oilers, who learned how to bear down defensively when it mattered.

Because the Blues were never "super" and he was there for a nano-second.

Because the Ranger his first season there were good, but not good enough. Philly was better. And they regressed his last two seasons there.

If you truly deem any of those three teams super, you have a very low threshold for quality.

This was especially true when Gretzky played, in the pre-cap era where teams could build LEGITIMATE dynasties. He played for one in Edmonton, but none of the other teams were close to being that.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

People talk about momentum - about how winning game (n) improves a team's winning probability in game (n+1). But there's no evidence for that.

In fact, the work that has been done suggests that there's no such effect.

What work has been done? Can you provide any links or literature? As someone who believes in momentum carrying from game to game, I'd be curious to know what the other side has to say about it.