I'm starting to think I'd rather see the Wings play the Avs than the Sharks

[Guest Azazello13]

Foosball God:

So in other words any team that picks up a FA and wins has a tainted championship?  Who is it that's not in touch with reality?

only a naive fool would deny that this year's wings squad has an "award tour" feel to it, that separates it from any other team in the league, and from wings teams of the past. luc will always be a king, hasek will always be a sabre. they're in detroit because of a mutual desire on their part and on the part of the team to take one last kick at the can.

[Foosball God]

Azazello13:

only a naive fool would deny that this year's wings squad has an "award tour" feel to it, that separates it from any other team in the league, and from wings teams of the past.  luc will always be a king, hasek will always be a sabre.  they're in detroit because of a mutual desire on their part and on the part of the team to take one last kick at the can.

Who ever denied that they came here for a run at the cup? But if they win it will in no way "taint" it.

 

Why don't you go back to FLS and take some more abuse from HoPpy. thumbs_d

[Bier Meister]

Glad to see that there is another opinion on this from a non-wing fan.

 

I am not opposed to FA or trades (not sure where you got that from). I am not even opposed to the wings being active in the market. It's a monopoly mentality that harms the sport. The wings (or any team for that matter) cannot pay for every FA out there. There will always be some player movement.

 

Hey, if the Rams go out and get A. Williams- np. If they go out and get Moss, Boston, RW, etc. (not hall of famers, but I hope you get the point) then don't you feel like the SB is a let down and they bought a ring? I think most people would. That's all I'm saying. Having money to spend on additional all-stars taints it.

 

Seriously, you really don't care how championships are won? I, and I think most others, do. It's about the integrity of the game.

[Foosball God]

Bier Meister:

Glad to see that there is another opinion on this from a non-wing fan.

 

I am not opposed to FA or trades (not sure where you got that from).  I am not even opposed to the wings being active in the market. It's a monopoly mentality that harms the sport.  The wings (or any team for that matter) cannot pay for every FA out there.  There will always be some player movement. 

 

Hey, if the Rams go out and get A. Williams- np.  If they go out and get Moss, Boston, RW, etc.  (not hall of famers, but I hope you get the point) then don't you feel like the SB is a let down and they bought a ring? I think most people would.  That's all I'm saying.  Having money to spend on additional all-stars taints it.

 

Seriously, you really don't care how championships are won?  I, and I think most others, do.  It's about the integrity of the game.

The Wings went out and got 2 of probably the biggest crop of quality FA's. They hardly cornered the market.

 

If you're so caught up in a team trying to buy a championship then why do you always bring up the Wings over the Rangers Beir?

[Bier Meister]

If you're so caught up in a team trying to buy a championship then why do you always bring up the Wings over the Rangers Beir?

 

Only because I think of them in a higher light. To me they have substained their success over a longer period of time and have been more dominant (that is their parallel with the yankees that I have referred to).

 

Oh, Could we keep this discourse in one thread ?

[redwings.cup]

The Wings are smart, and fans of others teams are jealous of Detroit's organizational structure. The Wings have been a dominating franchise since the late 1980s now. Ever since Illitch stole Jacques Demers from their "farm team" (i.e. Blues), the Wings have grown, traded for, and yes, even signed a free agent or two so they can be in annual cup contention. To single out this year's superior team as one built through any other means than a continuation of what put the team on top in the first place is simply foolhardy. Free agents? where is Roenick..? oh yeah, i remember. Look at the list of free agent players over the last couple of years and see how many Detroit signed. Has Luc been a strong addition to the team? you bet. Would the Wings still be where they are today without him? You can bet on that too. Go Wings.....

[Guest Azazello13]

redwings.cup:

The Wings are smart, and fans of others teams are jealous of Detroit's organizational structure.  The Wings have been a dominating franchise since the late 1980s now.

1988-89 thru 1993-94 they got out of the first round of the playoffs exactly ONCE (when they promptly lost in round 2). so i'd say calling them a "dominating franchise" over that period is a kind of an absurd stretch even for a blind-ass wings homer like yourself.

[redwings.cup]

Azazello13:

 

redwings.cup:

The Wings are smart, and fans of others teams are jealous of Detroit's organizational structure.  The Wings have been a dominating franchise since the late 1980s now.

1988-89 thru 1993-94 they got out of the first round of the playoffs exactly ONCE (when they promptly lost in round 2). so i'd say calling them a "dominating franchise" over that period is a kind of an absurd stretch even for a blind-ass wings homer like yourself.OK, let's look at this a bit more closely. I mentioned that since Demers was promoted from the Blues ('86-87) the Wings have been a dominating team.

'86-87 Wings make final four losing to eventual cup champs Edmonton.

'87-88 Wings win Norris, lose in final four to Edmonton again

'88-89 win NOrris, out early in playoffs

more to follow, back to work for now.

[Foosball God]

Azazello13:

 

1988-89 thru 1993-94 they got out of the first round of the playoffs exactly ONCE (when they promptly lost in round 2).  so i'd say calling them a "dominating franchise" over that period is a kind of an absurd stretch even for a blind-ass wings homer like yourself.

Being a dominant franchise doesn't necessarily mean you win the cup every year. If you combine regular season with playoffs I think even an ignorant Avs fan would have to say that Detroit was one of the best, if not the best, franchise in the 90's.

 

Now if you were to take the last 5 years instead, then I think you could say the Avs have a slight edge over the Wings.

[redwings.cup]

over the past 15 years the Wings have been the NHL's dominant franchise. not opinion, fact.

[Guest Azazello13]

redwings.cup:

  I mentioned that since Demers was promoted from the Blues ('86-87) the Wings have been a dominating team. 

'86-87 Wings make final four losing to eventual cup champs Edmonton.

'87-88    Wings win Norris, lose in final four to Edmonton again

'88-89 win NOrris, out early in playoffs

more to follow, back to work for now.

LMAO. yeah, "more to follow", like a 5 year span where they only got past the first round once (when they lost in the second round). if that's the mark of a "dominant franchise", then i guess the edmonton oilers have been "dominant" over the last 5 years

[Courtjester]

I think the Detroit fans should all be politicians because boy, can you guys twist the numbers to support whatever misguided points you are trying to make.

 

Detroit==good team (I'll give you that) But to call them the best or the greatest or the most dominating is a joke.

 

What?? You've won two cups?? And then a person has to look back like 45 years to find the next

one.

 

As far as Colorado fans, we have two cups too in

only a short time span plus a record setting run

of EIGHT consecutive Division Titles--something the geezer wings can't even claim. But that being said, I would still not even call the Av's

the most dominating or best or greatest.

 

I have refrained from talking too much about Detroit because it all could be over for Colorado

tonight, but I really believe that the winner of tonight's game will go on to take the cup.

[policyvote]

Courtjester:

I really believe that the winner of tonight's game will go on to take the cup.

What leads you to that conclusion? Whichever team wins will be coming off of a hard, fast, physical, seven-game series, in which their goalie didn't play nearly as well as expected. Detroit is coming off of a five-game series wherein their goalie (save for one game) played outstandingly. No matter who winS, I think it will be an uphill climb for them against Detroit.

 

Peace

policy

[Foosball God]

Courtjester:

I think the Detroit fans should all be politicians because boy, can you guys twist the numbers to support whatever misguided points you are trying to make.

 

Detroit==good team (I'll give you that) But to call them the best or the greatest or the most dominating is a joke.

 

What?? You've won two cups?? And then a person has to look back like 45 years to find the next

one.

 

As far as Colorado fans, we have two cups too in

only a short time span plus a record setting run

of EIGHT consecutive Division Titles--something the geezer wings can't even claim. But that being said, I would still not even call the Av's

the most dominating or best or greatest.

 

I have refrained from talking too much about Detroit because it all could be over for Colorado

tonight, but I really believe that the winner of tonight's game will go on to take the cup.

Just curious to know who you think was more dominant than the Wings from 90 - 99?

[Courtjester]

First of all Policy--the reason I believe that and

again this is just my opinion (or perhaps wishful

thinking), but I think Colorado has a good chance

to steal game 1 in Detroit. How many times have you seen a football team clinch a division, rest their stars and then come out flat as you know what when the playoffs start. I believe an example

would be Denver in 1996 against Jax. I think Colorado got banged up a little in Game 7. But as

I have posted before, I really believe the pressure is on the Red Wings this year. All this

"Greatest of all time" "Best of all time" talk has

to weigh a little on their mind. Also again I don't proclaim to be a "hockey expert" but I would guess that this layoff also would have to have an effect on a team's timing on the ice.

 

Now on to Foos--I define dominate as "Winning the Cup." Two cups does not equal domination. If that's the case, then why can't an argument be made that the Av's are the most dominate team? (which I am not making by the way.) If we buy into a theory that a winning record or almost

getting to the championship is the test in which we judge teams, then would you call the Buffalo Bills the most dominate team of the 90's?

[Guest Azazello13]

Foosball God:

Just curious to know who you think was more dominant than the Wings from 90 - 99?

the wings didn't do anything in the 90s until 95. and of course, the 90s has been over for 2.5 years now. but if you want to take your arbitrary historical periods to try and circumscribe some kind of legitimacy to your team, yeah i guess you'd have to say the wings were the "best team of the '90s" (using the word "dominant" would be a BIG stretch).

 

but instead of looking at arbitrary historical "decades", why don't we look a little more at recent history. 7 conference finals in 8 years, 8 straight division titles, 2 cups, 3-1 in the playoffs against their biggest rivals. and no, i'm obviously not talking about the wings...

[Foosball God]

Courtjester:

Now on to Foos--I define dominate as "Winning the Cup." Two cups does not equal domination. If that's the case, then why can't an argument be made that the Av's are the most dominate team? (which I am not making by the way.) If we buy into a theory that a winning record or almost

getting to the championship is the test in which we judge teams, then would you call the Buffalo Bills the most dominate team of the 90's?

I guess it comes down to a definition then. I would describe dominant as regular season and playoffs. So if you use my definition I think the Wings stand out. IMO it's to hard to determine sustained greatness by just looking at Stanley Cup championships because it's so hard to repeat or get back every couple of years, even for the really good teams.

[Foosball God]

Azazello13:

yeah i guess you'd have to say the wings were the "best team of the '90s"

There was that so hard?

 

 

Azazello13:

 

but instead of looking at arbitrary historical "decades", why don't we look a little more at recent history.  7 conference finals in 8 years, 8 straight division titles, 2 cups, 3-1 in the playoffs against their biggest rivals.  and no, i'm obviously not talking about the wings...

I stated it that way because when people look back they will break things up into decades, not arbitrary 5 year stretches from 1997 - 2002.

 

I've already conceded earlier that the Avs have been the better team over the last 5 years.

[Guest Azazello13]

Foosball God:

I've already conceded earlier that the Avs have been the better team over the last 5 years.

make that the last 8 (as long as the "colorado avalanche" have existed). i'm sure you could tack on the last two nordiques years to make it an even decade going back from the present and the avs/nords resume would still be more impressive over that period than the wings'.