In 5 years, which NHL team will be the strongest? - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Ice · 11-30-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I hear you but did they just get hot for 2 months this team was a 8 seed. Did they just under achieve for the entire regular season and they will be a powerhouse once the league fires up?

One could argue Boston is stronger than LA or Pittsburgh as well is all I am saying

If we ate talking a handful of teams for 5 years time I will say Boston, Philly, Edmonton are set up to be pretty strong

They totally underachieved the regular season. Once Sutter came in and demanded that they play more aggressive hockey they were the team they were expected to be. The entire team is signed for the next season, whenever that is. Five years is too long to speculate, but barring any stupid moves, if they continue good drafting and keep their top prospects, the Kings should be OK for a few seasons, at least.

Whether they're really stronger than Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc, remains to be proven. If there wasn't a lockout, it would have been nice to find out how they compete against the top teams in the league after finally having success and winning the cup.

Vinny01 · 12-01-2012, 01:36 PM

I actually thought the Kings would compete for the Presidents trophy after they made the Richards trade in the summer of 2011 so when they went on to win the cup I was not really that surprised. The team has an elite #1 goalie, young #1 Dman, and is deep up the middle with players in their mid 20's so they will be a force when the league fires up.

I still like Boston though as I think Rask, Seguin, Hamilton are fantastic building blocks. Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic are still pretty young so that is going to be a team 5 years from now who will still be a force in my opinion.

AR_Six · 12-02-2012, 10:33 AM

I definitely thought the Kings would take the pacific division at the start of last season or at least compete with the Sharks for it. Then the Sharks sucked and LA didn't gel until late January. Who knows. Also would point out that if Daniel Sedin wasn't injured, who even knows if the Kings make it out of round 1.

moon · 12-02-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Also would point out that if Daniel Sedin wasn't injured, who even knows if the Kings make it out of round 1.

I think we know that they still would have won easily, maybe even in 4 instead of 5 games.

AR_Six · 12-02-2012, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

I think we know that they still would have won easily, maybe even in 4 instead of 5 games.

They'd have been worse off WITH their best player in the lineup? How do you figure that? He played 2 games in that series, in both of which Vancouver was the better team, one of which they won and one lost in OT. Over a 7 game series, it may have been enough to make the difference. No way to know.

moon · 12-02-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR_Six

They'd have been worse off WITH their best player in the lineup? How do you figure that? He played 2 games in that series, in both of which Vancouver was the better team, one of which they won and one lost in OT. Over a 7 game series, it may have been enough to make the difference. No way to know.

Anytime you add a soft sister into the line-up in the play-offs you are taking a risk that you will be worse off.

I was kidding about the worse off but the way the Kings and Canucks played that series I don't think that Sedin would have made the difference between winning a losing.

Mean Mr. Mustard · 12-02-2012, 10:56 AM

I think that the Kings would have still won, the Canucks were a team that was lost in the second half of the year relying on Luongo and Schneider to steal games rather than outscoring teams. Even Henrik had like an 8 game pointless streak at one point I think. The team just didn't really look that good during large parts of the year and even though they won the President's Trophy, it just didn't feel like the same domination for some reason that was present in 2010-11.

Losing Daniel was massive though and just deflated the team which is understandable as he is the biggest offensive threat and to say that his presence hurt the Canucks is just another stupid Moon comment.

vilzeh · 12-02-2012, 11:34 AM

Minnesota should be kinda strong..

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 04:55 PM

I like Calgary's chances. Between now and 5 years away is a long time. As a whole, Calgary is a place that is hockey based and likes to win- we were accustomed to winning here before and built a pride with that. I believe we have drafted quite well the last two years and in another 5 years gives us that much more time to draft and develop quality talent not to mention the ones we have drafted hopefully being part of the new youth movement.

I believe Calgary is different from some other teams trying to re-build. WE got a lot of pride here, take it very seriously, and want and expect to win- management knows this. We have put some pieces of the puzzle in place right now to make this happen long term. I believe in 5 years, we will once again have put ourselves in a position to compete at a higher level. Just my opinion.

$ven27 · 12-02-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

I like Calgary's chances. Between now and 5 years away is a long time. As a whole, Calgary is a place that is hockey based and likes to win- we were accustomed to winning here before and built a pride with that. I believe we have drafted quite well the last two years and in another 5 years gives us that much more time to draft and develop quality talent not to mention the ones we have drafted hopefully being part of the new youth movement.

I believe Calgary is different from some other teams trying to re-build. WE got a lot of pride here, take it very seriously, and want and expect to win- management knows this. We have put some pieces of the puzzle in place right now to make this happen long term. I believe in 5 years, we will once again have put ourselves in a position to compete at a higher level. Just my opinion.

Really? Unless Calgary manages to get 2-3 years worth of top 5-10 picks I don't see them being a contender within the next 5 years.

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

Really? Unless Calgary manages to get 2-3 years worth of top 5-10 picks I don't see them being a contender within the next 5 years.

Yes, really. Read not this post, but my previous post. Have you forgotten about trades, etc, free agency ? lots can happen in 5 years my friend and I know Calgary is a place that likes to win~ sometimes that's the difference between us and a team like Minny, Nashville, etc. The ORGANIZATION has a constant pressure to make things happen for a fan base that has tasted success in the past- that is another factor.

$ven27 · 12-02-2012, 05:31 PM

I think Colorado could become one of the stronger teams in a few years with all their young talent, just a matter of putting it together.

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

I think Colorado could become one of the stronger teams in a few years with all their young talent, just a matter of putting it together.

Cool- good for you. No guarantee half of them will be there in 5 years or even pan out then. 5 years is a long time away and lots of things can happen. Colorado is notorious for trading away young talent that hasn't panned out in a year or two. We will see.

$ven27 · 12-02-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Cool- good for you. No guarantee half of them will be there in 5 years or even pan out then. 5 years is a long time away and lots of things can happen. Colorado is notorious for trading away young talent that hasn't panned out in a year or two. We will see.

I'm just contributing to the OP's question, not you. I don't see why you're being so hostile.

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 05:49 PM

In the last while, the Avs have lost Shattenkirk, Brian Elliot, Stewart, Downie, McGinn, Varlamov, Liles, Galiardi and Winnik recently. Lost Elliot for nothing while giving up Anderson too Ottawa. They don't seem to have a clue as to what direction they want to go and have no problem giving up good talent to get to this uncertain place. Not so sure why you have any faith in a management system like that.

$ven27 · 12-02-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

In the last while, the Avs have lost Shattenkirk, Brian Elliot, Stewart, Downie, McGinn, Varlamov, Liles, Galiardi and Winnik recently. Lost Elliot for nothing while giving up Anderson too Ottawa. They don't seem to have a clue as to what direction they want to go and have no problem giving up good talent to get to this uncertain place. Not so sure why you have any faith in a management system like that.

Shattenkirk and Stewart were traded for Erik Johnson. Downie, McGinn, and Varlamov were all brought in, and are still there, not traded away.

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

I'm just contributing to the OP's question, not you. I don't see why you're being so hostile.

lol- I'm not being hostile. You questioned me on my pick, which, had reasoning behind it- and I'm now questioning yours, which, obviously doesn't. Sorry if I'm being "hostile".

$ven27 · 12-02-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

lol- I'm not being hostile. You questioned me on my pick, which, had reasoning behind it- and I'm now questioning yours, which, obviously doesn't. Sorry if I'm being "hostile".

Well, you don't even have the facts correct about Colorado in the first place, so i'm not sure if I should put anything into what you're saying.
If the Avalanche did trade away all that then yeah you could say they're in a state of disarray. However they lost Shattenkirk and Stewart to bring in Johnson, they also traded Galiardi and Winnik for Mcginn + a prospect so it's not like they left for nothing. Downie, McGinn, and Varlamov are all still there and look to be key pieces for them. The loss of Anderson and Elliot are irrelevant because they have their #1 tender now anyways.

cowtown75 · 12-02-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $ven27

Shattenkirk and Stewart were traded for Erik Johnson. Downie, McGinn, and Varlamov were all brought in, and are still there, not traded away.

oops sorry- you are right, my bad, feel stupid and don't know what i was thinking. Varly was a good pick up, so was Downie and McGinn. But Johnson seems to be the less of the trade for Shattenkirk/Stewart yes ? Gave up Quincy for Downie, not sure. Varly was for a first and second round pick, not sure if that was worth it, but he seems to be pretty good so far. Downey has surprised and so has McGinn. Just don't know if that's good enough to build around. They should of kept Shattenkirk, Stewart, Anderson. Just saying that it seems that Colorado just doesn't have a lot of patience with young players. Hard to say what direction they are going.

AR_Six · 12-02-2012, 06:16 PM

I really hate to respond to this nonsense but I can't help myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

I believe we have drafted quite well the last two years

There is absolutely no way to know this and there won't be any way to know whether those picks will pan out for at least 3 years.

Quote:

and in another 5 years gives us that much more time to draft and develop quality talent not to mention the ones we have drafted hopefully being part of the new youth movement.

Every team hopes for this. There is no reason to expect that Calgary will do it any better than any other team. If you look at recent history the likelihood is actually the opposite as the Flames haven't done well with prospects over the past CBA term. Maybe they'll turn it around but expecting them to is blind optimism.

Quote:

I believe Calgary is different from some other teams trying to re-build. WE got a lot of pride here, take it very seriously, and want and expect to win- management knows this.

Right, because if it wasn't a hockey market they wouldn't be bothering. This actually inhibits growth of a franchise more than anything because they feel they have to be competitive every year. Look where it got Toronto. Do you think the people there haven't taken hockey seriously for the last 7 years?

Quote:

We have put some pieces of the puzzle in place right now to make this happen long term.

Sven Baertschi and TJ Brodie. That's basically it. I would say Gaudreau is up there too and you can make a case for Max Reinhart. Those guys will be probably be NHL players and Sven will likely be a success at the pro level. No way to know if Jankowski and others will be. Lots of teams have that many or more prospects who are about as good. Some teams have better depth. The Blues, for example, who also have a better team right now, whose core is also well under 30 for the most part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

lots can happen in 5 years my friend and I know Calgary is a place that likes to win~ sometimes that's the difference between us and a team like Minny, Nashville, etc.

Yeah, because Minnesota and Nashville HATE winning. They can't stand it. Given the success that Trotz has had in NSH I'm surprised they haven't fired him by now. Minnesota is hockey crazy, basically went batcrap crazy over the Suter / Parise signings so obviously no pressure to succeed there. Seriously just stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself and others.