I'm of the simple minded opinion (yes I know that you can still scrutinize contracts and trades within a Stanley Cup winner's era) that teams like LA, Chicago and Pittsburgh should look back at their multi Stanley Cup win eras and say they did it right.
Every team in the league is desperately attempting to work towards maybe one cup in a thirty year period. If you do it twice, you're amazing.
Sure you can say "Well maybe LA still would have won the second Cup because the backups were amazing" like above. But maybe they wouldn't have? Quick had the experience of winning one Cup already, maybe a backup folds in the Finals.
Easy to pick apart Cup winners years later and say "Well, see you can tell they didn't need this guy or they shouldn't have signed this guy, or should have given shorter contracts to Kane and Toews", etc.
|