Kesler doesn't wanna hear that the Nucks are declining

[mikephoen]

A lot of people here have a much more liberal meaning of 'Elite' than I do, I guess. Personally, I put Elite status just below the Dynasty teams. The only teams I would put in the Dynasty category would be the 70s Canadians, the 80s Islanders and the 80s Oilers. Even the 80s Oilers are a bit iffy for me as they didn't have the 4 cups in a row the other two did.

For me an elite team needs at least 2 cups over a 5 year period. That would make Chicago the only Elite team since the '04 lockout.

I would maybe concede that in the cap era with the much greater parity that 1 cup plus another significant achievement should qualify. I would then give Elite status to Boston, Detroit and Pittsburgh all with 1 cup and 1 other finals appearance post cap. I think LA is close, but not quite there. Maybe 'Elite Minus'.

And then Vancouver a step below that. No cup means not Elite to me.

[Hells Bells]

^^ Exactly.

President Trophies don't make you elite... Stanley Cups do.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Are we still discussing un-winnable topic where its impossible to be wrong but also impossible to be right?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Are we still discussing un-winnable topic where its impossible to be wrong but also impossible to be right?

Me be wrong? Thats unpossible!

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Are we still discussing un-winnable topic where its impossible to be wrong but also impossible to be right?

Oh man let me have a crack at this

[GoJetsGo]

[puckluck2]

You're missing the preseason championship banner.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

A lot of people here have a much more liberal meaning of 'Elite' than I do, I guess...
...And then Vancouver a step below that. No cup means not Elite to me.

I fully agree with this. I don't think winning a cup makes you elite, but I think you have to have won it (or at LEAST consistently contended for it) to be considered elite. Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, those are 3 elite teams. To be elite in the NHL you have to be able to get it done in the regular season and in the post season. For this reason I would say that neither LA nor Vancouver are elite. LA is close, but they haven't shown as much ability to perform during the season, while the same can be said about Vancouver regarding the playoffs.

Vancouver has made it past the 2nd round once in the last decade. So for all their regular season success, they have absolutely proven unable to finish. Elite teams can finish. Elite teams are at an entirely different level than the rest of the teams, and at no point has Vancouver been elite over the past decade.

[bubbsy]

i think in the new cap economy in the NHL, dynasties will be downright impossible, instead you have that next tier of "elite" where you can maintain cup contender status over the course of 3-5 seasons (like the bostons, pens a few years ago, the hawks fell off a bit but are rounding back to that status and sharks/wings a few years ago).

i would put the canucks in that tier which last about 2 years. they were a pretty big powerhouse, and had the best defense to offense transition in the league in my opinion during that time.

the flames on the otherhand, never hit that cusp even during the 5 year playoff berths in a row years. they were always considered to be in playoff contention but never cup contention.

It's awesome that the canucks got the elite tier in the league but never won it all.

[1991 Canadian]

That elite banner kind of reminds me of this..

[Vinny01]

I completely disagree with the notion that you need to win a championship to be considered elite. The Canucks have won 7 of the last 9 division titles, made the playoffs 8 of the last 10 years, made it out of the first round 5 times, won 2 presidents trophies, and made it to game 7 of the finals. They have been one of the better teams over the past decade

When there is 1 team that wins the championship in a 30 team league every year I don't agree that you need to win the title to be considered elite. Being a contender for 10 years with a couple years coming in as a favorite and several others being considered a top 5 favorite to win justifies elite status to me. I had this point when discussing Phil Kessel as an elite player in the league today. Someone stated only generational talents like Crosby or Stamkos are elite but in my opinion top 10-20 players in a 700 player league would be considered elite. It all comes down to each persons definition but I don't see how being a perennial contender for most of the past 10 years does no classify elite

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

In my opinion top 10-20 players in a 700 player league would be considered elite. It all comes down to each persons definition but I don't see how being a perennial contender for most of the past 10 years does no classify elite

Did you come to the conclusion that Kessel is a top 10-20 player in the league? I have difficulty with that, given that I would take Quick, Lundqvist, Rinne, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, Kane, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Giroux, Perry, Hall, Suter, Keith, Weber, Karlsson, Subban, Chara, and possibly Parise, Kopitar and Getzlaf ahead of him. There's an argument to be made for Spezza, MSL and the Sedins. I'm just saying it's debatable.

[Robbob]

IMO an elite team is a team that at the beginning of the season you can say they they will easily win the division or the pundits pick as the favorites to win the cup (there usually is a consensus with all the talking heads). I think the same methodology can be used for players. The players picked early in fantasy hockey leagues are elite players because there is that expectation based on their elite status they will be top five or ten in scoring and they typically deliver.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I completely disagree with the notion that you need to win a championship to be considered elite. The Canucks have won 7 of the last 9 division titles, made the playoffs 8 of the last 10 years, made it out of the first round 5 times, won 2 presidents trophies, and made it to game 7 of the finals. They have been one of the better teams over the past decade

You fail to mention that their advancing past the first round in 5 of the last 10 years was their highest accomplishment in all but 1 year of the past 10. 1 year.
Sorry, but as I said, elite is more than winning a division of weak contenders year after year. Minny, Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton, they've all been jokes for the past 4 years. It would have been embarrassing had they NOT won the division.

Were the Flames elite between 2004 and 2008?

Is LA elite?

Hell, is Washington elite?

Elite teams win championships or at very least contend. Vancouver contended once. If you can't even make the conference final more than once in a decade, there's no way you're elite, because in the playoffs, you are battling GREAT teams (and some elite ones) and if you can't handle them? You're not in the same conversation. Period. Full stop.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Did you come to the conclusion that Kessel is a top 10-20 player in the league? I have difficulty with that, given that I would take Quick, Lundqvist, Rinne, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, Kane, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Giroux, Perry, Hall, Suter, Keith, Weber, Karlsson, Subban, Chara, and possibly Parise, Kopitar and Getzlaf ahead of him. There's an argument to be made for Spezza, MSL and the Sedins. I'm just saying it's debatable.

In what world is Hall better than Kessel today? Anyways name 3-5 RW that are better than Phil? He is a top 10 scorer in the league playing with Bozak as his centre. Lots of debatable players on your list as well. I guess when you are a top scorer in the league and top player at your position that would classify that player as elite. But everything is very debatable and subjective

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

In what world is Hall better than Kessel today?

In a world where it's debatable he actually is. If you gave me an even money bet on who'd score more points next year, Hall or Kessel, I would have a hard time deciding which way to go on that.

Anyways name 3-5 RW that are better than Phil? He is a top 10 scorer in the league playing with Bozak as his centre. Lots of debatable players on your list as well.

Ovechkin, Kane, Perry and St. Louis are four, and I guess you could make a case for Gaborik despite the down year last year (as a 40 goal guy 3 of the prior 5 years) but I wouldn't. So yeah he's somewhere in that top 5 area for his position.

I guess when you are a top scorer in the league and top player at your position that would classify that player as elite. But everything is very debatable and subjective

Yes, and your definition isn't at all an unreasonable one, I was just asking the question and I'm assuming that you answered yes that he is somewhere in the 10-20 range. I'm just not 100% sure I agree. Though the fact that ESPN disagrees with you is certainly a point in your favour.

I'm not sure I disagree with Kessel being called "Elite", I don't really have any strongly held beliefs on what that term means in connection with teams or players. I just think it's really stupid to weigh playoff success (or production) as by far the most valuable and important aspect of it. "Elite" just sounds to me like a word the hockey media, who are by and large irredeemably terrible at their jobs, have made into a buzzword to avoid saying anything that has any actual substance to it.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by strombad

You fail to mention that their advancing past the first round in 5 of the last 10 years was their highest accomplishment in all but 1 year of the past 10. 1 year.
Sorry, but as I said, elite is more than winning a division of weak contenders year after year. Minny, Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton, they've all been jokes for the past 4 years. It would have been embarrassing had they NOT won the division.

Were the Flames elite between 2004 and 2008?

Is LA elite?

Hell, is Washington elite?

Elite teams win championships or at very least contend. Vancouver contended once. If you can't even make the conference final more than once in a decade, there's no way you're elite, because in the playoffs, you are battling GREAT teams (and some elite ones) and if you can't handle them? You're not in the same conversation. Period. Full stop.

The Canucks hugest accomplishment was winning the Presidents Trophy 2 years in a row and coming within 1 game of winning it all. That is the only time I would say they were truly an elite team. Looking at their body of work over the past decade they have constantly been in the discussion as a contending team which is a rare thing in the NHL today. Only the Wings, And Sharks are teams off the top of my head that are comparable. The 2 years Vancouver missed they also finished just outside the playoffs.

The current LA kings squad is elite. I would call them a top 5 contender in the league and likely a top 2 seed in the west. The Caps looked to be on the verge in 2010 but losing in the first round and never getting past the 2nd does not make them elite in my mind

I really only think the Canucks were elite from 09-12 where they lost to a better Blackhawks team twice, made the finals, and then lost to the champion kings in round 1.

Is Pittsburgh still an elite team even though they haven't made the finals in 4 years? I would say yea even though they lost in round 1 in 2012.

The only time the Flames looked elite was from playoffs 04 through end of season 06. They nearly won the cup and won the Jennings and NW the year after the lockout. They looked borderline in 2009 but injuries killed That team. I remember all year hearing the Wings, Sharks, Flames were the elite teams in the west

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The Canucks hugest accomplishment was winning the Presidents Trophy 2 years in a row and coming within 1 game of winning it all. That is the only time I would say they were truly an elite team. Looking at their body of work over the past decade they have constantly been in the discussion as a contending team which is a rare thing in the NHL today. Only the Wings, And Sharks are teams off the top of my head that are comparable. The 2 years Vancouver missed they also finished just outside the playoffs.

The current LA kings squad is elite. I would call them a top 5 contender in the league and likely a top 2 seed in the west. The Caps looked to be on the verge in 2010 but losing in the first round and never getting past the 2nd does not make them elite in my mind

I really only think the Canucks were elite from 09-12 where they lost to a better Blackhawks team twice, made the finals, and then lost to the champion kings in round 1.

Is Pittsburgh still an elite team even though they haven't made the finals in 4 years? I would say yea even though they lost in round 1 in 2012.

The only time the Flames looked elite was from playoffs 04 through end of season 06. They nearly won the cup and won the Jennings and NW the year after the lockout. They looked borderline in 2009 but injuries killed That team. I remember all year hearing the Wings, Sharks, Flames were the elite teams in the west

I think this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree as we did in the Kessel conversation. Your version of elite is so easily attainable that when you call a team elite, you're not saying anything more than "they're a good team". The Presidents Trophy is great, but it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you're an elite team. What you're describing is the makings of a great team. Elite teams dominate, when did Vancouver dominate? One season? They have BEEN dominated countless times. The fact that you refer to the Flames being elite for 2 seasons and Vancouver being elite for two seasons spells out to me one of the biggest issues with your definition of the word: Lack of sample size.

Elite teams don't just appear and disappear for a season or two, good teams can have great seasons, but elite teams spend 5 or 6 years dominating. LA, Calgary (04-06), Vancouver, these are only elite teams if your definition is "moderately-to-very successful for a season or two".

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by strombad

Elite teams don't just appear and disappear for a season or two, good teams can have great seasons, but elite teams spend 5 or 6 years dominating. LA, Calgary (04-06), Vancouver, these are only elite teams if your definition is "moderately-to-very successful for a season or two".

Only 1 team in the league (Pittsburgh) has more wins over the last 5 seasons than Vancouver. If that's not elite (at least in terms of regular season success), then what is?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Only 1 team in the league (Pittsburgh) has more wins over the last 5 seasons than Vancouver. If that's not elite (at least in terms of regular season success), then what is?

That plus a cup?