Five Questions with Brad Treliving

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not true.

Los Angeles won multiple cups and has only once finished as high as 2nd in the pacific/7th in the league since 2010.

In their two cup winning seasons they finished 13th and 10th, or 8th and 6th in the West.

Definitely not a powerhouse.

That's why I said ‘all BUT certain’. L.A. is the only counterexample in recent history. In any other case, a team with their regular-season record might have gone on a Cinderella run as far as the finals, but would not have won the Cup.

L.A. was different, largely because the team was put together to play the closest possible style to old-time goon hockey. That style flourishes in the playoffs when the referees put away their whistles, but not in the regular season. The Kings' management correctly guessed that the team would be good enough to qualify for the post-season even with the refs calling the rules, and strong enough to muscle their way past all opposition when the rules were tossed out.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I was just using the Canes as an example. I would prefer to win a cup, go to the parade downtown and reminisce about the run for the rest of my life, and then suck for a while, then have my heart broken every year choking in round 1 or 2. Didn't we already live through enough first round heart breaks with the Flames from 1990-2009? Was that fun? 30 years from now are Caps fans going to reminisce about the good ol' president trophy days? We make fun of Vancouver for having won ''nothing'' even though they have 2 president trophies. If one of them brings it up, we laugh at them because it means nothing.

LA sold their souls for both cups wins and it looks like they are on the decline now. The Red Wings are finally in the same boat. Ask either of those fanbases if it's worth it to go to a Stanley Cup parade knowing you sold your soul. Maybe not everyone would do it and that's fine. But I would.

I'm saying I'd rather the Flames turn out like the Pens, Blackhawks or Red Wings rather than the Hurricanes. Those former teams are strong regular season teams year over year (albeit Detroit finally looks like they're coming down to earth) and they always make a legitimate run at the Stanley Cup.

The Hurricanes in 2006 could have just as easy been like the Flames in 2004. Sure, the Cup run was awesome and it gave us good memories. But it was a pretty lucky run they went on and Sutter ended up mortgaging the future for the next five years because he falsely believed we were true Cup contenders.

I don't want to see this team mortgage the future in order to go on one single Cup run that, ultimately, they will win or lose based on the luck of a couple bounces. I want to see them build a sustainably strong team that year-in and year-out is in the top five in the standings overall and is always in the conversation to win the Cup.

[djsFlames]

Off putting that both BT and BB thought Backlund was expendable when they came in.

2012-13 onwards he looked like a guy worth keeping around in my mind. Even if his offensive game didn't develop like it did, he was doing a lot of good little things and in my mind for sure could pan out as a solid 3C.

Sure, I wasn't huge on him, but I definitely wasn't on the 'where ru' end of the spectrum.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's why I said ‘all BUT certain’. L.A. is the only counterexample in recent history. In any other case, a team with their regular-season record might have gone on a Cinderella run as far as the finals, but would not have won the Cup.

L.A. was different, largely because the team was put together to play the closest possible style to old-time goon hockey. That style flourishes in the playoffs when the referees put away their whistles, but not in the regular season. The Kings' management correctly guessed that the team would be good enough to qualify for the post-season even with the refs calling the rules, and strong enough to muscle their way past all opposition when the rules were tossed out.

Well, define what period counts as "your team winning multiple cups"

There aren't that many examples of teams that won multiple cups with more or less the same or similar makeup, so you absolutely cannot say "all but certain" when one of the best examples of a team winning multiple cups in recent history was not a regular season powerhouse.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, define what period counts as "your team winning multiple cups"

There aren't that many examples of teams that won multiple cups with more or less the same or similar makeup, so you absolutely cannot say "all but certain" when one of the best examples of a team winning multiple cups in recent history was not a regular season powerhouse.

In recent years you could look at:

Pittsburgh (2016 & 2009)
Chicago (2015, 2013 & 2010)
Los Angeles (2014 & 2012)
Detroit (2008, 2002, 1998 & 1997)

Detroit is somewhat debatable since three of those wins game before the salary cap era. The salary cap really changed how teams are built.

In which case, Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA are the only teams since the introduction of the salary cup to win multiple cups, let alone in a short period of time with the same (or similar) team.

Unfortunately, it's just too small of a sample size to pull anything meaningful out of how those teams were built other than:

1. Suck
2. Draft high
3. ?
4. Profit

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

In recent years you could look at:

Pittsburgh (2016 & 2009)
Chicago (2015, 2013 & 2010)
Los Angeles (2014 & 2012)
Detroit (2008, 2002, 1998 & 1997)

Detroit is somewhat debatable since three of those wins game before the salary cap era. The salary cap really changed how teams are built.

In which case, Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA are the only teams since the introduction of the salary cup to win multiple cups, let alone in a short period of time with the same (or similar) team.

Unfortunately, it's just too small of a sample size to pull anything meaningful out of how those teams were built other than:

1. Suck
2. Draft high
3. ?
4. Profit

You forgot draft and develop solid NHLers outside of the 1st round. In the end nothing major that people didn't already know about already to build long term success with a team.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Anduril

You forgot draft and develop solid NHLers outside of the 1st round. In the end nothing major that people didn't already know about already to build long term success with a team.

Yes, obviously. I was being somewhat facetious. Obviously every team that wins the Cup needs to draft and develop well. Otherwise you're just the Oilers.