Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

vcr1970

Who agrees the Canucks two president trophies are tainted

32 posts in this topic

They've won the last two years but they've played in the weakest division in hockey each year. They get to play 24 games (almost 30% of their season) against teams that don't make the playoffs.

In each of the last 2 years they are in the only conference that has put one team into the playoffs.

Who would you rather play 24 games against in a season:

Edmonton

Calgary

Minnesota

Colorado, or

Nashville

Detroit

Chicago

St. Louis, or

Columbus

You swap the Canucks with any of Nashville, Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis and we don't win the president's trophy.

Do you agree or disagree?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been beaten to death.

While we definitely picked up some points from the easy division, Vancouver's winning % the other divisions were just as good.

Who even cares? Vancouver is not the first team to win the President's trophy in a weak division. When Detroit was winning theirs, the Central Division was horrendous, but nobody ever talks about it.

Who cares?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody talks about when the Detroit Red Wings won their Presidents' Trophies in the last decade by beating up on a crappy Central Division.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tainted is a little strong but I do agree that I think we need to assess management's constant ringing up of "back to back President's Trophies" to illustrate their success as a club a little more critically. If not for the unbelievably weak divisions the Canucks could very well be simple division winners, or possible 2 time 1st in the conference winners. Then it becomes like OK so you have the two President Trophies but maybe if the division was a little more competitive you'd have 5 division titles, and only escaping the 2nd round once in that timeframe. How much of a success is that?

It's pretty nit picky to look at in that way though so I really don't want to make it seem like I'm actually criticizing the regime. It is something to think about though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way:

Obviously there is no debate that the Central Division is A LOT stronger than the Northwest...

However, if you take out the Canucks from the Northwest and put in a team (say Anaheim) I'm sure that the 4 other teams (Edmonton, Calgary, Minnesota, Colorado) will do A LOT better since they don't have to face the Canucks 6 times a year....Minnesota and Colorado will probably fare a lot better in the standings and might even make the playoffs in this case....

So what I'm trying to say is that the Canucks probably make the Northwest look a lot weaker than the are (Of course, I'm not saying that the Northwest is a strong division)...Playing a top team like the Canucks clearly does not help the rest of the Northwest look better...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely we can't be the only team who has feasted on a weaker division.

And honestly a team can be bad but if we put in a half reared effort anyone can beat us on any day. Didn't we close out the 10-11 regular season with back-to-back losses to Edmonton? We still had to play well and stay focused to get the 2 points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about the President's trophy. Tainted or untainted, it's a flippin' meaningless trophy. If you win the Cup, everyone forgets that you won the President's trophy. If you don't win the Cup, everyone forgets you won the President's trophy. Or they remember how useless it is because you couldn't win when it really counted. End of discussion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have won the Presidents trophy twice in a row but we have no cups....

who cares if we won it playing the majority of our games against a weak division? it all comes down to our playoff performance

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2012 - VAN (1 NW playoff team)

2011 - VAN (1 NW playoff team)

2010 - WSH (1 SE playoff team)

2009 - SJS (2 Pacific playoff teams)

2008 - DET (2 Central playoff teams)

2007 - BUF (2 NE playoff teams)

2006 - DET (2 Central playoff teams)

2005 - LOCKOUT

2004 - DET (3 Central playoff teams)

2003 - OTT (3 NE playoff teams)

2002 - DET (2 Central playoff teams)

As you can see from the above, teams with a weak division often win the PT. With the exception of 2004 and 2003, its always been the winner and one other divisional team, or just the winner.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree, Boston didn't 'feast' on their own division last year, and the Southeast was a battle of the losers. Saying the Canucks only did well because they played in the Northwest is a fallacy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You win the division when you are in a weak division (see Florida), you have to be a great team to win the President's trophy. All of the top teams have a chance to win it, the team with the most luck regarding injuries, schedule, and competition is the team that actually wins. Past two years we've been the ones to luck out, but we had to be a top team to be in the running in the first place.

The only reasons I can think of that the last two seasons would be tainted would be #37 and #38. Fantastic hockey two year straight, but there is no doubt we lost more than we ever could have won.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who agrees the Canucks two president trophies are tainted
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we win next season again then no one can complain, its definitely not the weakest anymore.

+ Superstitions are rubbish.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We play in a weak division that won't be weak for much longer. Why not take advantage of that now?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the Canucks' tendency over the past couple of years has been to play down to the level of weaker teams, it's quite remarkable that they were actually able to pull off winning back-to-back President's Trophies.

As they say in golf, "When you put your score on the card, it's not how, it's how many".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.