Jump to content

How and Why does this franchise Win all the time?


Recommended Posts

 

109 points in their inaugural season. Straight to the Stanley Cup final using a roster built in a cave with a box of scraps. (Iron Man reference.) But just to show it's no fluke, they've followed it up with a playoff appearance every season since then. Currently, they're in line to win the President's Trophy this season. This sort of goes beyond smoke and mirrors doesn't it? 

 

Season Lg Team GP W L T OL PTS PTS% SRS SOS Finish Playoffs Coaches Division Conference
2020-21 NHL Vegas Golden Knights 45 32 11   2 66 .733 0.96 -0.15 1st of 8   P. DeBoer (32-11-2) West  
2019-20 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 71 39 24   8 86 .606 0.21 -0.02 1st of 8 Lost NHL Conference Finals G. Gallant (24-19-6), P. DeBoer (15-5-2) Pacific Western
2018-19 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 82 43 32   7 93 .567 0.19 -0.04 3rd of 8 Lost NHL First Round G. Gallant (43-32-7) Pacific Western
2017-18 NHL Vegas Golden Knights* 82 51 24   7 109 .665 0.52 -0.01 1st of 8 Lost Stanley Cup Final G. Gallant (51-24-7) Pacific Western
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

League didn't want a team to struggle for 10+ years before they became competitive........that's what the Sabres are for :ph34r: 
So it found ways and gave the GM every opportunity to make it a 'ready to go out of the box' competitor.

And yes, credit the people running it to keep it that way.
For a time or two, it looked like it might all finally catch up to them, but ownership and management continue making sound decisions.

At first, I thought it was a sort of "cheating", but honestly, the more I thought about it, the LESS I wanted a modern day Ottawa Senators or Tampa Bay Lightning when they entered the league and were putrid and league laughing stocks for years.

Franchise really does seem to buy into the "complete team effort" mentality.
That way, the team doesn't necessarily need "superstar" players, but can still be competitive year after year if everyone who is there plays to their potential.

It is a proven model for staying competitive, although I guess one could argue it is still UNPROVEN to be a Cup winner as that has still eluded the franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember in a lot of interviews the people running things were talking about the benefits starting a new franchise had, one of which being that they weren't walking into an established culture and mindset. Methinks they brought sports psychologists in board to create a winning culture and attitude.

 

When they had success early on due to a variety of reasons (mentioned above) they kept this positive culture as the standard mindset. It could be argued that- as TFG mentioned- not having individual superstars but a generally good consistent team dynamic could very well feed positively into this, very often big egos make for a dismal team dynamic *cough*ErikKarlsson*cough*

 

Plus yeah, it makes sense the league would try to make the entry of the team as good as possible. Vegas spent $500m on their license, Seattle $600m. Add on stadium building and ask other costs associated with starting a new franchise and yikes I'd like assurances the team has a chance to put in the sort of games that people will want to see if I were spending that sort of cash

  • Good Post 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, guys, that Las Vegas, NV, a notorious transient location in the desert (we all know how well deserts and hockey go together :bigteeth:  ), whom many, myself included, had it tabbed to fail, HAD to work out.

If Vegas was a bust, it could have been disastrous all around for the league....the kind of disaster that would likely be felt for the next decade and damage the chances of other teams either relocating or coming into the league.
No ifs ands or buts about it....the Knights simply could not be the expansion Senators, Lightning, or Ducks.

And so the league structured things so that smart hockey people, which Vegas has, could take advantage and have the team hit the ice firing on all cylinders.

Seattle will be getting the same advantages...although I think this time, the Kraken may be a bit more challenged as veteran GM's, taken advantage before by Vegas on certain deals/players, will be more wary.
Still though, the NHL should have a competitive team in Seattle as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

No ifs ands or buts about it....the Knights simply could not be the expansion Senators, Lightning, or Ducks.

 

So basically, if the NHL is sure that hockey will succeed in a market, then they'll be okay with the team sucking (a team in Ottawa or Hamilton let's say) but if the team is in a location where people don't generally care about hockey then the league will bend over backwards to make it an instant winner? Seems like tampering to me. 🤔

 

Vegas could have started out like that, and I'd argue they should have, but the difference is between starting weak and staying weak. A team like the Coyotes has no excuse for being bad considering they were a relocation of a good Jets team. The Panthers started bad and generally stayed bad. The Lightning started bad and picked themselves up off the floor. The Senators did the same. It really comes down to proper management.  :) 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

So it found ways and gave the GM every opportunity to make it a 'ready to go out of the box' competitor.

 

I guess I'll be okay with this if the standard is upheld for ALL future expansion franchises and is not just a one-off for Vegas only.  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I guess I'll be okay with this if the standard is upheld for ALL future expansion franchises and is not just a one-off for Vegas only.  :) 

 

That's the thing...I think it WILL be.

To your other point about location dictating how much advantage a team is given:
I can see your viewpoint there, but I just think, as a whole, the NHL is "done" with old fashioned way of teams coming into the league... I.E. rostered by 3rd and 4th line rejects from other teams.

I would like to see the NHL scale back a bit for now on further expansion while we get the teams already here strong n stable, but if and when they do expand again after Seattle, I don't want to see 70's, 80's, or 90's style bottom of the barrel expansion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

and vegas as part of their expansion does not get raided by the Kracken this summer. only team not losing a player in rhe draft

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yave1964 said:

and vegas as part of their expansion does not get raided by the Kracken this summer. only team not losing a player in rhe draft

 

Of course...because Vegas, being the fledgling team they are, can't lose players and give too much advantage to established franchises such as the Sharks, Coyotes, and Ducks next year. :ph34r: 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

im surprised alot of teams dont look at vegas model and try to model after them, it's like they are stuck in their own ways.

 

i mean i think fans are so obsessed with rookies because they think they are going to change the franchise around but dont look on the other side of the coin that rookies can hit a wall and hurt you in the long run, i think that's why there's very little rookies on the vegas team because of that rookie wall and just have experienced players.

Edited by tucson83
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

i think that's why there's very little rookies on the vegas team because of that rookie wall and just have experienced players.

 

Vegas had the mid level guys just past rookies ready to break out if given the chance. From several different teams. And many did.

 

They put them in a situation where their goalie was a guy they grew up watching.

 

Some then took "longer than bridge" deals at maybe slightly higher compensation to keep it together.

 

Comparison for building might be something like Carolina adding a JDub or LA fleecing Homer. 😎

 

The key thing is not making the wrong decision on big money long term contracts.

 

*cough* Voracek *cough*

 

Which is why I want to see where Vegas is in the mid years of Pietrangelo. But that's 3-4 years away...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vegas is an attractive destination for free agents in addition to everything else people have posted. 

No state tax is one, so money goes further there.

Also, it is a fun place. Even if  you only go to the strip once in a while, it is vibrant city with great cuisine.

With the casinos there are always great entertainment options. 

Winning helps, but having those few built in advantages means your team doesn't show up in peoples "no go " modified NMC's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas is a unique destination. The nightlife, a growing city and surrounding suburbs...and the fact that the Golden Knights are THE team in Vegas, makes them a team that will sellout. Also, they didn't exactly get a bunch of scrubs to join their team. Vegas HAS TO SUCCEED, because another team within proximity of them, has not been successful since they arrived in Arizona. L.A. got Gretzky back in the day, and got on the map finally. Then, LA built a team with great goaltending decades later but they developed a fanbase.  These Vegas guys...going back their original team... can play, they were castoffs from their previous teams, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were reminded of that by Gerard Gallant, their former head coach. 

 

 

Edited by FD19372
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

Vegas is a unique destination. The nightlife, a growing city and surrounding suburbs...

 

Miami says "hi" and LA/Anaheim is on line two.

 

37 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

the Golden Knights are THE team in Vegas, makes them a team that will sellout.

 

The Vegas Raiders would like a word.

 

38 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

they were castoffs from their previous teams

 

There is no evidence their previous teams didn't want them.

 

The Flyers are likely to lose a player to Seattle they would rather keep in their system.

 

It's all part of the NHL's effort to avoid a team being a doormat in a new market.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, radoran said:

The Vegas Raiders would like a word.

Yeah, true. To me, they'll always be the Oakland Raiders. I thought that way, when they were in L.A. They will outearn the Golden Knights, because the NFL. However, the Golden Knights are Vegas's only pro team to ORIGINATE there. Maybe there's a soccer team or something...I don't follow it.

Edited by FD19372
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, radoran said:

It's all part of the NHL's effort to avoid a team being a doormat in a new market.

 

I could see that plan backfiring however because....... (here's my theory)..........

 

New franchises generally have a "honeymoon" period where fans are just happy that they have a franchise. That honeymoon usually lasts about 5-10 years before wearing off. At that point, the team either has to win to retain fans or things go bust.

 

Now, if you put a Stanley Cup level team on the ice from day one (as we saw in Colorado and are now seeing in Vegas) then your honeymoon period creates a generation of "spoiled" fans. You already had their money anyway just by having a new franchise during the honeymoon, but now you've given them a taste of what a champion looks like and now they "grow up" on the taste of a winning sports team. That means when the honeymoon period is over, and the winning streak comes to an end, the franchise is going to be hit with a DOUBLE WHAMMY. Fans will be put off by the losing and they'll be put off by the novelty of a new team wearing off at the same time.

 

If you look at what happened in Colorado, the fans were gifted a Stanley Cup champion. Their honeymoon period was filled with two championships (1996, 2001). Once the novelty wore off, there was no winning to sustain the fanbase (because it also finally wore off). The Av's had their run of success, but it came at the wrong time IMHO and you could see how badly the franchise was hurting financially until very recently. (They have a good team again now, but a few years ago they appeared to be a lost cause.)

 

Edited by WordsOfWisdom
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Their honeymoon period was filled with two championships (1996, 2001). Once the novelty wore off, there was no winning to sustain the fanbase (because it also finally wore off). The Av's had their run of success, but it came at the wrong time IMHO and you could see how badly the franchise was hurting financially until very recently. (They have a good team again now, but a few years ago they appeared to be a lost cause.)

 

So you're saying more fans pay to see a successful hockey team than do a perennially underachieving franchise? That there's more interest when a team is winning than when they're not?

 

You don't say.

 

Now, do Tronno next.

 

:5a6425fa25331_VikingSkoool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Now, if you put a Stanley Cup level team on the ice from day one (as we saw in Colorado

 

I would not consider the Avs a "true" expansion team as this team was essentially just a transfer from city to another.  The 94-95 Nordiques already had the likes of Sakic / Forsberg / Nolan / Foote and solid goaltending in Thibault and Fiset.  When they moved to Denver it was hardly a "build from scratch" team.  It was virtually the same team with the notable addition of Roy being traded from Montreal to the Avs.  The Avs were NEVER a build from scratch expansion like other NHL expansion teams.

 

Therefore your example with the Avs is incorrect, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

I would not consider the Avs a "true" expansion team as this team was essentially just a transfer from city to another.  The 94-95 Nordiques already had the likes of Sakic / Forsberg / Nolan / Foote and solid goaltending in Thibault and Fiset.  When they moved to Denver it was hardly a "build from scratch" team.  It was virtually the same team with the notable addition of Roy being traded from Montreal to the Avs.  The Avs were NEVER a build from scratch expansion like other NHL expansion teams.

 

Therefore your example with the Avs is incorrect, IMO.

Yeah, they were not an expansion team by any definition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Therefore your example with the Avs is incorrect, IMO.

 

For that matter, there was a "true expansion team" that came into the league in 1967 and then won two Cups within a decade.

 

They haven't won another Cup since, but have remained a Very Popular franchise among their fanbase.

 

Trying to remember the name... 🤔

 

:5a6425fa25331_VikingSkoool:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pilldoc said:

 

I would not consider the Avs a "true" expansion team as this team was essentially just a transfer from city to another.  The 94-95 Nordiques already had the likes of Sakic / Forsberg / Nolan / Foote and solid goaltending in Thibault and Fiset.  When they moved to Denver it was hardly a "build from scratch" team.  It was virtually the same team with the notable addition of Roy being traded from Montreal to the Avs.  The Avs were NEVER a build from scratch expansion like other NHL expansion teams.

 

Therefore your example with the Avs is incorrect, IMO.

 

True, but I'm using the example to show what happens when you gift fans in a new city with a championship calibre team from day one. So although the Av's were a relocation of an existing team and not a true expansion team, the comparison to Vegas is valid in that sense. 

 

  • Vegas was a team in a new city, Colorado was a team in a new city.
  • Vegas had instant success, Colorado had instant success.

 

(My comparison begins and ends there on those two points alone.)

 

It's like if I have a teenage son and I buy him a Ferrari for his 18th birthday. It doesn't matter whether I got the Ferrari through a trade-in, lease, or whether I bought the car in cash. What matters is that my teenage son got the Ferrari instead of a Camry and the comparison is not based on my acquisition of the product but on what the end result of that acquisition was. The comparison begins with the keys being handed to the teenage son, not with me at the dealership.  (Hopefully that makes sense.) I'm comparing fans in Vegas to fans in Colorado. I'm not comparing ownership in Vegas to ownership in Colorado. I'm comparing the end result, not the means to obtain it. :) 

Edited by WordsOfWisdom
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Yeah, they were not an expansion team by any definition.

 

See my car dealership analogy in the post above.  ^    :) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'm comparing fans in Vegas to fans in Colorado.

 

Fans in Colorado have come back as the team has improved. Certainly 10 years (08-09 through 16-17) of three playoff rounds and no playoff round wins isn't a recipe for financial success for many franchises.

 

The fans didn't "stop being fans"  - to use your analogy, they stopped paying for a Camry. When the Ferrari was back on offer, they got more invested.

 

Honestly, the only team in the league that doesn't have that problem is Tronno. Even in cities like New York and Philadelphia fans' attendance can drop - for example, it's really what cost Ron Hextall his job in Philadelphia.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

True, but I'm using the example to show what happens when you gift fans in a new city with a championship calibre team from day one. So although the Av's were a relocation of an existing team and not a true expansion team, the comparison to Vegas is valid in that sense.

 

You do realize you contradicted yourself ..right?  The NHL had nothing to do with the team moving.

 

The changing financial environment in the NHL made things even more difficult. In 1995, team owner Marcel Aubut asked for a bailout from Quebec's provincial government as well as a new publicly funded arena. The bailout fell through, and Aubut subsequently began talks with COMSAT Entertainment Group in Denver, which already owned the National Basketball Association (NBA)'s Denver Nuggets.

 

It is no different with many team transfers in the NBA or NFL ..... some teams move have a good solid team nucleus and others don't.   The Oakland Raiders moved from the City of Oakland to LA and then back to Oakland and now to Las Vegas. 

 

So are you going to complain about the Edmonton Oilers.  They moved from the WHA to the NHL in the late 70's when the WHA folded.  They had the great one on their team which lead to their Dynasty.   They too were not a TRUE expansion team.  

 

If you want to complain about Vegas ...go for it.  I just made a rebuttal against your example of the Avs.  You even admitted yourself it was not a true expansion.  New city sure ...but not the fault of the NHL.

 

EDIT ....just for clarification NOT every city has instant success upon a team moving cities.  Oh and just for clarification sake ...there WAS a NHL team in Colorado prior to the Avs mving in.  The Colorado Rockies (not to be confused with the MLB team) played in Colorado.

 

The Colorado Rockies were an American professional ice hockey team in the National Hockey League (NHL) that played in Denver from 1976 to 1982. They were founded as the Kansas City Scouts, an expansion team that began play in the NHL in the 1974–75 season. The Scouts moved from Kansas City, Missouri to Denver for the 1976–77 season. The franchise moved to New Jersey, for the 1982–83 season and was renamed as the New Jersey Devils. 

 

So in a sense the Colorado fans were not gifted anything as they paid their dues with a failed club from the 1970's .....

Edited by pilldoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...