Best Hockey Card Rookie Class Ever...90-91 or 05-06??

[Rorschach]

Man you guys are young.

Lindsay*-Ted Kennedy*-Howe*
Doug Bentley*-Maurice Richard*- Harry Watson*
Mosienko*-Edgar Laprade*-Geoffrion*
Mosdell-Delvecchio*-Bert Olmstead*


D:
Harvey*-Kelly*
Tom Johnson*-Stanley*
Butch Bouchard*-Fern Flaman*
Bill Quackenbush*

G
Sawchuk*
Lumley*
Rayner*


1951-52 Parkhurst

* = 21 of 22 Hall of Famers

I win. Thread over. Get off my lawn!

:devil:

Excellent post. :goal:

 

[Rraincock]

90/91 vote

Pros

90/91

- HOF-ers RC- Igor Larionov, Ed Belfour

- Could Be HOF-ers RC- Jeremy Roenick, Martin Brodeur, Mike Modano, Alex Mogilny, Mike Richter, Rod Brind'Amour, Rob Blake, Mark Recchi, Curtis Joseph, Mats Sundin, Derian Hatcher, Jaromir Jagr, Keith Primeau, Owen Nolan, Oleg Kolzig, Adam Graves, Felix Potvin, Scott Niedermayer, Trevor Kidd, , Sergei Fedorov, Pavel Bure, Olaf Kolzig, Eric Lindros, Tie Domi, Peter Bondra, etc


05/06

- Could be HOF-ers RC - Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, Ryan Getzlaf, Corey Perry, Ryan Suter, Johan Franzen, Thomas Vanek, Dion Phaneuf, Zach Parise, Brent Seabrook, Jimmy Howard, Henrik Lundqvist, Cam Ward, Duncan Keith, Pekke Renne, etc.

Cons

90/91

- Pseudo rookies - Igor Larionov, Sergei Makarov (Calder Winner) etc. Lots of the RC from this year could (and should) have been in the 1989/90... (Mike Modano, Mats Sundin, etc)

- Rookies that didn't get cards - Dominik Hasek, Valeri Konstantinov, Tony Amonte, Doug Weight, etc. that could have.

05/06

- Many of the good rookies should have been in a 04/05 set, had the season been played ... like Ovechkin (including a possible Malkin).

- New rules on RC meant that some players (Malkin!) could have had a RC but hadn't seen ice time... and so they couldn't. In that respect, you have to take the Brodeur and Lindros Score RC away from 90/91


Winner -------> 90/91




Perhaps the argument isn't who has the best RC's.... it is who's would you rather have? Superstars from a year that was printed in the bazillians or not? Sidney Crosby or Sergei Fedorov? Henrik Lundqvist or Martin Brodeur? Alex Ovechkin or Pavel Bure? Mike Green or Rob Blake? Perhaps this is the argument we should have!

 

[30ranfordfan]

100% correct.

05/06 in terms of hobby dollars.
90/91 in terms of impact at the nhl level

 

[sprague11]

Rookie card classes always look different (and often worse) after a few years have passed. Look at 99/00 when we were all blowing good money on Brendl, Kraft, etc. Even if everyone sticks in the NHL it's still a crapshoot. Only Marian Gaborik has retained his values from that red hot at thte time 00/01 Rookie Class.

I remember people complaining in 03/04 about - are you ready for this - how WEAK that rookie class was!

05/06 in terms of hobby dollars.
90/91 in terms of impact at the nhl level

In 5 years I could change my mind - It's easier to judge a players impact once he's retired. Lundquist could have 4 Vezina's, Crosby and Ovechkin could have a dozen Hart's between the two of them, and I would be laughing at myself for the above statement!

 

[krauts]

05/06 in terms of hobby dollars.
90/91 in terms of impact at the nhl level

I believe this is the determining factor, are we talking monetary or some other measurement of value ? And it seems to me that the hobby today has (degenerated to ?) become one where the former seems to be the most important thing. As a matter of fact when I read the question the first thing I thought was "90-91 ? that crap is worthless". Sad really.

But I think someone has provided a potential way out of having to consider this at all - 51-52 is the obvious choice. With the popularity of grading and the ridiculous sums paid for high-graded examples of these cards; and the fact that by virtue of the lack of prior issues the hobby considers most of them to be "RCs" even though some of the players had been around for awhile, it wins on both fronts. RCs of Rocket Richard, Doug Harvey, Milt Schmidt, Terry Sawchuk, Gordie Howe, Ted Kennedy and a host of other HOFers; it's not even close. And if you say that not all of them were true rookies that year well neither was Sid (or Ovie, can't remember which way it went for 05-06).

If the question were framed in terms of non-vintage or post-war I might also have voted for 03-04. Right now 05-06 wins in terms of value because of a few players but I think that in 10-15 years 03-04 may outshine it.

 

[gratzi]

I voted 05/06 because we are talking about hockey cards here. If the 90/91 had the same type of cards and value as 05/06 then it's a no brainer and 90/91 would win hands down.

 

[Rorschach]

Ok so first, by "best class of players on cards," although you can factor in hobby love by value, you can only do so using the economics of that time. Saying that a Patrick Eaves RC in The Cup is worth more in hobby dollars today than all of the sets made in 90-91 is an overly obvious statement as even a middle tier player's card is going to be worth $70+ in a product with a price point of $400.

That being said, here is my 05-06 RC team:

Forwards...LW-C-RW
Ovechkin - Crosby - Vanek
Penner - Getzlaf - Perry
Umberger - Richards - Carter
Parise - M. Koivu - Franzen

Defense...I didn't really pair them by LD or RD
Keith - Seabrook
Phaneuf - R. Whitney
Green - Bieksa
Greene (coulda been Meszaros but I'm a Kings homer)

Goalies
Lundqvist
Rinne
Ward

For extra fun, I kept lines together that maybe actually played together in real life.

Pretty good team. Back in 06-07, I often thought how deep that year was (the year of the center...Malkin and Kopitar, Kessel and Staal, plus Peter Stastny and more...) but then kept reminding myself that 05-06 was way deeper not only at center but every position. It would be fun to split the above squad into two teams, maybe East vs. West, to play each other...filling out the roster with other exceptional role players or other lesser stars who didn't make it like Filppula, Quincey, Eaves, etc. I may still do that...

- R

 

[Rorschach]

If the question were framed in terms of non-vintage or post-war I might also have voted for 03-04. Right now 05-06 wins in terms of value because of a few players but I think that in 10-15 years 03-04 may outshine it.

Vintage is a perfectly good answer and I even complimented the poster for suggesting that year...and I deliberately included the possibility by leaving the third "none of the above" choice. I don't collect vintage but I do respect old time hockey a lot. So that was a nice post about the Parkhurst set, at least for me.

But if you want to talk about modern times, put a 03-04 team together and post it like the poster who mentioned 07-08.

- R

 

[Rorschach]

I voted 05/06 because we are talking about hockey cards here. If the 90/91 had the same type of cards and value as 05/06 then it's a no brainer and 90/91 would win hands down.

Yeah, the latter is the answer to my question.

 

[Rorschach]

My 90-91 team...or teams...

I believe it's 90-91, so much so that I split the pool into three squads. North American, Soviet and finally European (non-USSR), although it's arguable that most of the countries the best players came from had Soviet dominated-governments...in this case we're just talking country borders.

First, Euro team! (Any name with a ? next to it means I'm not sure if it's their RC year...I need to get myself a new Beckett yearbook. I did scan through my 89-90 OPC set though)

Forwards...LW - C - RW
Jagr - Sundin - Bondra
Gelinas - Reichel - Nedved
Garpenlov - Ruzicka - Holik
Volek - Hrdina - M. Andersson

Defensemen...again, not paying attention to LD or RD
Kucera - Plavsic
Albelin - Baca
Latal - Djoos
Horava

Goalies
Kolzig
Myllys

So the defense is weak and we're thin at goaltending...I guess this team just keeps the puck in your zone all day?

- R

 

[Rorschach]

90-91 Soviet team!

Forwards:
Larionov - Makarov - Krutov
Mogilny - Fedorov - Bure
Kamensky - Khristich - Nemchinov
Davydov - Semenov - Lomakin

Defensemen:
Fetisov - Kasatonov
Konstantinov - Tatarinov
Kuznetzov - Mironov
Smirnov

Goalies:
Irbe
Mikhailovsky
Mylnikov

Again, like the Euro team, thin on goaltending, but the rest of this team has legs.

- R

 

[Rorschach]

Finally the 90-91 North American team:
Stevens - Lindros - Nolan
Graves - Roenick - J. Murphy
Primeau - Modano - Recchi
Brind'Amour - Ricci - Matteau

Defensemen:
Niedermayer - D. Hatcher
Blake - Sydor
Schneider - Desjardins
Galley

Goalies:
Brodeur
Joseph
Richter

Wow, Belfour doesn't even make the team! This would be a tough team to play against...it may not have the skill on forward as the Euro or Soviet teams would although it certainly could beat the other team into submission, physically. But all of that skill on defense...yikes.

- R

 

[Stadium Sports]

Hockey card wise, 51/52 Parkies are the top hockey RC card set.

Imagine now if you have 8's or 9's in that set???? OMG, what if you had 9.5's or 10's.

They would surpass any 05/06 set $$$ wise. And would be rare as hell at those grades.

as for talent wise of 90/91 or 05/06 - 90/91 is the proven winner.

 

[krauts]

Vintage is a perfectly good answer and I even complimented the poster for suggesting that year...and I deliberately included the possibility by leaving the third "none of the above" choice. I don't collect vintage but I do respect old time hockey a lot. So that was a nice post about the Parkhurst set, at least for me.

But if you want to talk about modern times, put a 03-04 team together and post it like the poster who mentioned 07-08.

- R

I could but it wouldn't measure up to 05-06. My mistake was in confusing the best rookie class (maybe ever ?) with the best rookie card class; I had forgotten how many of the 03-04 year did not get their cards until later so my bad.

2003-04 is still pretty good though - Bergeron, Staal, Horton, Semin, Kesler, Dustin Brown, Derek Roy; Brent Burns, Pitkanen, Kronwall, Gleason, Martin; Lehtonen and Fleury. Could make a decent team there. But not a great deal of hobby love.

 

[Rorschach]

I could but it wouldn't measure up to 05-06. My mistake was in confusing the best rookie class (maybe ever ?) with the best rookie card class; I had forgotten how many of the 03-04 year did not get their cards until later so my bad.

2003-04 is still pretty good though - Bergeron, Staal, Horton, Semin, Kesler, Dustin Brown, Derek Roy; Brent Burns, Pitkanen, Kronwall, Gleason, Martin; Lehtonen and Fleury. Could make a decent team there. But not a great deal of hobby love.

It makes sense the 03-04 is the best NHL rookie class ever because it's the season that comes after the best draft maybe ever. That draft also fuels the 05-06 hockey card RC class.

- R

 

[Rorschach]

Hockey card wise, 51/52 Parkies are the top hockey RC card set.

Imagine now if you have 8's or 9's in that set???? OMG, what if you had 9.5's or 10's.

They would surpass any 05/06 set $$$ wise. And would be rare as hell at those grades.

as for tallent wise - 90/91 is the proven winner.

Another good answer.

As for my original question, I'm definitely referring to talent-wise. I can't go by value since it's different times in the hobby, different eras.

So maybe talent-wise, it's:
1) 90-91
2) 51-52
3) 05-06

You know what maybe would make a good follow-up post/poll? If those are the top three, no matter the order, what is the 4th best?

- R

 

[krauts]

You know what maybe would make a good follow-up post/poll? If those are the top three, no matter the order, what is the 4th best?

- R

1984-85 definite contender for that one, used to love busting packs of that stuff:

Steve Yzerman
Cam Neely
Doug Gilmour
Pat Lafontaine
Dave Andreychuk
Dave Poulin
Gary Leeman
Hakan Loob
Ron Sutter

Chris Chelios
James Patrick
Jamie Macoun

Tom Barrasso
Steve Penney

 

[Rorschach]

1984-85 definite contender for that one, used to love busting packs of that stuff:

Steve Yzerman
Cam Neely
Doug Gilmour
Pat Lafontaine
Dave Andreychuk
Dave Poulin
Gary Leeman
Hakan Loob
Ron Sutter

Chris Chelios
James Patrick
Jamie Macoun

Tom Barrasso
Steve Penney

Maybe the best OPC set RC class ever, in the long history of OPC. Some other notables:
Sylvain Turgeon LW
Pat Verbeek C
Dan Quinn C

 

[Yipper]

Hobby Value Wise - Hands down 05-06. Still is up to this point.

Rookies doing well and turning out as stars 90-91. But arguable?


To be honest, if you aren't comparing hobby value, but instead as pure talent, who really knows? The NHL was much easier back in the 90s. Skating around people like pylons, scoring from center ice, going five-hole while a goalie is standing? Doesn't exist today or just maybe once in a blue moon. Athletes should be compared to those of their time. You can't compare one generation to another. Frankly, I don't think any, or at least the majority of them from 90-91, will do well in the modern era. Athletes are that much better now.

Imagine putting an Ovechkin (when he was a rookie) in 90-91... he'll run through everyone like dominos and score 80+ goals. Same with a big Perry or Getzlaf.

Lol, imagine doing the opposite and putting the 90-91 class into the modern NHL, they'll turn out average at best. They are a lot smaller.

Athletes get better over time, so does the game. They are only good during their own generation.

 

[forsberg21]

Hobby Value Wise - Hands down 05-06. Still is up to this point.

Rookies doing well and turning out as stars 90-91. But arguable?


To be honest, if you aren't comparing hobby value, but instead as pure talent, who really knows? The NHL was much easier back in the 90s. Skating around people like pylons, scoring from center ice, going five-hole while a goalie is standing? Doesn't exist today or just maybe once in a blue moon. Athletes should be compared to those of their time. You can't compare one generation to another. Frankly, I don't think any, or at least the majority of them from 90-91, will do well in the modern era. Athletes are that much better now.

Imagine putting an Ovechkin (when he was a rookie) in 90-91... he'll run through everyone like dominos and score 80+ goals. Same with a big Perry or Getzlaf.

Lol, imagine doing the opposite and putting the 90-91 class into the modern NHL, they'll turn out average at best. They are a lot smaller.

Athletes get better over time, so does the game. They are only good during their own generation.

Did you even look at the stars from 90-91? Jagr, Fedorov, Lindros, Bure, Sundin, Modano... They were all pretty darn good even post lockout. Insert any one of those top stars in their prime with today's training and nutrition and they'd be just fine...