Discussion in 'Toronto Maple Leafs' started by hockeywiz542, Sep 27, 2013.
This is stupid. Leafs have the second most cups wins in history... "All-Time" didn't start in the 70s.
Readers: GQ is the worst magazine of all-time.
When I'm looking for hard-hitting sports analysis, the first mag I think of is G ****ing Q.
All in all, 16th is a little better than I would have expected
In actuality, GQ is one of the worst magazines I've ever seen. Some of their articles on fashion, music, and yes, sports are just a level above tabloid mags in terms of journalism. I don't know if I've ever seen a group of obnoxious writers with a bigger superiority complex than the ones over at GQ.
All won when there were 6 teams in the league. I think we as Leafs fans should stop using this as some sort of pedestal. It has been almost 50 years.
Rob Tannenbaum is just another crappy US sportswriter making stuff up. It's just a trash bucket article to promote himself. I wonder if he just hates places that start with a C ... Canada , Cleveland, and Chicago. It's obvious to see why he is writing sports for GQ and not for any sports magazine.
Note: In my opinion, Chicago Cubs going 104 years without the pennant would top my list, but they do well financially.
then nothing else counts until it became the 30 team league we know today.
The article is clearly going more for laughs than serious analysis. I think it's ok.
yeah pretty much
the stanley cups that matter are the ones with 30 teams in the league
or when jets came in lol
So cups won in a 70 game schedule with the best 140 hockey players in the NHL should be valued less? As opposed to now with 740 odd players?
I'm confused about what you're asking. What point do the amount of players have? The amount of teams has changed so obviously there is going to be more players.
That Cups won when there was less competition (only 5 other teams) as opposed to now when there are 29 other teams are 'worth' less or were easier to obtain? Yes. They are.
Obviously the NHL has its history but the 'modern era' Leafs have not had quantifiable success (i.e. Cup wins, heck not even Cup appearances) in almost 50 years. The Ballard era was terrible, the Leafs haven't made the playoffs in a full season in a decade and there hasn't been any financial motive to really change that.
It was an admirable effort by Burke and now Nonis but until we start becoming perennial contenders, I don't think it's unfair to say that the Toronto Maple Leafs AS A HOCKEY TEAM are one of the worst franchises. 16th worst is probably fair, actually.
the talent pool is far more diluted now tho. kind of a dumb argument but if the nhl had only 6 teams still...those 6 teams would be very talented.
im probably looking thru it with blue and white coloured glasses, but i find it hard to call a team that by and large drive a league one of the worst.
i wasn't around for the ballard years, but the leafs were hit hardest after the league went to a cap system....so too would the yankees.
and yes leafs would have beaten montreal in 1993.
I thought GQ was like a fashion magazine LOL who cares?
Leafs have the 5th most titles out of the big 4 teams only behind the Habs, Yankees, Lakers and Celtics... far from the 16th worst franchise all time
I agree that winning a cup when there were 6 teams is easier but if you're going to act like they don't count then where do you draw the line? Should the Flyers cups from the 70s not count because there were less than 20 teams? There's also the fact that you still had to actually win the Stanley Cup... Even without a Cup in 45 years the Leafs still haven't been passed by the Wings, Bruins, Hawks or Rangers which just shows how dominant the Leafs and Habs were in that era.
lol and the Raptors are 15th. Man Toronto sports teams suck, but they don't have to sound so snide about it in that article.. Seems like that's all that was written just to bash Toronto. They made fun of the Jays in the Phillies article and they bashed Toronto again when they talked about the Bills.
GQ sucks. I bet the mouthbreather that wrote that hasn't even crossed the border before.
The Buffalo Bills are at #17, a team that has never won a Superbowl and last won a Championship in 1965.
The Pittsburgh Pirates are at #18, a team that about to finish above .500 for the first time since the early 1990's.
The Arizona Cardinals are at #19, a team that has relocated three times, has never won a Superbowl, and has won only two Championships (last being in 1947) despite being founded in 1898!
The St. Louis Blues are at #20, a team that has never won a Stanley Cup despite being in the league since 1968.
Can you really make an argument that these teams are better than the Leafs?
Can you really say that the Vancouver Canucks, a team founded in 1971 and who only got their first Hall of Famer last year, are a better franchise than the Leafs?
The Columbus Blue Jackets were founded in 2001 and have been in all but one playoff series.
The Atlanta Thrashers went to only one playoff series in their 12 year existence, only to be swept by the Rangers.
The Panthers have made the playoffs 4 times in their 20 year existence.
The list is a joke, plain and simple. The Leafs may not have been particularly successful over the last 40 years but many teams in the NHL, let alone all of sports, have been much, much worse.
I know this is a hockey board but there are other sports too. Look at the Sacramento Kings, Milwaukee Bucks, Golden State Warriors, Colorado Rockies, Seattle Mariners, Minnesota Twins, Miami Dolphins (sans Dan Marino), Tampa Bay Bucs.
Lots of other bad teams that weren't on that list that aren't NHL.
I think we were one of the best teams in the league in the 90s maybe even early 00s unfortunately we just couldn't make it all the way and when we had a legit shot at it Gretzky took out Gilmour so either way the Leafs have good history and up until the last decade the team has been good we just got stuck in the stone age for about 5 years until Burke arrived and started to right the ship. Regardless 16th worst SPORTS franchise...you must be kidding me, they said SPORTS not hockey. Look at the Jaguars, Browns, Lions, even my Raiders, thats just from the NFL and there is more. Lets go ahead and look at some of the other NHL teams as well. Florida, Phoenix(if they aren't #1 I don't even know what to think), Nashville. We could look at any number of soccer teams, baseball teams...article is just ridiculous and lets be honest ESPN and Sports Illustrated doesnt know jack about hockey why on earth would GQ? The fact this was even post worthy is beyond me.
Of all time? And between the Bills and the Raptor?
Only Habs fan should be allowed to use this much unwarranted hyperbole when ****ing on the Leafs.
I'd think Winnipeg would be on this. They will be in a few years. Underwhelming and poor team first time around, no difference the second time around.
isn't gq about fashion? why are they talking about sports lol
Leafs always rank low on lists like this. Which is understandable, I guess.
What's less understandable, though, is the purpose of these lists--which completely miss the point of what it means to be fan of a pro sports team.
The Leafs mean so much to so many people. Why should I care if some writer thinks they don't deliver enough bang for the buck or don't measure up on whatever hackneyed formula he's developed to measure the quality of a franchise?
Detroit, New York and Boston had as long as/longer droughts than the Leafs.....
Separate names with a comma.