Kritter471
Registered User
The North Stars had a Cinderella Cup run right before they were moved, but over that whole stretch of pre-move years, they weren't that successful. They made a two-round deep run when they got to Dallas, but didn't emerge as a true powerhouse until the 1996/1997 seeason.
Plus, in terms of franchise success, a Cup is not the be all and end all of on-ice results. I'd argue, as a young franchise, it's much more important to win regular season games consistently and have at least decent playoff performances (a la San Jose, Dallas, Minnesota) than win one Cup out of the blue, then revert to struggling. A Cup is a great booster shot, but without consistent regular season performances, your casual fan base becomes alienated.
Now, to argue that there is a difference between the potentials of moved teams (half-way San Jose, which took a good chunk of the North Stars with them, Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix) and pure expansion teams (Atlanta, half-way San Jose, Anaheim, Minnesota, Columbus) is true. To argue that there's a difference to fans, however, is not.
Your average fan in a non-hockey market won't spend hours justifying that the Jackets are new, lack cohesion and chemistry, and that's why they sucked at the beginning. They're just going to think they suck. Same with a team like Colorado and Dallas (or on the other end, Phoenix). They don't care that the pieces were there before the teams moved or that the franchise was a wreck anyways, in terms of Winnipeg. All they care about it current results.
What I do love about the grades, however, is that Dallas got A+ results in all three categories but is ranked fourth. Uh... if they did/are doing the best they can possibly do in each category, why are they not at the top of the list?
Edit: Whoops, someone just pointed out it's a "year they came into the league" list. It's not specified there, and I totally didn't catch it. Disregard last paragraph then.
Plus, in terms of franchise success, a Cup is not the be all and end all of on-ice results. I'd argue, as a young franchise, it's much more important to win regular season games consistently and have at least decent playoff performances (a la San Jose, Dallas, Minnesota) than win one Cup out of the blue, then revert to struggling. A Cup is a great booster shot, but without consistent regular season performances, your casual fan base becomes alienated.
Now, to argue that there is a difference between the potentials of moved teams (half-way San Jose, which took a good chunk of the North Stars with them, Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix) and pure expansion teams (Atlanta, half-way San Jose, Anaheim, Minnesota, Columbus) is true. To argue that there's a difference to fans, however, is not.
Your average fan in a non-hockey market won't spend hours justifying that the Jackets are new, lack cohesion and chemistry, and that's why they sucked at the beginning. They're just going to think they suck. Same with a team like Colorado and Dallas (or on the other end, Phoenix). They don't care that the pieces were there before the teams moved or that the franchise was a wreck anyways, in terms of Winnipeg. All they care about it current results.
What I do love about the grades, however, is that Dallas got A+ results in all three categories but is ranked fourth. Uh... if they did/are doing the best they can possibly do in each category, why are they not at the top of the list?
Edit: Whoops, someone just pointed out it's a "year they came into the league" list. It's not specified there, and I totally didn't catch it. Disregard last paragraph then.
