Rank Original 6 teams' chances in playoffs

[Irishguy42]

Why is it unfair to the old Sens franchise? The moniker was never about the teams closest to the chronological start of the NHL.

It was all about the original franchises who survived the Great Depression and World Wars, and then they were the original teams as opposed to the first post-war expansion teams. There was the six expansion teams, and then the "original six" teams from before expansion.

The moniker wasn't even something discussed way back in the 40s and 50s, when they existed. And that's not a "relatively brief time" in league history. 25 years, a quarter of the leagues existence, is not "brief."

The original Sens franchise folded and didn't make it to the first NHL expansion. Hence, not an Original 6 team.

Don't see why this distinction is so difficult for people to grasp...

 

[Quarter]

Wasn't Pittsburgh the "Pirates" (yes, I know, just like the MLB team), or am I totally off? I'd doubt there was any connection between the two either way.

I guess I'm not emotionally tied to the sanctity of the "Original Six". It's a cool monicker. It includes my team. But it's just a catchy tagline for a relatively brief time in the league's history when those six teams were the NHL. Other teams came before and after.

They were. They spent four years in Pittsburgh then moved to Philadelphia and became the Quakers for one season before folding. They have no connection to the Penguins outside of playing in Pittsburgh.

No one is ignoring the history of the original Senators, but "Original Six" is a moniker used to recognize the six teams that survived the turbulent 1930s and early 1940s; nothing more than that. Ottawa can honour the original Senators all they want and lay claim to the history the team had in the early 20th century. Unfortunately they, to most, will go down as one of the casualties of the early NHL just like the Brooklyn Americans, Montreal Maroons, and Quebec Bulldogs.

 

[Lshap]

Why is it unfair to the old Sens franchise? The moniker was never about the teams closest to the chronological start of the NHL.

It was all about the original franchises who survived the Great Depression and World Wars, and then they were the original teams as opposed to the first post-war expansion teams. There was the six expansion teams, and then the "original six" teams from before expansion.

The moniker wasn't even something discussed way back in the 40s and 50s, when they existed. And that's not a "relatively brief time" in league history. 25 years, a quarter of the leagues existence, is not "brief."

The original Sens franchise folded and didn't make it to the first NHL expansion. Hence, not an Original 6 team.

Don't see why this distinction is so difficult for people to grasp...

Ironic that I'm defending the honour of the Sens.

I'm not really arguing that the Sens belong in the "Original Six" -- as you said, based on the term's definition, they don't. I'm saying the term itself is too 'clubby' for my taste. It's an arbitrary time period that's left little room for other franchises that came before. Ottawa's in a unique position -- they were resurrected in 92', but had a team for over a decade a century ago. No other team has that weird two-pronged history, where they were there at the beginning and end, but missed the middle part.

I realize the OP is specific to Original-Six teams, so technically you're right in that the Sens don't belong. I guess I'm just being sympathetic to Ottawa fans who've had to deal with the exclusive O6 club that snubs their history every time.

 

[Coach Parker]

Can I say the Bruins are the last team in the Metropolitan because they are a Metropolitan city? How about we call them a Cup contending team because they contended once?

Enough with the Original Six Ottawa nonsense. No one is talking about anything other than the teams branded the Original Six in the sixties before the expansion. This Ottawa Senators franchise has been around as long as the San Jose Sharks and been to as many finals as them as well.

 

[EdJovanovski]

1. NY Rangers
2. Chicago
3. Montreal
4. Boston
5. Toronto

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

1- Chicago
2- Montreal
3- New York
4- Boston
5- Toronto

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Hawks
Bruins
Habs
Rangers
Leafs

 

[LeeIs]

Chicago
NY
Montreal
Bruins
Leafs

 

[syz]

Chicago
Boston/Montreal/NYR tossup
Toronto

 

[Jyrki Lumme]

Taking their potential paths into account:

Chicago

Boston

Montreal
NYR
Leafs

Think Chicago is very good and one of two teams likely to come out of West. Boston is probably my 3rd favourite in the East after Washington and Pittsburgh.

Montreal, NYR, and the Leafs are just too flawed and I don't think any one of them stands much of a chance.

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

1- Chicago
2- Montreal
3- New York
4- Boston
5- Toronto

this guy gets it.

 

[Sam Pollock]

1. Chicago
2. Rangers
3. Montreal
4. Boston
5. Toronto

It wouldn't shock me if it was a Chicago/New York finals.

 

[DPJG]

Ironic that I'm defending the honour of the Sens.

I'm not really arguing that the Sens belong in the "Original Six" -- as you said, based on the term's definition, they don't. I'm saying the term itself is too 'clubby' for my taste. It's an arbitrary time period that's left little room for other franchises that came before. Ottawa's in a unique position -- they were resurrected in 92', but had a team for over a decade a century ago. No other team has that weird two-pronged history, where they were there at the beginning and end, but missed the middle part.

I realize the OP is specific to Original-Six teams, so technically you're right in that the Sens don't belong. I guess I'm just being sympathetic to Ottawa fans who've had to deal with the exclusive O6 club that snubs their history every time.

Just to be clear, the Sens have no actual legal relation to the previous Ottawa senators. People can pretend they do, but technically they don't. Similar to the Jets, except theoretically the old Jets could actually move back to Winnipeg and continue that timeline. The original senators franchise is dead though, so it is impossible.

 

[Jonas1235]

people sleeping on my Rangers. Incredible forwards, solid defense and great goalies. Raanta could come in and steal games if Lundqvist struggles. MTL has no insurance in goal a worse defense and inferior forwards.

 

[LarKing]

Detroit - 0% chance

 

[AKL]

Chicago

New York
Boston
Montreal

Toronto

 

[Martinez]

Detroit - 0% chance

11 cups. We can let the rest of the league catch up for a year. (Don't win it Montreal or Toronto, that would defeat the purpose)

 

[Scotty Pucks]

Call me old fashioned, but to me when it comes to this Ottawa/O6 debate, it's the icons that have stood the test of time (albeit with alterations over the years). The Canadiens' emblem. The Chicago Blackhawk. The Detroit Red Wing. The Rags' shield. The Bruins' B. The Maple Leafs'... maple leaf.

Icons donned on the fronts of our hockey founding fathers' sweaters during the Coolidge Years. Even beyond that, franchises that have stood the test of time.

Countless legends. Gordie. Bobby. Guy. Mess (and that infamous maniacal cackle he gave receiving the Cup in '94), etc.

Countless cups (The Canadiens in general, the Wings run til this year, the Hawks of present day).

Some of you reading this may be thinking "spare me", but as a fan of the game, how you can not at least show some appreciation towards the aura of the O6, even if you dislike them, is beyond me.