A team doesn't post the best season in history without being a legit contender. It's pretty well agreed that there's a good chunk of good fortune involved in winning a Stanley Cup. With that being the case its hard to discredit teams that have good seasons for not winning it all. You can fall short and still be a very good team, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
You got that one in before the thread closed. I'd rather not continue this pointless arguing in circles but I'll say the below and will call it a day on my end.
The bolded aren't the same. Honestly I don't know too many fans that are impressed with winning in the first round in the playoffs (maybe Leafs fans), but it's generally viewed that a legit contender doesn't have a first round exit to a Wild Card team, regardless of how far that WC team goes. The Panthers were a very good team last year that ran out of gas against a very good Vegas team that did have a lot of luck to win it all, I do agree that luck is involved. So perhaps the Bruins would have made the finals if they made it past the Panthers. However, them choking that series lead doesn't really help inspire confidence.
In any case, if the Canucks dominate the playoffs with some scrubs shooting the lights out and Demko continuing to be Hasek, then they are the exception to normalizing averages and deserve praise for defying all odds and expected reality, and I will tip my hat to them.
For the sake of argument, that Bruins team was much more convincing than the Canucks who are riding crazy unsustainable stats.