What grade you would give to Columbus Blue Jackets first 20 seasons in the NHL?

[PettersonHughes]

Only things keeping it from being an F in my books is that they survived this long. I bumped them to a D because they had those couple years of hope (beating Tampa). Otherwise, it's a pretty low grade.

Agreed with this, and about the first decade being awful (besides Nash/ Voracek). Was going to use recency bias and say that I liked this team which had its moments against teams like TB and a supposed contender in Toronto, but then they go and piss off the #1 C that fit their mold so well and shipped him off for a struggling Laine, and now they might need to rebuild again.

I'll be nice and not give an F, but it's pretty close since they're sinking back down again and their recent moves (Domi, Laine) look like duds (kudos for finding Seth Jones for RyJo and getting Roslovic as a throw-in though, and Kekalainen is pretty good at drafting, so there's some building blocks there).

 

[The Macho King]

D but if you want to give them an F I wouldn't criticize.

Got two major individual trophies (by one player), a Rocket, and one playoff win. I don't think they've ever won the division or come particularly close. They've become one of those "hard to play against" teams that are all sound and fury but don't have the talent to compete against the top of the league.

It's not good and it isn't exactly looking up going forward.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I gave them a C-. I would’ve gone D, but their expansion draft options were pretty rough and they truly had to start from the very bottom. Had the misfortune of picking relatively high in a few weaker drafts early on.

 

[Cricket Green]

1 playoff series win? I'm only going with "D-" because it was a historic upset.

 

[King K Rool]

They had the best first playoff series win of any franchise, so there's that at least.

 

[North Cole]

C or C+ due to the last few years. I'm willing to give them a pass for the early bit of the franchise since the early success of the most recent XF is an outlier, so it's tough to judge older XFs through the same lens IMO.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Always had a soft spot for Columbus and their fans since the sold out Nationwide arena cheered their team loud as ever when the Bruins knocked them out in game 6.

With that said, things have clearly taken a turn for the worst since then, but I hope this rebuild/re-tool/bounce back year they're planning for (whichever it is) goes well.

I give it a D though. Not great

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I judge franchises on a combination of a]success and b]how close they are to having success. The former is about actual series wins/Cups/high finishes in the division, the latter is about maybe a young team that's on the brink of being a contender.

IMO, Columbus has largely failed at both. They haven't had any team success (getting out of the first round 1 time in franchise history is really bad), and looking at their roster they're not exactly looking like a rebuilding team that's got a handful of elite blue chip prospects that will turn them into a contender within the next 3 to 4 seasons.

So while they haven't been horrifically bad enough to warrant an F, I'd say they haven't had enough success over that timeframe to be more than a D.

 

[bossram]

D- because they still exist. Basically no-on ice success and not really an upward trajectory.

They avoid an F because they haven't folded yet.

 

[Mobiandi]

I initially voted F but I think that's too harsh. They get a D because at least they've tried to push the chips in and go for it rather than plodding along pointlessly like the Wild

 

[Hockeyholic]

C. Average. They could've been better. But it could've been worse.

They've been better than traditional franchises like Toronto & Edmonton. Specifically from 2006 onward.

 

[majormajor]

C. Average. They could've been better. But it could've been worse.

They've been better than traditional franchises like Toronto & Edmonton. Specifically from 2006 onward.

Well yeah, the only legit reason they get an awful grade is being an awful team pre ~2007. They look better and better the further you start looking. They're 11th in wins leaguewide over the last 5 seasons. Not much of a story there.

 

[BruinsBtn]

I don't think people realize how close Columbus was in the past two years. They ran into some very, very good playoff opponents. That sweep of Tampa wasn't a fluke and they were dead even with Boston except Rask outplayed Bobrovski.

Last year Tampa was so dialed in, no one was going to beat them and it still took an insane OT win to break Columbus.

As for the first 5-7 years, I give them a pass because the expansion rules were brutal.

 

[McGarnagle]

I said C-. They've never been an Oilers/Buffaloesque dumpster fire, but never been a contender either. They've been overall below average. Better the last few years until this season, but through 20 years not great. Very bland, never terribly exciting, the uniforms are boilerplate average, don't stand out. Columbus isn't the most happening town in North America either. Overall, below average, but not that far off. C- is fair to me.

Over the twenty years, the Blue Jackets franchise really only gave us two things of note: 1. Being the reason nets went up around the glass so we can't catch pucks anymore and 2. The Tampa upset (their crowning moment as a franchise)
.

 

[JoVel]

One series win in 20 years, that's a D from me.

 

[SotasicA]

On the ice, maybe D.

But they've managed to make NHL hockey possible in Columbus, keep the team in there while tripling the value of the franchise. I do think they've been losing money most their years, but that's still like a B+ performance, all things considered. Way better than what their contemporaries the Atlanta Thrashers did.