Which franchise has "failed" the most: Toronto, St.Louis, Buffalo, or Vancouver?

[streitz]

Hartford/Carolina.

I was gonna guess the penguins, that's pretty impressive considering they've been in the league since 79-80 though.

 

[Hasbro]

Rangers. One cup since Hitler.

In fairness he resigned as coach right after they won.

 

[crobro]

Through all of the Leafs years of futility they only had two number 1 overall draft picks

Canucks have never had 1st overall ever

 

[crobro]

Add to all that some putrid ownership groups as well. Didn't send anyone to the ...what 82? 83? draft?

Mike Keenan alienating Gretzky and Hull....the Pronger debacle, the Gilmour debacle, the smoke around the Shanahan/Stevens tampering.

Its uh....its been interesting...to say the least.

Don’t forget the mishandling of Adam Oates and the petr Nedved disaster

 

[VanIslander]

... if I could go off the board my vote would be Columbus, few playoff appearances and even fewer wins, or the OG Jets, now in Arizona, with a seemingly improved game but still a history of disuse.

Indeed.

 

[Jumptheshark]

If they have made the finals in the last 45 years they have not failed and should not be on the list

 

[Leaf Fans]

If they have made the finals in the last 45 years they have not failed and should not be on the list

Why 45? Not 46 or 50 or 52? Why the 1967 expansion? Not later? Not earlier? Why the finals! They didn't win. It is ridiculous agument that claims that we are better because we lost at a later date than you.

 

[Killion]

Team	Last Stanley Cup	Stanley Cup drought
Toronto Maple Leafs	1966–67	50 seasons
St. Louis Blues	never (inception of franchise in 1967–68)	50 seasons
Buffalo Sabres	never (inception of franchise in 1970–71)	47 seasons
Vancouver Canucks	never (inception of franchise in 1970–71)	47 seasons

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There are other standards beside championships that we could mention (like Florida's not having won a playoff series for 22 years!), but the four franchises shown above have the longest span of Cup-less years.

Just for fun -- and of course longtime fans of those teams should chip in -- which of the four franchises above do you think has "failed" (however you want to interpret it) the most?

It's a funny thing: maybe from the Canadian perspective, while Toronto and Vancouver are often noted as franchises with playoff or franchise failures, we don't usually think of Buffalo or St.Louis as having failed, but in fact their Cup-less runs of a half-century are becoming remarkable.

Which one has failed its fanbase the most?

I think I would tend to name Toronto as the biggest failure, in the sense that they have the world's #1 hockey market and all kinds of resources, but since Toronto has won several championships before expansion, isn't it more accurate to name another franchise? Ignoring pre-1967, however, the Leafs don't look too good. Not once from 1967 to 1999 (32 years) did they manage a .600 regular season. And unlike St.Louis, Buffalo, and Vancouver, the Leafs since '67 have never made it to the Finals.

Or, maybe the winner here is St.Louis, because 50 seasons without a Cup. But St.Louis was the best of the early expansion teams (three Finals' trips), and made the playoffs every year from 1980 to 2004 inclusive. They've also been quite competitive much of the past six or seven years.

Buffalo had its successes from the mid-70s to early-80s, and then the Hasek-backed team made the Finals in 1999. Since 2001, the Sabres have made the playoffs only 4 times in 16 seasons -- but prior to that, they'd missed only 3 times in 27 years.

Despite their unlikely '82 Finals run, Vancouver were probably never in championship contention for the franchise's first 21 seasons. But since 1991-92, they've had a lot of good years ('94 and '11 Finalists, five 1st-place seasons in a row from '09 to '13).


What do you think?

Of course there are other factors, criteria one could apply (ftanchise's financial stability, attendance & so on) however youve narrowed it down to performance, Cup wins & or Finals appearances ergo why youve included the Leafs on the list. Despite the decades of Maple Leaf Gardens & ACC sellouts, the Leafs by far the most valuable franchise in the NHL so really the most successful despite the swoons, bottoming out, with the resources to build a winner even with the Cap (no Cap on off-ice personnel & thus intelligence, Scouting, Coaching etc) so ya..... I'd go with Toronto.

The other 3 clubs you include have all been touch & go with serious off-ice financial difficulties, their very existence in the cases of St.Louis & Buffalo on multiple occasions, Vancouver a couple of times. So really Toronto doesnt have any excuses however when youve got an owner like Harold Ballard running the show for near on 25yrs out of that 50, with bean counters & lawyers, Pension Funder's & Lawyers locked in an internecine war over control & management creating a mess of dysfunction... and despite the current optimism... Marriage made in Hell between Rogers & Bell..... might wanna be stocking up on the Kleenex, Hazmat Teams on Standby Leaf Fans. So from a purely "performance" based perspective, Tronna, my olde Hometown, Team.

Honorable Mentions also go to the aforementioned Sad Sack Blue Jackets, the Coyotes.... the now defunct Thrashers amongst others now resting in the Graveyards of franchises & dreams gone bad.

 

[dr robbie]

You have to remember that the Blues only made the finals in their first three years because the playoff format was designed to have one of the expansion teams make the Finals. They were the best of the crap that was added to the league in that expansion, which shouldn't mean much. Even though they made the Finals, they got swept EVERY SINGLE TIME. Not a single Finals win, because those teams weren't that good. It was just a system to make them look like a Cup possibility only to get destroyed by actual good teams. Those Finals appearances shouldn't be used to boost the "success" of the franchise.

I live in St. Louis and it's a joke for people to say that "next year is the year" for the Blues only because everyone knows how mediocre the team is. They are perpetual failures. They can land good players. They can sometimes do well in the regular season. But, as soon as the pressure of the playoffs comes on them, they fold.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

You have to remember that the Blues only made the finals in their first three years because the playoff format was designed to have one of the expansion teams make the Finals. They were the best of the CRAP (emphasis mine- because it deserves emphasizing) that was added to the league in that expansion, which shouldn't mean much.

If ANY-freaking-thing.

Nothing is more futile than "never," and there's one clear-cut longest "never" on the board here- it's St Louis.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

St. Louis can never be accused of icing bad rosters for an extended period of time. Outside of a few bad years that every franchise has, they've at least generally been competitive. There was at least a reason to go to the rink or turn on the TV almost every year for half a century. I think that counts for something.

Toronto was atrocious for over a decade in the 80's up to the early 90's. And not much better from 2006 up until a couple years ago. Vancouver was a total non-factor for the first 20 years of their existence outside of one surprise playoff run. Buffalo has been bad for the better part of 20 years now except those two great seasons with Briere and Drury.

Toronto wins this, if post-1967 is the time period in question. 1993 and 1994 are probably the only years in the last half century where you would even think the Leafs had a serious chance to win the Cup. Buffalo had the mid and late 70's, a couple deep runs with Hasek, and those Briere/Drury teams. Vancouver had Bure/Linden teams at the same time as the Gilmour Leafs, plus the Sedin peak years where they threatened. St. Louis had strong teams in the late 90's up to the lockout where they were a secondary contender, and not too dis-similar in recent years. For all the resources the Maple Leafs have had at their disposal, there's no excuse to be a non-contender for 50 years almost without exception.

 

[Killion]

Toronto wins this...

Based on the op's criteria, yeah. They do. Ballard squandered the inheritance, foundations pit in place & built up over 3.5-4 decades by Conn Smythe & Company for nearly 25yrs. And of course what followed, Stavros, under the Teachers Pension Fund, Rogers & Bell equally dysfunctional, schizophrenic.

 

[Thenameless]

I would have to say that it's the Leafs, and there is a very good reason for this. I believe there to be two "Mecca's of Hockey" - Toronto and Montreal. Montreal has had to overcome cultural adversity and has developed a winning tradition, in order to gain its status. Toronto, on the other hand, is the "Centre of the Universe" in Canada. Toronto has the largest population, has the Hockey Hall of Fame, the CBC, and a big, loyal fanbase throughout the nation. They may have had poor quality of ownership during the Ballard era, but they have the same advantages that the New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, and Los Angeles Lakers have had in their respective sports. A lot of players grow up dreaming of playing for those teams, and I think the Leafs should have been able to leverage this advantage better throughout their history - kind of like we're witnessing now, with Tavares eschewing other offers in order to play out his childhood dream.

So, when comparing Toronto, St. Louis, Buffalo, and Vancouver, I would have to say that Toronto has "failed" the most, because those other three teams don't have nearly the same potential advantages to capitalize on.

 

[goss19]

Canucks are the only one of these teams who have lost in SCF Game 7..........and they did it twice!

 

[Zegras Zebra]

If we are going strictly based on "on ice performance" ignoring issues such as ownership, attendance, progressive management, etc. the franchise that in my definition failed the most is St. Louis.

The Blues are worthy of their name because they were more consistently good since 1967 than the other franchises and thus had the better opportunities to win a Stanley Cup. It goes without saying St. Louis's first three SCF appearances don't really mean much because it was clear they were going to get crushed by the established NHL teams they met in the final. 26 straight playoff appearances from the 1980's to the second lockout, surely there should have been a window there? Not during most of the 1980's where Calgary and Edmonton would have easily disposed of them in the Conference Final. During the late 1990's early 2000's I would say they were in the same boat as the Dallas Stars, a good team but had to go through Detroit and Colorado if they wanted a shot at the Stanley Cup. Frankly they should have won a Cup between 1996 and 2002. After the lockout they were bad for a while, then became a consistent playoff team but with little hope of actually winning the Stanley Cup. Even if they beat San Jose in 2016, I doubt they could have taken Pittsburgh.

Buffalo had 4 good chances in 1975, 1999, 2006, and 2007. I don't see a situation where they beat Philly, they got robbed in 1999, 2006 if it weren't for poor timing of injuries they would have won, and in 2007 I don't think they beat Anaheim. No really great long-term window for the franchise.

Vancouver arguably had the best overall individual team from each of these franchises and should have won in 2011, but had a poor final. 1982 and 1994 I think they were happy to be there and otherwise have been mediocre to poor.

Toronto basically had the entire 1970's and 1980's wiped out by the Ballard era. 1993 and 1994 were good opportunities, so was the Sundin/ Joseph era teams between 1998 to about 2003 where they should have at least made a SCF. THey have had some spectacular playoff failures afterwards, but currently have the best shot at ending their drought right now. If you want to include factors such as bad ownership and management the Leafs would win, but strictly on missed opportunities it's the St. Louis Blues.

 

[The Panther]

If we are going strictly based on "on ice performance" ignoring issues such as ownership, attendance, progressive management, etc. the franchise that in my definition failed the most is St. Louis.

The Blues are worthy of their name because they were more consistently good since 1967 than the other franchises and thus had the better opportunities to win a Stanley Cup. It goes without saying St. Louis's first three SCF appearances don't really mean much because it was clear they were going to get crushed by the established NHL teams they met in the final. 26 straight playoff appearances from the 1980's to the second lockout, surely there should have been a window there? Not during most of the 1980's where Calgary and Edmonton would have easily disposed of them in the Conference Final. During the late 1990's early 2000's I would say they were in the same boat as the Dallas Stars, a good team but had to go through Detroit and Colorado if they wanted a shot at the Stanley Cup. Frankly they should have won a Cup between 1996 and 2002. After the lockout they were bad for a while, then became a consistent playoff team but with little hope of actually winning the Stanley Cup. Even if they beat San Jose in 2016, I doubt they could have taken Pittsburgh.

Buffalo had 4 good chances in 1975, 1999, 2006, and 2007. I don't see a situation where they beat Philly, they got robbed in 1999, 2006 if it weren't for poor timing of injuries they would have won, and in 2007 I don't think they beat Anaheim. No really great long-term window for the franchise.

Vancouver arguably had the best overall individual team from each of these franchises and should have won in 2011, but had a poor final. 1982 and 1994 I think they were happy to be there and otherwise have been mediocre to poor.

Toronto basically had the entire 1970's and 1980's wiped out by the Ballard era. 1993 and 1994 were good opportunities, so was the Sundin/ Joseph era teams between 1998 to about 2003 where they should have at least made a SCF. THey have had some spectacular playoff failures afterwards, but currently have the best shot at ending their drought right now. If you want to include factors such as bad ownership and management the Leafs would win, but strictly on missed opportunities it's the St. Louis Blues.

Nice post.

You mention the Oilers/Flames would have taken the Blues down "easily" in the 1980s -- that's true of several years, but remember in '86 the Blues took Calgary to game 7, so they at least had a shot. I actually think the Blues probably cost Calgary the 1986 Stanley Cup (to their credit). If the Flames hadn't blown a 5-2 lead with 12 minutes to go in the third period in game six (as they did), then they go back to Calgary and get a few days' rest before the Finals start. Instead, they blow that lead, have to go home and get ready for game 7, win it (barely), and then they have one day to get ready for the Finals against Montreal. After two seven-game series in a row, the Flames were gassed and lost their legs in the second period of game two.

So, the Blues at least had influence on the Finals, though they weren't making it themselves!

 

[Normand Lacombe]

Another issue, in my opinion, is Toronto's poor talent evaluation in the draft. Looking at their 1st round picks since 1990, the year Ballard died, names such as Drake Berehowsky, Jeff Ware, Brandon Convery and Luca Cereda litter the list. When the Leafs get the pick right, like Rask and Steen, they trade them and they flourish elsewhere. It seems whenever the Leafs trade their 1st rounder, the pick ends up being a Niedermayer or a Luongo. To Toronto's credit, they have done a much better job emphasizing player evaluation and development over the last several years, while also exhibiting more patience with young players.

 

[The Panther]

Wow, thread bumped! I note some people saying St.Louis never had a really bad period, but weren't the Blues pretty much crappy for almost the entire 70s?

 

[sr edler]

Blues had a great team going on in the early 90s but blew it with some highly questionable trades/signings. First they throw away most of their secondary scoring (Ronning, Courtnall) and Brett Hull's gritty bodyguard (Momesso) for Garth Butcher and Dan Quinn. Then they sign Shanahan which costs them Scott Stevens. Brind'Amour is thrown out for Murray Baron and Ron Sutter. Then they trade Oates for Janney and Quintal. Then they want Gunslinger Nedved for some reason and throw away a couple of nice players (Hedican, Brown, Lafayette) for a player who goes on to play 23 games for the team. Later in the 90s they acquire Gretzky when it's obvious he's not Gretzky anymore, to play with Brett Hull who's really not Brett Hull anymore.

Ron Caron had a lot of things going on there, ....

Canucks have never had 1st overall ever

In 99 they effectively had both the 1st and the 2nd overall pick, and in a draft where the players picked thereafter (except Havlat and a few late round exceptions like Zetterberg) sucked donkeys ass.

 

[FerrisRox]

It's not the Leafs, that's for sure.
I mean, people saying the Leafs are forgetting their owner, Harold Ballard, essentially pillaged the team, traded players out of spite, alienated entertainers and made no effort whatsoever to improve the franchise?
These are not normal circumstances.

Who did Harold Ballard trade "out of spite?"

If you think the Leafs were lousy because Harold Ballard traded guys "out of spite" you are manufacturing an alternative narrative to what really happened.

Punch Imlach, in his second stint as the team's GM moved Lanny McDonald in a questionable deal in order to send a message to the locker room and to undermine Darryl Sittler, who had a no trade clause.

But after Imlach suffered a heart attack and Ballard stepped in as General Manager, it was Ballard who mended the broken relationship with Sittler and kept him on as the teams captain for the 1981 season.

Ultimately, during the 1981-82 season, Sittler approached Ballard and told him he would waive his no-trade clause if a deal could be worked out with the Flyers or the North Stars.

Who are the players you think that Ballard traded out of spite?

 

[82Ninety42011]

Leafs by a mile considering their history and size of fan base. The others fans have seen pain as well but Toronto being Hogtown will always win this vote. It's crazy they haven't even been to final in 50 years wow. I remember the Gilmour led team they had heart was rooting for them being a Canucks fan myself I've had heart broken twice. 82 doesn't count even though great run and made me a fan they had no chance. Sabres were robbed by Hull winner with foot in crease that shouldn't have counted either. Blues though regular season great playoff runs haven't ever been expected to win in playoffs since i've watched. My vote Leafs-Canucks-Sabres-Blues

Edit my voting is playoff failures or disappointments.

 

[HawkNut]

I'd go with the Blues or Leafs.

The Canucks may never have won it, but have been to the Finals twice and had a seventh game twice. One of those came earlier this decade. They also went to the playoffs often between those two Game 7 Finals appearances.

Buffalo also has never won it. It's notable they went to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2006 and 2007, and finally appear to be trending upward, though much work still needs to be done.

The two biggest failures here are the Maple Leafs and Blues.

The Blues have never won the Stanley Cup. They haven't made it to the Finals in nearly 50 years, unless Berube keeps them red hot into April and May.

They've won a Presidents' Trophy and didn't make it. They went to the Western Conference Finals the next year, but lost in five games.

They went to the Western Conference Finals 15 years later, only to lose in six games despite having home ice.

They've also never won a Stanley Cup Finals game.

Then there's Toronto. I've touched up on the Harold Ballard Era, and instead of repeating that, I will talk about other low points.

This team passed on several Hall of Famers in the drafts during the 1980s while their picks were busts.

I touched up on the Kurvers trade before.

There's not making the Eastern Conference Finals since 2002, losing in six games.

There's Game 7 in 2013.

The good news is they are in position this year, as anything can happen in the playoffs, but their failures have been major failures.

 

[seventieslord]

I would say Toronto. The Leafs haven't made a Cup final and have only three conference final appearances to their credit since the 1967 expansion.

5, not 3.

 

[HawkNut]

Through all of the Leafs years of futility they only had two number 1 overall draft picks

Canucks have never had 1st overall ever

Well, I'd say they made out well in 1999 in drafting the Sedin twins and not Patrick Stefan.

 

[Big Phil]

You'd have to say Toronto. A pain I know all too well although it is exciting now.

I thought the Red Sox with their 86 year drought was bad and the Cubs of course with 108 years. Those are bad, but if the Leafs don't win with the core they have now, who knows if they hit one of those droughts. It wouldn't surprise me.