Would you consider the San Jose Sharks a successful franchise?

[Asheville]

30 years in existence
1 finals appearance
0 Cups

Not successful.

 

[crazyforhockey]

Absolutely
from top to bottom they make this a better league

They have created so many fans, helped develop California hockey, Fantastic Jersey put an exciting game on the ice , past and present

Look at StL eventually it pays off in ultimate goal. Sometimes very good teams take along time to get over the hump( playoff success)
Good example Calgary Flames, most likely win another cup or two, except they had to play Edmonton in Smyth division....they had a stretch when Edm was still solid, near the top, but Cgy was better....look at games vs other top teams(Cgy was better) BUT had trouble getting over the mental block of beating Edm

I enjoy watching SJ as a hockey fan, even though I cheer for another team

 

[thadd]

They're the king of the underachievers. Take that however you like. They've had enough talent come through their organization to have won 3 straight cups twice over by now. They've got the most under-appreciated GM in hockey. Dude drafts well and constantly brings in solid talent to offset aging and failure.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

San Jose and Nashville are the blueprint as far as building consistent contenders but at the same time, neither has won anything. I guess it depends on what you define as "success". The Sharks have drafted well, traded well and are well managed but still haven't won. Its baffling TBH. They've had teams good enough to win the cup for a long time. Parity is real in the NHL.

Have they really? I can't say they've had the best team or even the second best in any single season.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I would take entertaining and consistently good hockey over a single cup run and perpetual mediocrity. Case in point, I actually stopped watching the Habs for the most part several years ago now because I just couldn't stand how utterly boring Therrien's coaching became. They have more cups than any other team by a mile. That didn't change the fact they played an absolute snorefest style of hockey for years until recently.

 

[Patty Ice]

30 years in existence
1 finals appearance
0 Cups

Not successful.

30 years huh? Might want to re-check that one.

Also, left this number out there 21 playoff appearances out of 27 seasons in franchise history.

 

[Asheville]

30 years huh? Might want to re-check that one.

Also, left this number out there 21 playoff appearances out of 27 seasons in franchise history.

Correcting me over a 3 season difference? LOL yea, I was waaaaay off lmao f*** off

 

[Patty Ice]

Correcting me over a 3 season difference? LOL yea, I was waaaaay off lmao **** off

Hey if you want to inflate numbers to make them look worse, I should be the one telling you to f*** off. Check your facts if you are going to cry about being called out on them.

You have a weak argument. Yes, the Sharks have not won a Stanley Cup but only one team wins it a year. They are a relatively newer team in the league and have been a playoff mainstay for most of their existence with a strong fanbase. They continue to ice a competitive team and will do so for the foreseeable future. The ultimate goal is to raise that Cup but it is not the lone mark of a successful franchise.

 

[Rorschach]

Who they are: Small market, non-traditional hockey market, expansion team, never had a 1OA pick.

Their result: A kajillion playoff runs in a row (success on ice), star players galore (success in building roster/system) plus plenty of sellout home games every year (success in establishing popularity locally).

Conclusion: They are not a successful team. They are a VERY successful team.

 

[Asheville]

Hey if you want to inflate numbers to make them look worse, I should be the one telling you to **** off. Check your facts if you are going to cry about being called out on them.

You have a weak argument. Yes, the Sharks have not won a Stanley Cup but only one team wins it a year. They are a relatively newer team in the league and have been a playoff mainstay for most of their existence with a strong fanbase. They continue to ice a competitive team and will do so for the foreseeable future. The ultimate goal is to raise that Cup but it is not the lone mark of a successful franchise.

So they're mired in mediocrity? I'll agree with that.

 

[Patty Ice]

So they're mired in mediocrity? I'll agree with that.

You can have that opinion just get your facts straight before touting your opinion as gospel.

 

[CanadienShark]

Correcting me over a 3 season difference? LOL yea, I was waaaaay off lmao **** off

10% is significant.

 

[SharksFan1]

Successful regular season franchise, but this is the place players go when they want to enjoy the weather and not play into the spring.

So the team that has made the playoffs the most in the past 20 years has players NOT playing in the spring? I think you have that backwards.

 

[Asheville]

10% is significant.

Says you, but keep deflecting from the thread's topic. Sharks are perpetually mediocre.

 

[GreatGonzo]

They're the king of the underachievers. Take that however you like. They've had enough talent come through their organization to have won 3 straight cups twice over by now. They've got the most under-appreciated GM in hockey. Dude drafts well and constantly brings in solid talent to offset aging and failure.

Not even close. This is a common misconception from fans who don’t know the sharks.

So they're mired in mediocrity? I'll agree with that.

only 6 teams have won the cup since 2009. That’s 6 teams out of 30 over the past 10 years....so are your suggesting that those 6 teams are successful while everyone else is mediocre?


Outstanding logic

 

[Asheville]

Not even close. This is a common misconception from fans who don’t know the sharks.

only 6 teams have won the cup since 2009. That’s 6 teams out of 30 over the past 10 years....so are your suggesting that those 6 teams are successful while everyone else is mediocre?


Outstanding logic

Sharks have been around 1991. Cherrypicking 2009 to fit your narrave?

 

[Ugene Magic]

They made it to a finals in their short life span. So I say they were/are a successful team. I still feel guilty they had to run into my Pens.

The Sharks are a younger Blues franchise ....day will come. Makes it even more enjoyable the longer you wait.

The Blues had success right out of the gate. 3 finals in their first 4 seasons of existence. Ties to Scotty Bowman.

I don't think they are a younger Blues team. The Sharks took their lickings well early on.

 

[Bandit]

They made it to a finals in their short life span. So I say they were/are a successful team. I still feel guilty they had to run into my Pens.




The Blues had success right out of the gate. 3 finals in their first 4 seasons of existence. Ties to Scotty Bowman.

I don't think they are a younger Blues team. The Sharks took their lickings well early on.

Artificial success. They were placed in a conference with all the other expansion teams.

 

[thadd]

Not even close. This is a common misconception from fans who don’t know the sharks.

Not sure if serious.
Maybe you need to go back and look at every Sharks team since Thorton's 2nd year in San Jose.

 

[CanadienShark]

Says you, but keep deflecting from the thread's topic. Sharks are perpetually mediocre.

I'm not sure how you can argue they're perpetually mediocre. They consistently finish among the top teams in the standings and the playoffs year in, year out. They're a solid organization that hasn't been able to get it done, but have proven to be a top notch organization with good scouting, development coaches, and management.

I guess you could argue that they're a disappointment with the teams they've had. That would imply that they're a very good organization though.

 

[tiburon12]

Have they really? I can't say they've had the best team or even the second best in any single season.

And in how many years has the best or second best team in any single season won the cup?

 

[Voight]

They made it to a finals in their short life span. So I say they were/are a successful team. I still feel guilty they had to run into my Pens.




The Blues had success right out of the gate. 3 finals in their first 4 seasons of existence. Ties to Scotty Bowman.

I don't think they are a younger Blues team. The Sharks took their lickings well early on.

FWIW TB + ANA have been around just as long if not shorter and have both made two finals (and won one of them)

 

[JPeeper]

I mean they are the definition of choking in the playoffs, with all their great teams they've only made 1 Cup final in just under 3 decades. They have a solid fanbase, get good attendance and are usually icing fairly decent teams so I'd say they are a successful franchise, but it's kind of hard to take them seriously when they always fail in the playoffs. Even the Flames who have an embarrassing playoff record over their history has made 3 finals and won 1 Cup.

 

[ShelbyZ]

Only team that hasn't missed the playoffs in consecutive seasons since 1997.

Doug Wilson doesn't get enough credit for his ability to continually bring in impact players through trades and the draft, and how he's able to get the team right back to the top of the league when things start to trend the other way.

I mean, you could almost make a pretty competitive team out of still active Wilson draft picks:

Forwards: Pavelski, McGinn, Couture, Bonino, Coyle, Nieto, Kuraly, Hertl, Tierney, Ryan, Goldobin, Labanc, Meier, Balcers, Gambrell
Dmen: Vlasic, Braun, Demers, Demelo, Mueller,
Goalies: Greiss, Stalock

How many other teams could do that with draft picks going back to 2003?

 

[Craig Button]

30 years in existence
1 finals appearance
0 Cups

Not successful.

Do you actually think being a successful hockey franchise is limited to winning the Stanley Cup?