Would you consider the San Jose Sharks a successful franchise?

[Bandit]

Well, that is a miserable way to measure success. You HAVE to win a Cup to hold your head high? No, BS. My team has won a Cup and if I could, I would absolutely trade that Cup and all the years they missed the playoffs and floundered around for a team that consistently wins in the regular season and consistently has meaningful playoff runs.

Pretty sure you're on an island by yourself with that one...

 

[Langdon Alger]

Yes, for sure. Maybe they haven’t had as much playoff success as they would have hoped, but they have been one of the top regular season teams for a long time now. Would like to see them win a cup in the next few years.

 

[GoldenSeal]

I'd say yes. They haven't gotten to where they want to but management for the most part had given them the tools to win.

 

[NJ DevLolz]

Of course they are. The argument of cups is so ****ing stupid.

Are the Devils a successful franchise?

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

3rd best hockey franchise in california... bronze medal no problem

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

Are the Devils a successful franchise?

They were for a long time. Now tickets sell for $7 on stub hub. You tell me.

 

[HabsTown]

Definitely. They always have great seasons + deep playoffs runs. The only thing they didn't achieve is winning the cup... & only 1 team wins it.

 

[John Johnson]

Well, that is a miserable way to measure success. You HAVE to win a Cup to hold your head high? No, BS. My team has won a Cup and if I could, I would absolutely trade that Cup and all the years they missed the playoffs and floundered around for a team that consistently wins in the regular season and consistently has meaningful playoff runs.

I wouldn't LOL

 

[Roboturner913]

I wouldn't LOL

I don't see people here ridiculing Sharks fans all the time for perceived lack of.....whatever, or missing the playoffs for a decade at a time. Plus they do everything they can to run down the Cup win as a fluke or lucky or anything else under the sun, so from where I sit, the alternative seems a lot nicer.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I lived in the Bay Area when they were founded. The area was not exactly a hockey mecca when they arrived, although there were a small percentage of hockey fans. The Sharks cultivated that number exponentially. I immediately adopted them as my second team while I was out there.

They consistently put a good product on the ice, are consistently a playoff team, are financially stable, generally are not all over the place in the way they are run.....that sounds successful to me.

As a fan of a team that took 52 years to win a Stanley Cup, that alone does not define a successful franchise.

Let's put it this way: The Dallas Cowboys have not won a Super Bowl in almost as long as the Sharks have been in existence. Yet, it would be hard not to classify them as successful. Bumbling, perhaps, but still successful.

 

[Khelandros]

reminder that the cup is a very luck-based trophy in a cup and that using it as the only measure of a successful/good franchise is ****ing stupid.

For 9 years, these were the luckiest teams in the NHL, and Boston. Luck plays a part but it isn't always about luck.

 

[Josepho]

Definitely. They always have great seasons + deep playoffs runs. The only thing they didn't achieve is winning the cup... & only 1 team wins it.

It's weird.

Nobody considers an athlete who wins a bunch of silver and bronze medals a loser, but for some reason this kind of thinking doesn't apply to team sports for the most part solely because hockey doesn't have a consolation prize.

 

[CherryToke]

Obviously yes.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

There is no excuse for losing to the Oilers under any circumstances, I consider it more shameful than the reverse sweep

No other franchise has lost to them in the playoffs in last 12 years, the Sharks are alone on that list

Except that the Oilers were a good team back then.

 

[skyo]

They are the John Stockton and Karl Malone of franchises in the NHL.

 

[weastern bias]

Except that the Oilers were a good team back then.

Lol, no

 

[jetsforever]

I'd say they're quite successful - compare to Columbus/Atlanta/Minnesota for example

 

[FlameChampion]

Yes. Next question.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't see people here ridiculing Sharks fans all the time for perceived lack of.....whatever, or missing the playoffs for a decade at a time. Plus they do everything they can to run down the Cup win as a fluke or lucky or anything else under the sun, so from where I sit, the alternative seems a lot nicer.

Nah they ridicule the Sharks for being chokers and needing the refs to get where they are. Sharks are a successful franchise from a business standpoint and from a results standpoint even without a Cup. They haven't experienced ultimate success and that's fine to point out but that doesn't mean they haven't been successful. Their success just isn't good enough for what their goals are.

 

[end]

I'd say they're quite successful - compare to Columbus/Atlanta/Minnesota for example

The first team of every expansion wave to be competitive and make a big playoff run is always brutally punished by the hockey gods.

St. Louis (67), made the Cup Final immediately, suffered for 51 years.
Buffalo (70s), made the Cup Final in their 5th year, still suffering.
Quebec (79), made the Conference Final in their 3rd year, lost the team.
Florida (90s), made the Cup Final in their 3rd year, still suffering.
Minnesota (00s), made the Conference Final in their 3rd year, suffering ever since.

If I were a Vegas fan, I'd be moribund at my success.

 

[Choralone]

The first team of every expansion wave to be competitive and make a big playoff run is always brutally punished by the hockey gods.

St. Louis (67), made the Cup Final immediately, suffered for 51 years.
Buffalo (70s), made the Cup Final in their 5th year, still suffering.
Quebec (79), made the Conference Final in their 3rd year, lost the team.
Florida (90s), made the Cup Final in their 3rd year, still suffering.
Minnesota (00s), made the Conference Final in their 3rd year, suffering ever since.

If I were a Vegas fan, I'd be moribund at my success.

"Mortified" maybe?

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Lol, no

What makes you disagree?

 

[flyfysher]

This is a trick question, right?

Admittedly it depends what your definition of successful is. I don't think winning the SC should be the sole criterion or even the decisive one.

Even though I'm not a Sharks fan I'd be pretty hard pressed to argue they aren't a successful franchise given their record of achievement.

 

[Mikenusca]

I would say they are even though they never have won the cup. Practically make the playoffs every year. Have never tanked to get a high pick. I think they have only had 10 or so picks ever in the top 10 of a draft. Always hit gems in the later rounds of the draft even though their track record for first rounders is pretty bad. It seems like goaltending has always been the issue for the team.

 

[Puckstop40]

The only thing they haven’t done is win the cup. They’ve been a successful franchise as the numbers would indicate as well. Still hate them though.