Would you consider the San Jose Sharks a successful franchise?

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
Would rather have a cup or would you rather make the playoffs ever year?

I'd rather have the cup.
I would much rather be a consistent contender than win the cup once and not make the playoffs for years and years and years, only to no longer be competitive enough to make a run.

It’s not as easy as one or the other. The sharks obviously lack the ultimate prize, but don’t you think most fan bases would trade places with them considering how consistent and close they get?

I mean most Oilers and Islanders fans wouldn’t say their franchises are superior considering their past dynasties, because they haven’t been competitive teams for the last 15-20 years.
 
Last edited:

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
I don't start a thread that I expect everybody to agree on, and honestly I'm a little shocked that we have been through this many pages and nobody has ripped the franchise down to the studs. Business wise fine, great, you name it, but as a top team for so long with so many disaster postseasons I don't get why anybody, anybody would call them morally a success.

Cut and dry they are losers in the highest degree that you can achieve in the NHL.

Edit: forgot Edmonton, but at least they have a few championships. But I'd put the Oilers first.
Such classless bandwagon talk in its truest form. The fact that you feel you get to decide what is and isn’t successful, and failing miserably at it shows your lack of overall knowledge of our playoff “failures.”

You have been educated multiple times on the topic and it’s been shown already many times that the sharks are in fact successful. Calling them losers and being shocked that no one is following your lead, shouldn’t surprise you. Only the lazy, incompetent fans use such language in a fake confident fashion.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
I would much rather be a consistent contender than win the cup once and not make the playoffs for years and years and years, only to no longer be competitive enough to make a run.

It’s not as easy as one or the other. The sharks obviously lack the ultimate prize, but don’t you think most fan bases would trade places with them considering how consistent and close they get?

I mean most Oilers and Islanders fans wouldn’t say their franchises are superior considering their past dynasties, because they haven’t been competitive teams for the last 15-20 years.

I think it depends on the timeframe since the last Cup your team won. No, I don't think Islanders or Oilers fans (today) would feel like their franchise is superior or more successful because of the gap between their last Cup and now. However, I'd rather be the LA Kings than San Jose because their Cups are recent, even if the last couple of years haven't been so hot.
 

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,353
39,702
They have the 2nd most playoff wins over the last 20 years.

Yeah but the real question here is 'Will their legacy be that of a successful franchise'. Of course, they've been one of the better teams int he league for the last several years but history doesn't remember lots of reg. season wins and going deep in the playoffs, only championships.
 

The Crypto Guy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2017
26,050
32,771
Sure. Always competitive and made a cup final a couple years back. Not every team who doesn't win a cup is considered a failing franchise, thing is damn near impossible to win.
 

SjMilhouse

Registered User
Jul 18, 2012
2,118
2,437
Are you insane? The purpose of a medium like this is to exchange ideas. Hiow much exchanging can you do when you agree on everything? Inflammatory? Is that what we call things we disagree with now. Reconsider your entire angle.
"Cut and dry they are losers in the highest degree that you can achieve in the NHL."

This is meant to do nothing but trigger people into arguing with you and get people to start arguing because you're frustrated people all agree. The entire thread was started because, as you said, you thought people would devolve into an argument about whether or not a team who has had this level of success without a cup is truly "successful". It hasn't done that, because people have agreed on their opinions so you throw that out there to kick start a fight.

That didn't work. Sorry? You act like this is some civil place of informed discussion and not a cesspool of trolling 99% of the time.

Edit: Your response to my post speaks volumes. I posted a long thought out explanation of why most people think they have been successful despite winning the cup and you respond by calling me insane and telling me to reconsider my entire angle...like...what?
 

razor8

Registered User
Nov 28, 2017
937
712
Yes, but no one's going to remember their regular season success or them making the playoffs regularly unless they win a cup or two.

People remember winners. Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA etc.

That's just the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Cursed Lemon

Registered Bruiser
Nov 10, 2011
11,328
5,812
Dey-Twah, MI
Are the Stars a "failed franchise" because they've only won one Cup?

What's the threshold here?

As far as I know, the Sharks have never had a period (besides right out of the gate) where they were the Dead Wings or the Blackhawks in the early 00's, in terms of attendance and interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreatGonzo

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,597
Folsom
Yes, but no one's going to remember their regular season success or them making the playoffs regularly unless they win a cup or two.

People remember winners. Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA etc.

That's just the way it is.

It's not a thread about whether they'd be remembered for this and that. It's a thread about whether they're to be considered a successful franchise.
 

Benttheknee

Registered User
Jun 18, 2005
3,153
325
Ottawa
Their regular season record in the last 20 years is unmatched. They have scored more, won more, and made the playoffs more than any other franchise, yet they can't get anything done in the post season. I always thought of them as a respectable franchise but I just watched this video and it puts everything in a different light.

What do you think?

If the Sharks are a failure, pretty much every teams is a failure. Only one team can win the cup while 30 others fail. If you can consistently ice a team that fans think can compete, you are doing better than most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Mosher

hockfan1991

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
2,073
296
2017 is the only year i'll argue against calling it a failure. Thornton and Couture, our #1 and #2 centers, went down with injury right before the playoffs. With those two playing at full health i think we win that series easily.

The rest, no comment :(

our president trophy year everyone was injured and rushed back, the list after may have been the longest i had seen.

i get it presidents trophy but i remember injuries screwed them.

also vegas golden knights were a top 5 team in the league disappointed 3 other franchises and fell a couple short of the stanley cup. i hate vegas but they were a great team that year
 

razor8

Registered User
Nov 28, 2017
937
712
It's not a thread about whether they'd be remembered for this and that. It's a thread about whether they're to be considered a successful franchise.

Well, then no.

How the f*** can you be a successful franchise without ever having won the cup?

Participation trophy for everyone. :naughty:
 

EbonyRaptor

Registered User
Jul 10, 2009
7,176
3,040
Geezerville
Define "successful".

If successful means winning the Cup - then no.

If successful means having a consistently competitive and entertaining team - then yes.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,232
13,597
Folsom
Well, then no.

How the **** can you be a successful franchise without ever having won the cup?

Participation trophy for everyone. :naughty:

Quite easily actually because a franchise's success is not solely predicated on the winning of the Stanley Cup.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
I think it depends on the timeframe since the last Cup your team won. No, I don't think Islanders or Oilers fans (today) would feel like their franchise is superior or more successful because of the gap between their last Cup and now. However, I'd rather be the LA Kings than San Jose because their Cups are recent, even if the last couple of years haven't been so hot.
This is true. I’m sure most would choose the 2010-2014 Kings over anytime the Sharks were “contenders.” It does make a big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SjMilhouse

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
Well, then no.

How the **** can you be a successful franchise without ever having won the cup?

Participation trophy for everyone. :naughty:
We have won the 2nd most regular season wins and 3rd most playoff wins while being 2nd in games played since the lockout. To simply shrug all that off and be narrow minded isn’t surprising, I just figured people wouldn’t be so ignorant. Guess not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Mosher

Trocity

Registered User
Nov 24, 2016
504
514
You could smell the Sharks hate coming off this guy long before he made this thread lol. I remember asking him if some Sharks fan poured beer in his pocket or something a while ago because he is always sh*tting on SJ. Just a bitter hater, no two ways about it.

Nice to see this thread blew up in his face. Well played OP.
 

tardigrade81

Registered User
Jun 12, 2019
16,254
20,666
Saskatchewan
Depends what your definition of success is. If it’s Stanley Cups then definitely not. But over all I do consider them a very successful franchise.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
our president trophy year everyone was injured and rushed back, the list after may have been the longest i had seen.

i get it presidents trophy but i remember injuries screwed them.

also vegas golden knights were a top 5 team in the league disappointed 3 other franchises and fell a couple short of the stanley cup. i hate vegas but they were a great team that year
People forget how freakish that ‘08 Ducks team was. They weren’t an average 8th spot team with guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, and Selanne with Pronger and Niedermayer on defense. They had just won a cup 2 years prior and took the Wings to 7 games in the second round. Injuries did plague us, but they still out played us a majority of the series. Our depth was almost non existent and Nabby played terrible while Hiller was lights out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Mosher

HFpapi

Registered User
Mar 6, 2010
1,234
1,828
Toronto/Amsterdam
Seems like many variations of this comment have already been said but... absolutely they are....

In a 31 team league, we have to learn to refine and re-conceptualize our notion of "success" both in terms of teams and players on an individual basis. Comparing Joe Thornton's cups to Guy Lafleur's is stupid for obvious reasons...

SJS have given their fans 2 decades of consistently good regular reason results, exciting teams with players winning individual trophies, and playoff hockey often extending into round 2/3... that is 100% success in this day and age...

On a side note... this idea might get laughed at but I've wondered in the NHL should shorten the regular season and introduce some in-season mini-tournaments with trophies to be won similar to European soccer with Domestic and European cups in addition to the league... at first fans would consider these secondary trophies meaningless but over time they might take on some tradition...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phu

BFLO

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 3, 2015
4,197
3,816
Were the Washington Capitals considered a success before their Cup win? I feel that SJ is in the same boat.
 

razor8

Registered User
Nov 28, 2017
937
712
We have won the 2nd most regular season wins and 3rd most playoff wins while being 2nd in games played since the lockout. To simply shrug all that off and be narrow minded isn’t surprising, I just figured people wouldn’t be so ignorant. Guess not.

Well you're not in tier 1 if we're talking about success. I mean you can't really compare the success of the Sharks to the success of La, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit etc.

I'd say you're in tier 2 with the teams that got close but never won it all, and teams that won the cup when we weren't even born.

Does that make you happier? If you're happy with the success, then what does it matter what others think? Insecure much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,368
16,645
Mulberry Street
Were the Washington Capitals considered a success before their Cup win? I feel that SJ is in the same boat.

Depends, most around here called them failures due to being a top team almost every season since 2009 (including 3 prez trophies) and never making the ECF. While the Sharks have made more CF's and a SCF, they haven't won the big one yet and really, thats what matters. If they don;t win a cup, history will remember them for giving up a 3-0 lead, not winning a bunch of games and making the playoffs.

The B's had the 4th most wins in the 1990s....... nobody remembers those teams.

Likewise the Flyers had the 2nd most wins in the 80s..... they made one finals but nobody talks about the 80's Flyers today do they?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->