worst NHL franchise of all time?

[mattola]

Just found. Relevant.

hmmmm. looks at picture... giggles... looks at poster seems credible enough guy..... looks at posters team.


ba... HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

but its ok that the leafs have not won in the modern era nor come close. that they havent won since it was a 6 team league? your logic is constantly flawed

True, 13 Cups mean NOTHING, my bad

 

[DragonfromTO]

That's how jerseys were back in the 1920s.

Hell, those that know what's right still call them "hockey sweaters". What is this "jersey" bullshit?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Hell, those that know what's right still call them "hockey sweaters". What is this "jersey" bullshit?

 

[forty_three]

hmmmm. looks at picture... giggles... looks at poster seems credible enough guy..... looks at posters team.


ba... HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Same here, good support and also no cup.

But also 27 years younger so much, much firmer.

 

[dash]

I've never visited Columbus, so I can't comment, but I will say the talent in Vancouver is very fine.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Don't worry guys, your teams will get there eventually

 

[mattola]

True, 13 Cups mean NOTHING, my bad

I think it was pretty easy in a 6 team league but since expansion NOTHING. I bet any team on your list of failures would have multiple cups if they came out in the 6 team league. hell the freaking Senators have a Cup in the NHL league so what are they even doing on your list by your logic. the thing is I consider the leafs to be very successful by league standards with or without a cup same with the sharks and canucks and I consider the tampa bay lightning to be a failed franchise even with a cup

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I think it was pretty easy in a 6 team league but since expansion NOTHING. I bet any team on your list of failures would have multiple cups if they came out in the 6 team league. hell the freaking Senators have a Cup in the NHL league so what are they even doing on your list by your logic.

1 - I'm not going to disregard the Leafs' 13 Cups, they count for something when it comes to winning the Cup, which is more than I could say for any team on my list.

2 - you're betting on something that can neither be proven nor disproven. How come the Rangers & Bruins couldn't win any Cups when there were only 6 teams in the league?

3 - Senators don't have any Cups, none of the Cups from the original Sens carry over to the current team.

 

[SLY]

1 - I'm not going to disregard the Leafs' 13 Cups, they count for something when it comes to winning the Cup, which is more than I could say for any team on my list.

2 - you're betting on something that can neither be proven nor disproven. How come the Rangers & Bruins couldn't win any Cups when there were only 6 teams in the league?

3 - Senators don't have any Cups, none of the Cups from the original Sens carry over to the current team.

They did.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

They did.

1929 (10 teams)
1939 (7 teams)
1941 (7 teams)
1970 (12 teams)
1972 (14 teams)
2011 (30 teams)

They never won a Cup in a 6 team league.

 

[mattola]

1 - I'm not going to disregard the Leafs' 13 Cups, they count for something when it comes to winning the Cup, which is more than I could say for any team on my list.

2 - you're betting on something that can neither be proven nor disproven. How come the Rangers & Bruins couldn't win any Cups when there were only 6 teams in the league?

3 - Senators don't have any Cups, none of the Cups from the original Sens carry over to the current team.

1 - win in a 30 team league and your argument is valid. also alot of finals were best of 3 not always best of 7 so the chances of winning even greater.

2 - yep but when you have 90 years to do it I would expect more than one cup for the leafs. the bruins won in 1929, 1939, 1941 which had a 7 team league . the rangers 1928, 1933, 1940 which had a 7 team league . but Ill even give you this argument since it wasnt 6 teams as in the 6 team league years pretty much all the best players went to montreal and toronto. everything was stacked in those teams favor in the early years which is why I only take anything after expansion into 16 teams way more serious in success.

3 - its very relevant. the Ottawa senators have won a cup in the NHL as the Ottawa senators. not at the Ottawa millionaires or the ottawa st pats or the ottawa whatevers. the SENATOR franchise won a cup in the NHL league. whether they folded or not they have that history and that logic DICTATES to you Success.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Here are the Rangers' Stanley Cup years,

1928 (10 teams)
1933 (9 teams)
1940 (7 teams)
1994 (26 teams)

So I stand by what I said, neither the Bruins nor Rangers have ever won the Cup when there were 6 teams in the league.

 

[SLY]

I guess my hockey history knowledge sucks... Oh well, this arguments is lame. The Leafs suck. And while I hate the Canucks, they are leaps and bounds better than the Leafs as a current franchise and team.

/thread, kiss my ass

 

[SLY]

/reopen

Fuck the Pens as well.

/closed

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

1 - win in a 30 team league and your argument is valid. also alot of finals were best of 3 not always best of 7 so the chances of winning even greater.

2 - yep but when you have 90 years to do it I would expect more than one cup for the leafs. the bruins won in 1929, 1939, 1941 which had a 7 team league . the rangers 1928, 1933, 1940 which had a 7 team league . but Ill even give you this argument since it wasnt 6 teams as in the 6 team league years pretty much all the best players went to montreal and toronto. everything was stacked in those teams favor in the early years which is why I only take anything after expansion into 16 teams way more serious in success.

3 - its very relevant. the Ottawa senators have won a cup in the NHL as the Ottawa senators. not at the Ottawa millionaires or the ottawa st pats or the ottawa whatevers. the SENATOR franchise won a cup in the NHL league. whether they folded or not they have that history and that logic DICTATES to you Success.

1 - If you want to discount the Maple Leafs 13 Cups and say it counts for nothings, that's on you, I don't agree with that. Chances might be greater to win the Cup with less teams but the odds didn't work out like that for the Bruins & Rangers who won more Cups with more teams in the league than 6.

2 - Regardless of whether it's easier or harder to win the Cup in the Original 6 era or the post expansion era, 13 Cups count for more than any of the teams on my list have accomplished. If you want to say President Trophies, Prince of Wales, or Clarence Campbell Trophies count more than the Leafs' 13 Cups prior to expansion, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

3 - They have the same name but it doesn't mean the accomplishes of Ottawa HC (official name of the original Senators) translates to the Ottawa Senators of today: Ottawa Senators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I guess my hockey history knowledge sucks... Oh well, this arguments is lame. The Leafs suck. And while I hate the Canucks, they are leaps and bounds better than the Leafs as a current franchise and team.

/thread, kiss my ass

Don't worry about it, I'm actually a dork for knowing that.

 

[dash]

/and the OP has received exactly what he hoped for.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

/and the OP has received exactly what he hoped for.

Truth be told, Doobster has always been plotting to make a thread about the NHL before the Original 6 era, this was my perfect chance to execute my plan. My bad...

 

[SLY]

Truth be told, Doobster has always been plotting to make a thread about the NHL before the Original 6 era, this was my perfect chance to execute my plan. My bad...