What's more important. winning the Cup or sustainable winning?

[hobarth]

Neil Smith the GM of NYR's Cup team was approached by Keenan and told that the NYR could win the Cup but needed some tweaks, Smith was in agreement so he traded potential youth to get players that could and did help them win the Cup, Larmer comes to mind. It was an all in scenario and not long after winning the Cup Smith was fired.

TO has in the past sacrificed youth to win the Cup. they didn't.

So what does everyone think? 

 

[hockeyfan1]

Why did the NHL have dynasties --  the Leafs of the '60's; the Islanders in the '80's; the Gretzky-led Oilers of the mid-'80's; the Red Wings in the '90's;  the Blackhawks in this decade -?  Because these teams were built both for sustainable winning that led to their Cup triumphs, which by the way, was the ultimate goal in the first place.

Hopefully, that answers both questions. 

 

[Bender]

I don't really understand how this is an either or proposition.

 

[louisstamos]

I don't really understand how this is an either or proposition.

Yup...the two go hand in hand.  The only team that I can think of that won a cup in the salary cap era without a sustainable winning strategy is the 05-06 Hurricanes.  Everyone else had playoff teams for long periods of time.

 

[cabber24]

I would lease any amount of time if a cup was guaranteed but a guarantee is impossible so I will take sustainable winning.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yup...the two go hand in hand.  The only team that I can think of that won a cup in the salary cap era without a sustainable winning strategy is the 05-06 Hurricanes.  Everyone else had playoff teams for long periods of time.

Yeah that's the team that I thought of too. The question basically is would you rather be the Hurricanes or the Sharks (pre-blow up)/Blues (pre-impending blow up)? But I mean even the Canes didn't exactly win their Cup by sacrificing all of their youth, it was more just a fluke/one-off type of situation.

 

[dappleganger]

Someone should pose this question to a Blackhawks fan.

 

[louisstamos]

Someone should pose this question to a Blackhawks fan.

I can picture their reaction:

 

[hobarth]

Pittsburg won a Cup and has since spent many draft choices in the pursuit of the Cup again, Nashville traded their first to TO in the pursuit of the Cup, there are many such similar instances so while short range the teams may have sustainable winning the long range forecast is much dimmer.

Pittsburg is the best example, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. all aging rapidly approaching their 30th their focus on the Cup is probably going to put them into a long rebuild mode when their stars are no longer starry.

Teams are constantly mortgaging their future with the single minded goal of winning the Cup, TO had been content to spend it's way to the Cup for years so the process of drafting and developing wasn't part of the plan, buying aging stars and using draft choices to trade for fading stars was, immediate success and short range sustainability was possible but ultimately we have paid.

So let's say TO was close to being able to win the Cup and Carolina came a calling offering Staal for Rielly and a 1st, what should TO do? Rielly could be a major cog in a very sustainable winning future, Staal probably not a long range part of a winning team but could be the last piece for winning the Cup.

What's more important here a future with a still developing Rielly or the very real possibility of winning the Cup now with an obviously declining Staal? 

 

[Boston Leaf]

give me one Cup please and thanks. Can deal with the rest

 

[louisstamos]

Pittsburg won a Cup and has since spent many draft choices in the pursuit of the Cup again, Nashville traded their first to TO in the pursuit of the Cup, there are many such similar instances so while short range the teams may have sustainable winning the long range forecast is much dimmer.

Pittsburg is the best example, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. all aging rapidly approaching their 30th their focus on the Cup is probably going to put them into a long rebuild mode when their stars are no longer starry.

Teams are constantly mortgaging their future with the single minded goal of winning the Cup, TO had been content to spend it's way to the Cup for years so the process of drafting and developing wasn't part of the plan, buying aging stars and using draft choices to trade for fading stars was, immediate success and short range sustainability was possible but ultimately we have paid.

So let's say TO was close to being able to win the Cup and Carolina came a calling offering Staal for Rielly and a 1st, what should TO do? Rielly could be a major cog in a very sustainable winning future, Staal probably not a long range part of a winning team but could be the last piece for winning the Cup.

What's more important here a future with a still developing Rielly or the very real possibility of winning the Cup now with an obviously declining Staal?

The Pittsburgh Penguins have made 9 straight playoffs.  I'd say their sustainable winning strategy was pretty good.  They identified who their core was, and brought in assets (through trade, free agency and drafting) to keep the team a perennial contender.  They don't have anyone in the organization to replace Crosby/Malkin, hence why they're selling off the assets to try and win with Crosby/Malkin now.

In terms of the hypothetical trade - if a team believes it's a cup contender, and that last piece puts them "over the top," then yeah, maybe that's a trade you make.  Every now and then a trade like that pays dividends (the Gaborik trade to LA at the deadline is a good example), but I find usually cup winning teams fill holes at the deadline or add depth.  Chicago acquired a 3rd line centre and a 3rd pairing defenseman at the deadline this year - neither the caliber of an Eric Staal.

 

[Bullfrog]

Pittsburg is the best example, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. all aging rapidly approaching their 30th their focus on the Cup is probably going to put them into a long rebuild mode when their stars are no longer starry.

They're probably aging at the same rate as everyone else.

 

[Bender]

Pittsburg won a Cup and has since spent many draft choices in the pursuit of the Cup again, Nashville traded their first to TO in the pursuit of the Cup, there are many such similar instances so while short range the teams may have sustainable winning the long range forecast is much dimmer.

Pittsburg is the best example, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. all aging rapidly approaching their 30th their focus on the Cup is probably going to put them into a long rebuild mode when their stars are no longer starry.

Teams are constantly mortgaging their future with the single minded goal of winning the Cup, TO had been content to spend it's way to the Cup for years so the process of drafting and developing wasn't part of the plan, buying aging stars and using draft choices to trade for fading stars was, immediate success and short range sustainability was possible but ultimately we have paid.

So let's say TO was close to being able to win the Cup and Carolina came a calling offering Staal for Rielly and a 1st, what should TO do? Rielly could be a major cog in a very sustainable winning future, Staal probably not a long range part of a winning team but could be the last piece for winning the Cup.

What's more important here a future with a still developing Rielly or the very real possibility of winning the Cup now with an obviously declining Staal?

At some point you have to put all your chips on the table. Would you rather be a Pens fan, a team that's actually won a few cups and are taking a run at it again this year before the prime age window of one of the best players of his generation closes, or the St. Louis Blues fan - a consistently competitive team that has won diddly in the last 40 years?

I know which one I'd take.

 

[Bender]

Pittsburg won a Cup and has since spent many draft choices in the pursuit of the Cup again, Nashville traded their first to TO in the pursuit of the Cup, there are many such similar instances so while short range the teams may have sustainable winning the long range forecast is much dimmer.

Pittsburg is the best example, with Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. all aging rapidly approaching their 30th their focus on the Cup is probably going to put them into a long rebuild mode when their stars are no longer starry.

Teams are constantly mortgaging their future with the single minded goal of winning the Cup, TO had been content to spend it's way to the Cup for years so the process of drafting and developing wasn't part of the plan, buying aging stars and using draft choices to trade for fading stars was, immediate success and short range sustainability was possible but ultimately we have paid.

So let's say TO was close to being able to win the Cup and Carolina came a calling offering Staal for Rielly and a 1st, what should TO do? Rielly could be a major cog in a very sustainable winning future, Staal probably not a long range part of a winning team but could be the last piece for winning the Cup.

What's more important here a future with a still developing Rielly or the very real possibility of winning the Cup now with an obviously declining Staal?

It's always a trade off and you don't know if you're better off until you win. The problem with your hypothetical is Rielly is already NHL ready and possibly going to be a star. It's a trade that, in my mind, few teams actually make because Rielly is so good so young. If you're going to trade someone it'll basically be for picks and recent draftees, not someone who's already statistically your number 3 defenseman at 21.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

It's always a trade off and you don't know if you're better off until you win. The problem with your hypothetical is Rielly is already NHL ready and possibly going to be a star. It's a trade that, in my mind, few teams actually make because Rielly is so good so young. If you're going to trade someone it'll basically be for picks and recent draftees, not someone who's already statistically your number 3 defenseman at 21.

I mean this kind of goes back to the Kessel-trade-value discussion. Pittsburgh wouldn't trade Maatta for Kessel straight-up, and for very good reason. No team in the league would trade a Rielly for a Staal. None. Nobody would trade a 20-year old top pairing or soon-to-be top pairing defenceman for a top line forward 10-ish years older.

 

[ZBBM]

I remember having a variation on this debate more than 10 years ago when I first began posting here.  The question was whether consistent winning (but no Cup) was satisfying in any way, or if only a Cup win is.  I argued that consistent winning is satisfying, that I enjoy watching the Leafs play good hockey and still get enjoyment out of that alone even if they don't win the Cup.  Of course I'd like a Cup win on top of it, very much.  But I can't agree with people who say that only a Cup win will make them happy.

That's why the last decade or so has been so hard.  The only "fun" we've had is arguing over negatives.  This last season was the worst, by far.  There were only a handful of guys on the roster that I liked to watch play.

 

[bustaheims]

I remember having a variation on this debate more than 10 years ago when I first began posting here.  The question was whether consistent winning (but no Cup) was satisfying in any way, or if only a Cup win is.  I argued that consistent winning is satisfying, that I enjoy watching the Leafs play good hockey and still get enjoyment out of that alone even if they don't win the Cup.  Of course I'd like a Cup win on top of it, very much.  But I can't agree with people who say that only a Cup win will make them happy.

Agreed. It's certainly satisfying having a team that, coming into the season, has potential to win a Cup on a regular basis. That's what sustained success brings. Ultimately, you want that team to be able to capitalize on that potential, but as long as that potential is there, there's something to watch and enjoy.

 

[MetalRaven]

I remember having a variation on this debate more than 10 years ago when I first began posting here.  The question was whether consistent winning (but no Cup) was satisfying in any way, or if only a Cup win is.  I argued that consistent winning is satisfying, that I enjoy watching the Leafs play good hockey and still get enjoyment out of that alone even if they don't win the Cup.  Of course I'd like a Cup win on top of it, very much.  But I can't agree with people who say that only a Cup win will make them happy.

That's why the last decade or so has been so hard.  The only "fun" we've had is arguing over negatives.  This last season was the worst, by far.  There were only a handful of guys on the roster that I liked to watch play.

I agree with this. I remember Gilmour-Sundin eras, when the Leaf were mentioned along with cup contenders and wasn't followed by a room full of laughter. I remember when we were good enough that other teams actually had rivalries with us. I used to have spirited discussions with random fans from other teams filled with playful jabs, now I say im a Leafs fan and they look at me like I said I had a terminal illness...I get hugs sometimes, they ask me if I need anything, maybe a place to stay ect.

I understand that during most of those eras we were among the oldest teams. We also got some luck on the trade front and its looking like those types of trades don't happen as much or at the very least, its improbable enough to be unreliable.

Developing our prospects is at least within our control. We can create a team we want rather then try to cobble something together to fit the pieces we have. Developing a homegrown powerhouse built for sustained winning will be a lot more fun to watch then this last decade+ of watching them try to swing for a home run and falling flat on their face.

Now if you are proposing a hypothetical where it has to be one or the other; basically a constant contender that never wins vs a guaranteed cup win? I would choose constant contender that never wins for the Leafs, then cheer for another team that doesn't have some weird gypsy curse.

 

[Bill_Berg]

All I know is that when the Jays suck, I think back to '92 and '93 and smile.

 

[Bender]

I remember having a variation on this debate more than 10 years ago when I first began posting here.  The question was whether consistent winning (but no Cup) was satisfying in any way, or if only a Cup win is.  I argued that consistent winning is satisfying, that I enjoy watching the Leafs play good hockey and still get enjoyment out of that alone even if they don't win the Cup.  Of course I'd like a Cup win on top of it, very much.  But I can't agree with people who say that only a Cup win will make them happy.

That's why the last decade or so has been so hard.  The only "fun" we've had is arguing over negatives.  This last season was the worst, by far.  There were only a handful of guys on the roster that I liked to watch play.

I agree with this. I remember Gilmour-Sundin eras, when the Leaf were mentioned along with cup contenders and wasn't followed by a room full of laughter. I remember when we were good enough that other teams actually had rivalries with us. I used to have spirited discussions with random fans from other teams filled with playful jabs, now I say im a Leafs fan and they look at me like I said I had a terminal illness...I get hugs sometimes, they ask me if I need anything, maybe a place to stay ect.

I understand that during most of those eras we were among the oldest teams. We also got some luck on the trade front and its looking like those types of trades don't happen as much or at the very least, its improbable enough to be unreliable.

Developing our prospects is at least within our control. We can create a team we want rather then try to cobble something together to fit the pieces we have. Developing a homegrown powerhouse built for sustained winning will be a lot more fun to watch then this last decade+ of watching them try to swing for a home run and falling flat on their face.

Now if you are proposing a hypothetical where it has to be one or the other; basically a constant contender that never wins vs a guaranteed cup win? I would choose constant contender that never wins for the Leafs, then cheer for another team that doesn't have some weird gypsy curse.

But isn't that precisely why a choice like the one asked is kind of silly? The Leafs didn't get good overnight and they didn't win the Cup for many reasons, but they could've just as easily won in '93 or in '99 or '02 and still be competitive.

And regardless, the way the salary cap works now is you manage your cap so you ARE good for a long time, not the other way around. Most flashes in the pan aren't able to sustain that kind of upswing long enough to win a cup to drop out entirely the next year. The LA Kings of last year are an aberration, but even then I'd much rather be a fan of them than ours at the moment.