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

[hobarth]

Somebody mentioned St.L., which had something like 30 straight years in the playoffs, they were competitive but never won it all, why? I think there was probably at some juncture an opportunity to address a Cup worthy need while potentially impacting the future, it looks like they kept on the slow and steady preferring to be consistently good rather than risking that path for an all in for the Cup.

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.

I simply used Rielly as a hypothetical example, TO is in no shape to contend but on a better TO he might be TO's 6th best d-man, still having his potential, would it be a proper trade off to trade Rielly TO's 6th best d-man for Eric Staal who might lead TO to the Cup.

I think people forget that LA, Pittsburg and Chicago went thru their down years in order to become the consistent Cup contenders they are today and it's aggressive Cup contenders that often will return to havenotdom because they often mortgage their future for the Cup today.

I think many people are frustrated that TO hasn't won a Cup in around 50 years and they might say that TO hasn't been good enough or aggressive enough to do so, during the '70s and '90s TO was good enough or close to it so we've had the teams with some significant tweaks possibly could have won it all. During the '70s TO had a whacked out owner who treated the team like his toy rather than as a team that could win it all.

The '90s had TO with a team that did go for it, future be dammed, which is probably a contributing factor in the mess we have now.

Chicago is now a team in decline almost 1/3 of the cap being paid to 2 players, Pittsburgh has been a team in decline basically since Crosby and Malkin started receiving 9 mil. per year, Pittsburgh hasn't really been truly competitive since Crosby and Malkin started receiving their big paycheques, they can make the playoffs and even win a series but they haven't been truly competitive for a few years now. Chicago is going to be entering their decline with Oduya, Saad and now Sharp being removed, they may make the playoffs but probably not truly Cup competitive anymore. Could Chicago have moved these assets in a more orderly fashion which probably would have maintained them as a superior Cup threat but might have diminished their Cup worthiness, who knows.

I think being able to make the playoffs isn't enough, you can hope for the perfect storm with the draft giving you Crosby and Malkin or Toews and Kane or you can aggressively shape your roster like LA by using potential to land help now, the aggressive approach hastens a team's decline, no it usually doesn't happen overnight, but prudent asset management can keep a team competitive for far longer than the aggressive single minded approach, to win the Cup.

In a perfect world teams should be able to do both but it wouldn't be a perfect world for the teams that are now improving, hopefully TO.

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

How's your memory back to '67?     

 

[Bill_Berg]

Somebody mentioned St.L., which had something like 30 straight years in the playoffs, they were competitive but never won it all, why? I think there was probably at some juncture an opportunity to address a Cup worthy need while potentially impacting the future, it looks like they kept on the slow and steady preferring to be consistently good rather than risking that path for an all in for the Cup.

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.

I simply used Rielly as a hypothetical example, TO is in no shape to contend but on a better TO he might be TO's 6th best d-man, still having his potential, would it be a proper trade off to trade Rielly TO's 6th best d-man for Eric Staal who might lead TO to the Cup.

I think people forget that LA, Pittsburg and Chicago went thru their down years in order to become the consistent Cup contenders they are today and it's aggressive Cup contenders that often will return to havenotdom because they often mortgage their future for the Cup today.

I think many people are frustrated that TO hasn't won a Cup in around 50 years and they might say that TO hasn't been good enough or aggressive enough to do so, during the '70s and '90s TO was good enough or close to it so we've had the teams with some significant tweaks possibly could have won it all. During the '70s TO had a whacked out owner who treated the team like his toy rather than as a team that could win it all.

The '90s had TO with a team that did go for it, future be dammed, which is probably a contributing factor in the mess we have now.

Chicago is now a team in decline almost 1/3 of the cap being paid to 2 players, Pittsburgh has been a team in decline basically since Crosby and Malkin started receiving 9 mil. per year, Pittsburgh hasn't really been truly competitive since Crosby and Malkin started receiving their big paycheques, they can make the playoffs and even win a series but they haven't been truly competitive for a few years now. Chicago is going to be entering their decline with Oduya, Saad and now Sharp being removed, they may make the playoffs but probably not truly Cup competitive anymore. Could Chicago have moved these assets in a more orderly fashion which probably would have maintained them as a superior Cup threat but might have diminished their Cup worthiness, who knows.

I think being able to make the playoffs isn't enough, you can hope for the perfect storm with the draft giving you Crosby and Malkin or Toews and Kane or you can aggressively shape your roster like LA by using potential to land help now, the aggressive approach hastens a team's decline, no it usually doesn't happen overnight, but prudent asset management can keep a team competitive for far longer than the aggressive single minded approach, to win the Cup.

In a perfect world teams should be able to do both but it wouldn't be a perfect world for the teams that are now improving, hopefully TO.

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

How's your memory back to '67?   

If it was good, I may have voted differently.

 

[Highlander]

As one who remembers 67 vividly and getting older quickly now, yes it would be nice to have a Blackhawks style dynasty but to win one more cup when I am on this side of the lawn would be like nectar for my soul. Vindication for walking thru the wilderness for 48 years with very few good years in between.

 

[jdh1]

I'll take winning the cup by a large margin.To get in the playoffs every year and then bowing out after one or two rounds would be very frustrating.

Win the cup,dump the veterans for draft choices,watch the talent develop  then going for the cup again.

Of course you need a great management team to do this.

 

[princedpw]

Since we are so far from the cup, I'll suggest another thing that generally makes me happy:  over-achieving.  If you don't win the cup but over-achieve, perhaps making the playoffs when you don't expect to or winning a round against what appears to be a vastly superior team.  That is always fun, even if you lose the next round.  The cup, of course, is always over-achieving (never pick one specific team; always pick the field) so that is never a downer.

Anyway, here's hoping we overachieve at some point in the next decade.  It couldn't be much worse than the last decade!

 

[hobarth]

Since we are so far from the cup, I'll suggest another thing that generally makes me happy:  over-achieving.  If you don't win the cup but over-achieve, perhaps making the playoffs when you don't expect to or winning a round against what appears to be a vastly superior team.  That is always fun, even if you lose the next round.  The cup, of course, is always over-achieving (never pick one specific team; always pick the field) so that is never a downer.

Anyway, here's hoping we overachieve at some point in the next decade.  It couldn't be much worse than the last decade!

I'm hoping we achieve, win the Cup, because it's deserved altho it can be said that since 30 teams are all intent on winning the Cup, the one that wins it is probably overachieving.

On a very loose association, Chicago has won 3 Cups and Dale Talon was the original architect of their success, his tenure as GM of Florida is becoming increasingly shaky, it's rumored, I'm hoping that the minute he becomes unemployed TO scoops him, no the second. Because of this rumor I was expecting TO and Florida would make a trade involving Kessel because scoring is Florida's greatest weakness and Kessel might buy Talon time.

 

[Kin]

I think, or hope anyway, that one of the things that people come to see over the next few years is that this idea that watching a bad team is always ultimately pointless and depressing while watching a good team is fun is really only true when the "bad" team you're watching is an expensive one that's been sold to us as a good team.

In a year or two, we're going to get to watch a Leafs team led by guys like Marner and Rielly and Nylander and while that team is likely to be bad at first, we're going to get to see flashes of the team and players we'll eventually see. Probably my favourite moment of all of last year was the highlight goal Rielly scored against the Oilers. Now imagine watching a team that has five or six guys capable of something like that. Even if they ultimately miss the playoffs, that will be a team I'll be excited to watch on a nightly basis.

So I agree with Bender and the rest who pointed out that the question posed here is ultimately an empty one(in this era of parity, the best way to win a cup is to build a team capable of being a good team for as long as possible) but I disagree with the idea that I'd always prefer to watch a good team to a bad one. The Leafs over the last 10 years haven't been depressing because they've been bad, it's because they've very rarely given me real hope that things would eventually improve. 

 

[Leaflifer]

I remember this debate. My was position was (and still is) that I want to be entertained for my time investment in watching a game. I love good hockey. It's a thing of beauty. If I have a better than 50% chance of seeing some great play, I'm a happy viewer. A cup would be a reason to raise a glass (conservatively speaking), but I want to see high end team play year in/year out. We had that for a good stretch and it was fun.

 

[Stebro]

Substainable winning....because I don't want to become one of those teams that win the cup out of "luck" one season, and then stinks it up season after season. I pretty much want the same situation we had under a couple of years when Pat Quinn coached us, but with a little more talent and minus the injuries to key players.

 

[ZBBM]

I think, or hope anyway, that one of the things that people come to see over the next few years is that this idea that watching a bad team is always ultimately pointless and depressing while watching a good team is fun is really only true when the "bad" team you're watching is an expensive one that's been sold to us as a good team.

In a year or two, we're going to get to watch a Leafs team led by guys like Marner and Rielly and Nylander and while that team is likely to be bad at first, we're going to get to see flashes of the team and players we'll eventually see. Probably my favourite moment of all of last year was the highlight goal Rielly scored against the Oilers. Now imagine watching a team that has five or six guys capable of something like that. Even if they ultimately miss the playoffs, that will be a team I'll be excited to watch on a nightly basis.

So I agree with Bender and the rest who pointed out that the question posed here is ultimately an empty one(in this era of parity, the best way to win a cup is to build a team capable of being a good team for as long as possible) but I disagree with the idea that I'd always prefer to watch a good team to a bad one. The Leafs over the last 10 years haven't been depressing because they've been bad, it's because they've very rarely given me real hope that things would eventually improve.

Excellent post.

 

[moon111]

Maybe it's finally changed, but I remember counting the play-off games or rounds from 1993 onward and the Leafs were the most successful Canadian team.  You'd think they were the worst the way people talk.  It might be easier to look at draft pick position.  When did the Leafs have a good position?  Antropov taken 10th overall?  Although people harp about the Leafs trading picks away, the ultimate crash of the team came from years of sustained winning and never landing top players.  15 years of never having a top 10 pick.  I rather see the Leafs on the very bottom or the very top.  Sharp climbs, sharp drops.  No in-between.

 

[Zee]

Sustained winning is great and all but I'm not getting any younger. I'll be 46 this year, waited my entire life to see a Leafs cup. I'll take one and be happy

 

[Kin]

Also, I think there's sort of a false choice being made here. People seem to be looking at this as an entirely hypothetical "Would you rather a team that won the cup once on a fluke and then stunk for a long period of time or a team that never won the cup but always had a good chance to" and aside from it being impossible to construct either team purposefully, I think the question being asked is more of a "what short terms moves are you willing for a team to make in order to increase their chances of winning in any one year".

The problem with using the early-mid 90's Rangers as a team that sort of chose one philosophy over the other is that there's really nothing the Rangers did that other teams, more successful teams, didn't do as well. The Rangers traded away a good young Center in Doug Weight for a more veteran player in Esa Tiikanen. The Red Wings traded away a good young Center in Keith Primeau for the more veteran Brendan Shanahan. The Rangers brought in older players to help them compete for a cup, the Red Wings 2002 Stanley Cup team was basically built on importing older players. The Red Wings also traded away a ton of first round picks, including being one of the few teams to trade away their 1st round pick in 2003.

So the idea that the Rangers did something fundamentally different than what the Red Wings did doesn't really ring true. The reason the question was posed this way was, I suspect, that Neil Smith has done so much media over the years that he's put a spin on what happened to that team that casts him in a relatively favourable light. That he knew what trading away certain young players for the future meant but did it for the sake of a cup.

But really, all the evidence shows is that Neil Smith wasn't all that great of a talent evaluator and tried to do what the Red Wings did but unsuccessfully. Their draft record got bad. He kept trading away young players. Eventually his limitations were exposed and he got fired 6 years later.

The Rangers didn't exactly explode after '94 either. They got to the second round of the playoffs both of the next two years and then the conference finals the year after that. So the narrative that they're the result of anything outside of a rich team that was well-positioned to pick the bones of the Oilers' corpse doesn't really ring true. The whole idea of not sacrificing the future for the present doesn't really match with what really successful teams, the Wings then and the Hawks now, doesn't really jive with what those teams actually did/do.

 

[brothert]

if we win the cup great! if we don't well thats okay too as long as we compete in every game. the sundin era was enjoyable. the team came to play most night and i could watch a game start to finish. i have been finding it hard to watch a full leaf game for 10 years now. i just want some good entertainment. i have been mystified for the past five years how the leafs team wins as much as they have because theyve been pretty much garbage. i am happy with the changes, keep them coming until they win more than they lose week in week out.

 

[skrackle]

I want to see the Leafs win the Stanley Cup.

If it ended up being just one, I would be more than ok with that. As others have said, it's most likely that a team that gets itself into a position to win sustainably, that will be a team that wins at least one cup anyway.

Pat Quinn always said there are no guarantees. You build the team to the point of contention and then what happens, happens. Injuries, hot goaltending, match-ups, cinderella teams in any given year are all factors. If none of that stuff amounts to enough to stand in your way, then you will probably win some championships.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Here's an article featuring the Blackhawks, current Cup winners, on how they plan (and hope) to not only keep on winning but to try to win the Cup again.  Difficult to do what with several key players lost to either free agency or trade.

Captain Jonathan Toews and winger Patrick Kane combine for 29.4% of Chicago's salary cap, and the onus will be on them stronger than ever, to guide the team to a winning year enroute to a potential Cup victory next season.

Read it here:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htmid=775138&navid=nhl:topheads

 

[hobarth]

I think, or hope anyway, that one of the things that people come to see over the next few years is that this idea that watching a bad team is always ultimately pointless and depressing while watching a good team is fun is really only true when the "bad" team you're watching is an expensive one that's been sold to us as a good team.

In a year or two, we're going to get to watch a Leafs team led by guys like Marner and Rielly and Nylander and while that team is likely to be bad at first, we're going to get to see flashes of the team and players we'll eventually see. Probably my favourite moment of all of last year was the highlight goal Rielly scored against the Oilers. Now imagine watching a team that has five or six guys capable of something like that. Even if they ultimately miss the playoffs, that will be a team I'll be excited to watch on a nightly basis.

So I agree with Bender and the rest who pointed out that the question posed here is ultimately an empty one(in this era of parity, the best way to win a cup is to build a team capable of being a good team for as long as possible) but I disagree with the idea that I'd always prefer to watch a good team to a bad one. The Leafs over the last 10 years haven't been depressing because they've been bad, it's because they've very rarely given me real hope that things would eventually improve.

I wonder about this, I think a large portion of Leafdom or hockey fandom are draft choice junkies, they live and thrive on the draft, compiling their own mock drafts and dwelling on others. They are happiest when players are traded for draft choices and were probably ecstatic that TO traded down twice during the last draft because TO had more draft choices, with them draft choices seem to have taken on a life of it's own and the purpose of draft choices seems to have been lost.

I believe that having draft choices is one of the best ways to build and maintain a team but we see it every trade deadline, teams give up 1sts, 2nds and other draft choices looking for that edge that might put them over the top and sometimes prospects and draft choices. This has repercussions not now maybe, not next year maybe but in 5 years probably and I think there's a difference between a winning team and a competitive team.

 

[hap_leaf]

Sustained winning is great and all but I'm not getting any younger. I'll be 46 this year, waited my entire life to see a Leafs cup. I'll take one and be happy

Same here Zee, same age.  So many 5 year plans have come and gone and here we are.
If we couldn't do it with Sittler, Wendel, Dougie or Mats...I don't know who the next guy is we build our Cup winning team with.  But I'd say he is not on the roster today.

 

[Bender]

I think, or hope anyway, that one of the things that people come to see over the next few years is that this idea that watching a bad team is always ultimately pointless and depressing while watching a good team is fun is really only true when the "bad" team you're watching is an expensive one that's been sold to us as a good team.

In a year or two, we're going to get to watch a Leafs team led by guys like Marner and Rielly and Nylander and while that team is likely to be bad at first, we're going to get to see flashes of the team and players we'll eventually see. Probably my favourite moment of all of last year was the highlight goal Rielly scored against the Oilers. Now imagine watching a team that has five or six guys capable of something like that. Even if they ultimately miss the playoffs, that will be a team I'll be excited to watch on a nightly basis.

So I agree with Bender and the rest who pointed out that the question posed here is ultimately an empty one(in this era of parity, the best way to win a cup is to build a team capable of being a good team for as long as possible) but I disagree with the idea that I'd always prefer to watch a good team to a bad one. The Leafs over the last 10 years haven't been depressing because they've been bad, it's because they've very rarely given me real hope that things would eventually improve.

I wonder about this, I think a large portion of Leafdom or hockey fandom are draft choice junkies, they live and thrive on the draft, compiling their own mock drafts and dwelling on others. They are happiest when players are traded for draft choices and were probably ecstatic that TO traded down twice during the last draft because TO had more draft choices, with them draft choices seem to have taken on a life of it's own and the purpose of draft choices seems to have been lost.

I believe that having draft choices is one of the best ways to build and maintain a team but we see it every trade deadline, teams give up 1sts, 2nds and other draft choices looking for that edge that might put them over the top and sometimes prospects and draft choices. This has repercussions not now maybe, not next year maybe but in 5 years probably and I think there's a difference between a winning team and a competitive team.

Well right now we're going crazy about the draft because our only  hope is the future. If Marner ends up being our #1C for 10yrs and we have a team that's challenging legitimately every year then I without question wouldn't care as much about following the top picks of the draft.

But what Nik says isn't wrong at all. I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly - if the team shows improvement and we know we're going through a learning process and as Babcock says, we know there'll be pain then that's a very good management of fan expectation. When they brough in Kessel, Phaneuf, Gus and Giguere they were sold to us as a team that would finally make it, and we know that obviously wasn't true at all, even when fans saw regression the management team kept going for several more years believing this core had what it took.

I don't really understand how your point on "Leafdom" and the draft have to do with the original question posed - it's not really a fair question and doesn't allow for any nuance anything between an extremely simplistic black and white answer that may or may not have any basis in how team are run or how the process works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trading picks and prospects if you feel that adding a player at the deadline will give you the best shot at the cup. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't and the same goes for hanging on to your picks, maybe all of them bust out and you missed your chance at winning the cup because you didn't have the cahones to give up a pick.

The problem with your idea is that unless you're looking at it from a case by case basis in what you're giving up vs. what you're getting then you really can't in any way comment on what strategy is the only one worth pursuing for the team in regards to being able to compete for the cup legitimately and being sustainable year over year.

 

[hobarth]

I think, or hope anyway, that one of the things that people come to see over the next few years is that this idea that watching a bad team is always ultimately pointless and depressing while watching a good team is fun is really only true when the "bad" team you're watching is an expensive one that's been sold to us as a good team.

In a year or two, we're going to get to watch a Leafs team led by guys like Marner and Rielly and Nylander and while that team is likely to be bad at first, we're going to get to see flashes of the team and players we'll eventually see. Probably my favourite moment of all of last year was the highlight goal Rielly scored against the Oilers. Now imagine watching a team that has five or six guys capable of something like that. Even if they ultimately miss the playoffs, that will be a team I'll be excited to watch on a nightly basis.

So I agree with Bender and the rest who pointed out that the question posed here is ultimately an empty one(in this era of parity, the best way to win a cup is to build a team capable of being a good team for as long as possible) but I disagree with the idea that I'd always prefer to watch a good team to a bad one. The Leafs over the last 10 years haven't been depressing because they've been bad, it's because they've very rarely given me real hope that things would eventually improve.

I wonder about this, I think a large portion of Leafdom or hockey fandom are draft choice junkies, they live and thrive on the draft, compiling their own mock drafts and dwelling on others. They are happiest when players are traded for draft choices and were probably ecstatic that TO traded down twice during the last draft because TO had more draft choices, with them draft choices seem to have taken on a life of it's own and the purpose of draft choices seems to have been lost.

I believe that having draft choices is one of the best ways to build and maintain a team but we see it every trade deadline, teams give up 1sts, 2nds and other draft choices looking for that edge that might put them over the top and sometimes prospects and draft choices. This has repercussions not now maybe, not next year maybe but in 5 years probably and I think there's a difference between a winning team and a competitive team.

Well right now we're going crazy about the draft because our only  hope is the future. If Marner ends up being our #1C for 10yrs and we have a team that's challenging legitimately every year then I without question wouldn't care as much about following the top picks of the draft.

But what Nik says isn't wrong at all. I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly - if the team shows improvement and we know we're going through a learning process and as Babcock says, we know there'll be pain then that's a very good management of fan expectation. When they brough in Kessel, Phaneuf, Gus and Giguere they were sold to us as a team that would finally make it, and we know that obviously wasn't true at all, even when fans saw regression the management team kept going for several more years believing this core had what it took.

I don't really understand how your point on "Leafdom" and the draft have to do with the original question posed - it's not really a fair question and doesn't allow for any nuance anything between an extremely simplistic black and white answer that may or may not have any basis in how team are run or how the process works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trading picks and prospects if you feel that adding a player at the deadline will give you the best shot at the cup. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't and the same goes for hanging on to your picks, maybe all of them bust out and you missed your chance at winning the cup because you didn't have the cahones to give up a pick.

The problem with your idea is that unless you're looking at it from a case by case basis in what you're giving up vs. what you're getting then you really can't in any way comment on what strategy is the only one worth pursuing for the team in regards to being able to compete for the cup legitimately and being sustainable year over year.

Then you have voted that winning the cup is more important than worrying about sustainability, my opinion is mine, yours is yours. The nuances have come out in the discussions, I call that nit piking rather than accepting the poll as a general question. To me Rielly would be a degree of toleration for the outright pursuit of the cup because of his potential, TO isn't in a cup contention situation so he is a far more important part of TO's team now and into the future but maybe LA with Doughty could afford to move him for a player that would put them in the driver's seat during the playoffs, an Eric Staal perhaps.

If somebody can't accept the notion that the chance of winning the cup would never be worth the trading of Rielly then I would assume they would vote for sustainability.