At the end of the day, it's a "ranking." So how do people rank them? As in 1-10.
I'm curious if all this arguing is semantics. Like, you can say having the most regular season wins over the last 5 years and no cup is a failure! And that's fine, but you still wouldn't rank them 32nd out of 32 teams would you? There are a dozen teams who can't even get their acts together enough to make the playoffs consistently.
So for the folks who feel strongly that Sweeney and the front office are bad, where would you actually rank them?
I dont feel Sweeney and the front office are bad, but to spur some discussion I'll share my thoughts.
What is the time period the article uses since its paywalled? Ill go back to when Sweeney took over i guess in 2015.
I'd say the top "tier" are teams that have multiple cup wins like:
Bolts
Pens
Next is the one cup winners
Avs
Vegas
Panthers
Blues
Caps
Bruins are probably on the top of next tier of teams who have made the cup and lost, but also enjoy being competitive over a longer period:
Bruins
Stars
Oilers
So top 10 for sure. Not sure you can call that bad, maybe disappointing is the right wording, although they did start this era with a retool as a bubble team.
I think where this discussion is very interesting is if you go back to 2010-present. I think there is a good debate to be had between if you'd rather have the Hawks, Kings, Bruins.
I know lots would take the cups, but the on-ice product for the Hawks has been miserable since their last cup. I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy that extra cup if you then basically have no joy watching the team the following decade. On the other hand I've taken a lot of joy in watching 2 more cup appearances even if they ended in pain at the end, they were a fun journey either way.