The Panther
Registered User
With the St. Louis Blues winning the 2019 Stanley Cup, they were officially removed from the list of contenders for "saddest NHL franchise", where they'd previously been listed alongside Toronto, Vancouver, and Buffalo.
Toronto has to get the nod ahead of Vancouver and Buffalo (for now... though the Sabres are currently making a good case for themselves) due to the following factors:
1) Toronto, unlike Buffalo (twice) and Vancouver (three times), hasn't been to the Cup Final since 1967. (The Leafs actually haven't won three playoff rounds in one spring since 1932.)
2) The Leafs haven't iced many strong teams. The Canucks were perpetually poor from 1976-77 to 1990-91 (but made the Finals in 1982), for a handful of years around the late-90s to the millennium, and again for most (not all) of 2015-16 to 2022-23. But, they made the Cup Finals in three different eras (early 80s, mid-90s, early 2010s), and have finished in 1st in their division 11 times, compared to 2 for Toronto. Then, Buffalo had almost always been a competitive team and had rarely fallen out of the playoff picture (for more than two seasons and once for three) between their origin in 1970-71 and 2010-11. Now, of course, they're in a long period of futility, but before that they were a notably successful -- if championship-less -- franchise. The Maple Leafs, however, fell out of serious Cup competition in 1967-68, arguably, and have only been considered really competitive (at a long-shot) very briefly circa 1993-94, 2000-2004, and again in the past five or six years (despite annual playoff disappointments). In fairness to the Leafs, they've missed the playoffs "only" 19 times since 1970-71, whereas Vancouver and Buffalo have each missed 24 times. However, half of Buffalo's misses are in their current ongoing stretch, and Toronto was making the playoffs frequently around 1979 to 1992 despite their awful team, simply because they were placed in the futile Norris division.
3) Toronto is (along with Montreal), the planet's #1 hockey market. It's also the home-area and home-team for countless Canadian youths, including those who become pro-hockey players. It's not like Winnipeg or Edmonton, where it's always hard to get free agents to sign, or a place where (you'd think) highly-paid players would be able to slack off and avoid large-scale scrutiny. In the pre-Cap era, the franchise was rolling in money. In other words, the Leafs don't really have any excuse for their team / management / roster flaws (well, other than Ballard, but he was part of the management).
So, in any case, it's now been 57 years (!) since the Maple Leafs lifted the big, silver Cup. I remember in my mid-teens when all the talk was about the Rangers' futility for 50 years... 52 years... 54 years (just), and then they won. The Leafs are now three years past the Rangers mark of 54 years. If the Leafs don't win in the next three seasons, they'll hit 60 YEARS without winning.
What are other hockey / sports' equivalents, taking all things into consideration?
I guess nothing (at present) can compare to the MLB Chicago Cubs, which had a 71-year National League pennant drought and a 108-year World Series championship drought (the latter being the North American pro-sports' record). But the Cubs shared their city with another MLB club (White Sox) and thus probably didn't have the same draw to players and agents as they would if they'd been the sole club in Chicago. By contrast, in the entire SW Ontario region, Toronto stands alone to this day. Before 1992, Toronto stood alone in Ontario. And from 1968 to 1979, Toronto stood alone in Canada for the whole region west of Quebec.
In the NBA, there's the L.A. Clippers (formerly of San Diego and before that, Buffalo -- in exactly the same year as the Sabres). Though more competitive in the past 15 years or so, the Clippers have to date still never played a game in the NBA Finals, a stretch going on for an NBA-record 54 years. Again, though, the Clippers have obviously shared the L.A. area with the highly successful Lakers, which probably puts them always at a competitive disadvantage.
Thoughts?
Toronto has to get the nod ahead of Vancouver and Buffalo (for now... though the Sabres are currently making a good case for themselves) due to the following factors:
1) Toronto, unlike Buffalo (twice) and Vancouver (three times), hasn't been to the Cup Final since 1967. (The Leafs actually haven't won three playoff rounds in one spring since 1932.)
2) The Leafs haven't iced many strong teams. The Canucks were perpetually poor from 1976-77 to 1990-91 (but made the Finals in 1982), for a handful of years around the late-90s to the millennium, and again for most (not all) of 2015-16 to 2022-23. But, they made the Cup Finals in three different eras (early 80s, mid-90s, early 2010s), and have finished in 1st in their division 11 times, compared to 2 for Toronto. Then, Buffalo had almost always been a competitive team and had rarely fallen out of the playoff picture (for more than two seasons and once for three) between their origin in 1970-71 and 2010-11. Now, of course, they're in a long period of futility, but before that they were a notably successful -- if championship-less -- franchise. The Maple Leafs, however, fell out of serious Cup competition in 1967-68, arguably, and have only been considered really competitive (at a long-shot) very briefly circa 1993-94, 2000-2004, and again in the past five or six years (despite annual playoff disappointments). In fairness to the Leafs, they've missed the playoffs "only" 19 times since 1970-71, whereas Vancouver and Buffalo have each missed 24 times. However, half of Buffalo's misses are in their current ongoing stretch, and Toronto was making the playoffs frequently around 1979 to 1992 despite their awful team, simply because they were placed in the futile Norris division.
3) Toronto is (along with Montreal), the planet's #1 hockey market. It's also the home-area and home-team for countless Canadian youths, including those who become pro-hockey players. It's not like Winnipeg or Edmonton, where it's always hard to get free agents to sign, or a place where (you'd think) highly-paid players would be able to slack off and avoid large-scale scrutiny. In the pre-Cap era, the franchise was rolling in money. In other words, the Leafs don't really have any excuse for their team / management / roster flaws (well, other than Ballard, but he was part of the management).
So, in any case, it's now been 57 years (!) since the Maple Leafs lifted the big, silver Cup. I remember in my mid-teens when all the talk was about the Rangers' futility for 50 years... 52 years... 54 years (just), and then they won. The Leafs are now three years past the Rangers mark of 54 years. If the Leafs don't win in the next three seasons, they'll hit 60 YEARS without winning.
What are other hockey / sports' equivalents, taking all things into consideration?
I guess nothing (at present) can compare to the MLB Chicago Cubs, which had a 71-year National League pennant drought and a 108-year World Series championship drought (the latter being the North American pro-sports' record). But the Cubs shared their city with another MLB club (White Sox) and thus probably didn't have the same draw to players and agents as they would if they'd been the sole club in Chicago. By contrast, in the entire SW Ontario region, Toronto stands alone to this day. Before 1992, Toronto stood alone in Ontario. And from 1968 to 1979, Toronto stood alone in Canada for the whole region west of Quebec.
In the NBA, there's the L.A. Clippers (formerly of San Diego and before that, Buffalo -- in exactly the same year as the Sabres). Though more competitive in the past 15 years or so, the Clippers have to date still never played a game in the NBA Finals, a stretch going on for an NBA-record 54 years. Again, though, the Clippers have obviously shared the L.A. area with the highly successful Lakers, which probably puts them always at a competitive disadvantage.
Thoughts?
