Perspective

[flyingnote38]

While it is understandable to be wallowing in disappointment over the Blues' latest but not exactly unexpected playoff failure, let's put the 46 years without a Cup in a little perspective. Is this really the epitome of franchise pathos? Are the Blues really hockey's Cubs? Not really.

The Blues were part of the "next six" expansion in 1967. Those six franchises have combined for just 7 Cups in 45 years distributed as follows:
The Penguins who have twice, twice, had the opportunity to draft generational talents (arguably the two best players ever drafted) have 3 cups. The Flyers won two in the early 70's and are approaching 40 years of drought. The Kings have 1 cup. The Stars never won in Minnesota and post move have won once. The California Golden Seals lead the bunch in name changes, moves and mergers. I guess you could be charitable and say they share that Cup with the Stars won 20 years after they merged. The Blues of course have none.

In 1970 two more franchises joined the NHL and share zero cups between them, Vancouver and Buffalo.
The 72 expansion brought the first dynasty among the new comers: the Isles won 4 straight cups from 1980 to 1983, but their drought is now 30 years and counting. 72 also debuted the Atlanta Flames who like the Stars moved before winning their Cup in 1989 -- 25 and counting.
1974 brought the cupless Caps and Scouts who moved twice before winning three in NJ.

So of twelve franchises who debuted from 1967 to 1974, only 4 have won Cups in their original city. Three more have moved and then won Cups. Three more keep the Blues company in the over 40 cupless club.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Very good analysis.

The Blues are more like the Houston Astros of hockey who have no championships since their birth in 1965. That's a lot better than the Cubs of hockey!

[Kerfuffle]

Even the teams that have won have gone long periods without winning anything.

- NY Rangers - 54 year drought (from 1940 to 1994)
- Blackhawks - 49 year drought (from 1961 to 2010)
- Detroit RedWings - 42 year drought (from 1955 to 1997)
- Boston Bruins - 39 year drought (from 1972 to 2011)

[flyingnote38]

Even the teams that have won have gone long periods without winning anything.

- NY Rangers - 54 year drought (from 1940 to 1994)
- Blackhawks - 49 year drought (from 1961 to 2010)
- Detroit RedWings - 42 year drought (from 1955 to 1997)
- Boston Bruins - 39 year drought (from 1972 to 2011)

You forgot the Loafs(sic) 47 and counting despite hockey's greatest revenue stream.

[flyingnote38]

Very good analysis.

The Blues are more like the Houston Astros of hockey who have no championships since their birth in 1965. That's a lot better than the Cubs of hockey!

I would ignore history and suggest that the team that is in the most similar set of circumstances currently is the Chicago Bulls. The Bulls are a scoring challenged defense first squad with a demanding coach and a demanding defensive system that grinds up regular season opponents but leaves no extra gear for the playoffs. The Bulls also have limits on being able to spend their way out of their predicament due to the Derek Rose contract, whereas the Blues' cash issue is likely to be self-imposed.

[dmiles2186]

I would peg the Blues as the NHL's version of the Buffalo Bills.

The Bills did win AFL titles, but since joining the NFL 1970, they haven't won a title. They play in a smaller market but have a devoted fanbase. Each franchise lost 3 consecutive Finals/Super Bowls (Buffalo 4, obviously). Each has a recent history of playoff futility. Each has a history of some great players coming through over the years. Maybe I'm stretching it, but they're close.

[flyingnote38]

There are many factors that have waxed and waned teams fortunes over the years. There are economic factors that have at points favored certain types of teams over others -- the Canadian TV contract, the strength of the Loonie then it's weakness relative to the dollar, etc -- and each franchises idiosyncratic issues with bankruptcies and sales, threatened moves, actual moves, tragic injuries and even deaths.

But scanning the list of non-original six teams, even the really successful ones have only managed to capture lightning in a bottle once.

Really only the Pens have built Cup winning rosters twice. And they, as mentioned, have benefited the most from serendipity.


The rest of the multiple Cup winners have largely built a single championship caliber team and road it, admittedly with tweaks and revamps and additions, to additional titles. And almost all (all?) have benefited from good fortune along the way.

The Oilers parlayed the Gretzky gift as part of the WHA merger deal and a killer draft class in 1979 into 5 cups over a half dozen years.
The Aves heist of Roy and winning the Lindros lottery and more importantly the Lindros trade got them 2.
The Devils might have done things the "right way" -- building through the draft -- but being awarded Scott Stevens in compensation for Shanahan pretty much is what made them contenders.

Far from being an outlier, the Blues are simply just one example of just how hard it is to build a Cup winner in the NHL.

[cprice12]

I've never liked the Blues/Cubs comparision...because it's just not accurate...not even close.

The Blues would have to go cupless for another 59 years before they reach the current level of Cubs ineptness. That's longer than the blues have even been in the league...so they're not even half way to "Cub Level".

[JesusNEVERexisted]

If you guys heard the KMOX post game show the host said he was getting a TON of texts saying the Blues are the Cubs of hockey. The host (Chris Rabe I think) said he grew up in Chicago and the Blues are NOTHING like the Cubs!

[cardsfan04]

I've never liked the Blues/Cubs comparision...because it's just not accurate...not even close.

The Blues would have to go cupless for another 59 years before they reach the current level of Cubs ineptness. That's longer than the blues have even been in the league...so they're not even half way to "Cub Level".

Agreed. I've thought of them like the Astros, but that's not perfect either. Maybe the Browns? They have won, but the last time was 1964 which predates the Super Bowl. Rabid fan base despite never quite being able to win it all.

[cprice12]

I'm not even sure why it's necessary to say they are "the so-and-so's of the NHL".

The comparison is never going to be accurate because it's different sports.

[STLADOGG]

I'm not even sure why it's necessary to say they are "the so-and-so's of the NHL".

The comparison is never going to be accurate because it's different sports.

Yep, they are the Blues of the Blues.
As long as the Maple Leafs continue to suck I'm cool.

[glen a richter]

Silly to compare one sport to another, but if we're doing that then I agree with the Blues/Bills comparison.

To compare the Blues to the Cubs is folly, the Cubs have a title to their resume, albeit from the War of 1812 era.

[kodos]

It's not just the championship thing... this team can't win in the postseason period.

I've been watching for 26 years and I've seen them get to the third round ONCE.

They've won a single playoff round in the last 12 years.

They've lost the right to call themselves a good team. THIS IS NOT A GOOD TEAM. Good teams can do crazy things, like win a single (Franking) playoff round.

I don';t give a shit that they lost to the Cup champs again. Who cares. There is always a reason, always an excuse. The time for excuses is over and it's time to just accept that this is a mediocre team that probably isn't a piece or two away from success. This is a miserable failure of a team who has accomplished NOTHING that should convince any reasonable person that they are a contender. THEY ARE NOT.

We need to stop pretending they are close. This teams close to nothing.

If they want to be considered "close" or "good" they need to (Franking) prove it when it matters.

[flyingnote38]

It's not just the championship thing... this team can't win in the postseason period.

I've been watching for 26 years and I've seen them get to the third round ONCE.

They've won a single playoff round in the last 12 years.

They've lost the right to call themselves a good team. THIS IS NOT A GOOD TEAM. Good teams can do crazy things, like win a single (Frank) playoff round.

I don';t give a shit that they lost to the Cup champs again. Who cares. There is always a reason, always an excuse. The time for excuses is over and it's time to just accept that this is a mediocre team that probably isn't a piece or two away from success. This is a miserable failure of a team who has accomplished NOTHING that should convince any reasonable person that they are a contender. THEY ARE NOT.

We need to stop pretending they are close. This teams close to nothing.

If they want to be considered "close" or "good" they need to (Frank) prove it when it matters.

I doubt they will be anyone's trendy pick for the Cup next year. A division title and a single playoff series win is a poor resume for a franchise that has been getting picked as a Cup darkhorse or favorite since 2011. But don't suggest firing the GM just because we are further away than we were 2 years ago (or for that matter 2 months ago) because that will be labeled the dumbest thing posted on this board.

[glen a richter]

The last time this team made the 3rd round, they were backstopped by none other than the eternally and unfairly maligned Roman Turek. Bet we all wish we had Roman in his prime vs. Ryan Miller circa this season at the moment.

[Oaklandblue]

The last time this team made the 3rd round, they were backstopped by none other than the eternally and unfairly maligned Roman Turek. Bet we all wish we had Roman in his prime vs. Ryan Miller circa this season at the moment.

I'd rather we had played Elliott, but as the saying goes "If Ifs were a Fifth, we'd all be drunk". And after this series we're all probably still getting over a hangover.

Turek I'd have been ok with, Liut, Cujo or Fuhr too. I was fully expecting us entering the playoffs with Halak and Elliott and see if the 1-2 punch came alive, but eh. It's what it is and that's just how it is...

[WaukeeBlues]

It's not just the championship thing... this team can't win in the postseason period.

I've been watching for 26 years and I've seen them get to the third round ONCE.

They've won a single playoff round in the last 12 years.

They've lost the right to call themselves a good team. THIS IS NOT A GOOD TEAM. Good teams can do crazy things, like win a single (Frank) playoff round.

I don';t give a shit that they lost to the Cup champs again. Who cares. There is always a reason, always an excuse. The time for excuses is over and it's time to just accept that this is a mediocre team that probably isn't a piece or two away from success. This is a miserable failure of a team who has accomplished NOTHING that should convince any reasonable person that they are a contender. THEY ARE NOT.

We need to stop pretending they are close. This teams close to nothing.

If they want to be considered "close" or "good" they need to (Frank) prove it when it matters.

I doubt they will be anyone's trendy pick for the Cup next year. A division title and a single playoff series win is a poor resume for a franchise that has been getting picked as a Cup darkhorse or favorite since 2011. But don't suggest firing the GM just because we are further away than we were 2 years ago (or for that matter 2 months ago) because that will be labeled the dumbest thing posted on this board.

I can't like this response enough.

The Blues were a victim of the salary cap era because we were traditionally a team that acquired talent through big level purchases from clubs that couldn't afford it. The rebuild has been slow, painful but methodical.

Guys... we have a good team. We have a DAMN good team. We're not a dark horse anymore. The Hockey News weren't smoking meth when they picked the Blues to win the cup this season. We took the Blackhawks to task in this series. I'm as bummed and frustrated and, quite frankly, PISSED as the next Blues fan but I truly believe this is one of the best teams that has ever taken to the ice in the bluenote.

This was a phenomenally brutal matchup in the first round (which, albeit, was the Blues' fault) with two heavyweights. Fans from all over the NHL, and even from the Hawks have complemented the hell out of this team and that series was as dead even and powerful as you can ask for. More than one outside fan has told me they thought it was a shame we had to face each other in the first round because these two teams should be battling in the conference finals.

Our powerplay needs some help, we needed guys to bury their chances and our goalie to steal a game or two and we're in the second round. Yes, Kodos, I get that that is entirely your point: at some point the excuses need to stop. But this team needs tweaks and tugs, not an overhaul and I feel that would be a potentially disastrous move this offseason if that's what happens.

[Oaklandblue]

Having the best team your franchise has ever had and not winning it all means you're not good enough, no matter how you want to cut it. Teams play 82 games every year for a chance to move to the next round to play for the Cup. The Blues hype as being the chosen ones to win it all for the past how many years isn't helping, it's hurting. This team has cried wolf too many times in that respect and people are going to stop listening unless Army and Stillman make some big moves now. If they really do want to win as bad as Stillman says he does, they will. You want to know why the team gets largely ignored, this is why.

EDIT: I'm not saying blow up the team. Don't do that. I'm saying sign the pieces that make others go "Oh Sh_ _, they ARE serious about winning it all", not "It's all hot air and words. Ooh look, signed another grinder. Take our word for it, <insert name here> is great". Now that we have a team that can get to the playoffs, Army needs to make the REAL deal to take us the rest of the way.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

It's hard to believe but look at all the giants in hockey and sports who picked the Blues to either win the Cup or conference since 2011:

1. The Hockey News
2. ESPN
3. Sports Illustrated
4. Vegas odds makers

I think at least some do it to be chic and it'it's not based on actual analysis.