This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Why do people say that the Leafs alone have the longest cup drought when in fact the L.A. Kings and the St. Louis Blues have also gone 42 seasons without winning a cup? Is it because the Leafs had won previously, or simply because people like making fun of the leafs more than of those two teams?

This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Why do people say that the Leafs alone have the longest cup drought when in fact the L.A. Kings and the St. Louis Blues have also gone 42 seasons without winning a cup? Is it because the Leafs had won previously, or simply because people like making fun of the leafs more than of those two teams?
- Morris

The Kings or the Blues could hardly have won a Cup prior to the 1967-68 season.

Besides...........both the Blues and the Kings have at least made the Finals, whereas the leafs have not since 1967.

Pointing out that the leafs have not won the Cup since 1967 is not "making fun of the leafs" as you put it.............it's the truth.

The Kings or the Blues could hardly have won a Cup prior to the 1967-68 season.

Besides...........both the Blues and the Kings have at least made the Finals, whereas the leafs have not since 1967.

Pointing out that the leafs have not won the Cup since 1967 is not "making fun of the leafs" as you put it.............it's the truth.
- Doppleganger

Duly noted about them not having made the finals.

I didn't mean that merely stating that the Leafs haven't won since 67 was making fun of them. It seems however that many people note 42 years of Leafs losing far more shameful than say 39 seasons of sabres drought, 38 seasons of Bruins drought and yes 42 seasons of kings and blues drought, and I think a desire to make fun has a least something to do with it.

Duly noted about them not having made the finals.

I didn't mean that merely stating that the Leafs haven't won since 67 was making fun of them. It seems however that many people note 42 years of Leafs losing far more shameful than say 39 seasons of sabres drought, 38 seasons of Bruins drought and yes 42 seasons of kings and blues drought, and I think a desire to make fun has a least something to do with it.
- Morris

When an original six team, with all it's advantages over subsequent expansion teams, has been surpassed by many of those same teams, it is generally going to be the target of some good natured "smack".

The Rangers had the longest drought until they won, the title then went to the Blackhawks and now to the leafs, because they existed before the six 1967-68 expansion teams did.

It is just that simple.

Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, but it really seems like I'm aggravating you. I really just wanted to know why it wasn't a simple numbers thing. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's extra embarrassing for a well-established team like the leafs to have not sniffed the finals since expansion, when those same expansion teams and even subsequent expansion teams have done fine themselves. Is that right?

Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, but it really seems like I'm aggravating you. I really just wanted to know why it wasn't a simple numbers thing. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's extra embarrassing for a well-established team like the leafs to have not sniffed the finals since expansion, when those same expansion teams and even subsequent expansion teams have done fine themselves. Is that right?
- Morris

Pretty much............and no, I'm not aggravated, don't know why you think I would be.

It's pretty much black and white, as the leafs have been around longer than any of the 1967-68 expansion teams............so logically the "longest drought" title is theirs alone, and I don't think to many people would disagree with that statement of fact.

leaf fans know it, and Burke is going to hearing that question put to him quite a bit now that the Blackhawks won the Cup.

Pretty much............and no, I'm not aggravated, don't know why you think I would be.

It's pretty much black and white, as the leafs have been around longer than any of the 1967-68 expansion teams............so logically the "longest drought" title is theirs alone, and I don't think to many people would disagree with that statement of fact.

leaf fans know it, and Burke is going to hearing that question put to him quite a bit now that the Blackhawks won the Cup.
- Doppleganger

i disagree with that "statement of fact" because it is wrong


it is just that simple

This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Why do people say that the Leafs alone have the longest cup drought when in fact the L.A. Kings and the St. Louis Blues have also gone 42 seasons without winning a cup? Is it because the Leafs had won previously, or simply because people like making fun of the leafs more than of those two teams?
- Morris

For the same reason that people mentioned the Leafs drought far more often than the Hawks drought. Of course it's to make fun of the Leafs

When an original six team, with all it's advantages over subsequent expansion teams, has been surpassed by many of those same teams, it is generally going to be the target of some good natured "smack".

The Rangers had the longest drought until they won, the title then went to the Blackhawks and now to the leafs, because they existed before the six 1967-68 expansion teams did.

It is just that simple.
- Doppleganger

The difference is, those teams actually were the sole owners of their longest drought streaks. The Leafs are not, they are tied with St. Louis and LA.

though, technically, since you love saying that the Ottawa Senators have won the cup, the longest drought record always belonged to you guys

This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Why do people say that the Leafs alone have the longest cup drought when in fact the L.A. Kings and the St. Louis Blues have also gone 42 seasons without winning a cup? Is it because the Leafs had won previously, or simply because people like making fun of the leafs more than of those two teams?
- Morris

Making fun of a team would more be like the ottawa senators haven't won the cup in 73 years (yes I know they didn't play for most of those years but hey they still haven't won it since then)

Honestly...what does it matter? When Chicago had the longest drought no one cared or ever mentioned it. It was ironic hearing the media mention non-stop the morning after the Hawks' cup win that the Leafs now had the longest drought considering the media never bothered reporting the Blackhawks streak. "67" is all that ever matters.

Honestly...what does it matter? When Chicago had the longest drought no one cared or ever mentioned it. It was ironic hearing the media mention non-stop the morning after the Hawks' cup win that the Leafs now had the longest drought considering the media never bothered reporting the Blackhawks streak. "67" is all that ever matters.
- RogerRoeper

not irony.

not irony.
- Feeling Glucky?

Yeah "Leaf Homers" TSN and Sportsnet loved mentioining it the morning after. It was entertainment for the Leaf-haters in Canada.

i disagree with that "statement of fact" because it is wrong


it is just that simple
- Crimsoninja

If I understand it, the difference is between longest streak and longest drought. T.O, L.A. and ST.L are tied for the longest streak without a cup, but Toronto has the longest drought because they haven't been to the finals and because they went from often being involved in the finals to nothing.

That being said, if the leafs won the cup next year, I don't think anyone would care that the Blues haven't been to the final since 1970. I think it's a mostly useful statistic insofar as it can be applied to make fun of the leafs.

The difference is, those teams actually were the sole owners of their longest drought streaks. The Leafs are not, they are tied with St. Louis and LA.

though, technically, since you love saying that the Ottawa Senators have won the cup, the longest drought record always belonged to you guys
- Feeling Glucky?

Can you name one player of the Los Angles Kings, or St Louis Blues who watched the leafs win the Cup live, on May 2, 1967???

Don't try because you can't, the Teams did not exist until the 1967 NHL Expansion Draft was held on June 6, 1967.

The leafs have not won the Cup since May 2nd 1967...........the Kings and the Blues first crack at winning the Cup was not until 1968.

So if some leaf fans who want to believe the drought is shared by two teams that did not exist until a month after the leafs won their last Cup............go ahead....................no one else will agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts

Easy.

The Blues and Kings only started playing in the league in the Fall of 1967. The Leafs won the cup in the spring of 1967, making their cup drought a few months longer

Also, the Sens are the team with the longest cup drought, since their fans like to claim that their team is the same one that was disbanded in the 30s

Can you name one player of the Los Angles Kings, or St Louis Blues who watched the leafs win the Cup live, on May 2, 1967???

Don't try because you can't, the Teams did not exist until the 1967 NHL Expansion Draft was held on June 6, 1967.

The leafs have not won the Cup since May 2nd 1967...........the Kings and the Blues first crack at winning the Cup was not until 1968.

So if some leaf fans who want to believe the drought is shared by two teams that did not exist until a month after the leafs won their last Cup............go ahead....................no one else will agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts

- Doppleganger

However, for this to make sense, we have to assume that the blackhawks now have a "one week cup drought", because they haven't won the cup in a week. I think what they are saying, is that it's silly to consider the off-season as time contributing to a cup drought.

Can you name one player of the Los Angles Kings, or St Louis Blues who watched the leafs win the Cup live, on May 2, 1967???

Don't try because you can't, the Teams did not exist until the 1967 NHL Expansion Draft was held on June 6, 1967.

The leafs have not won the Cup since May 2nd 1967...........the Kings and the Blues first crack at winning the Cup was not until 1968.

So if some leaf fans who want to believe the drought is shared by two teams that did not exist until a month after the leafs won their last Cup............go ahead....................no one else will agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts

- Doppleganger

actually if you want to get technical Leafs were cup champs until it was won in the spring of 68 so the kings and blues have gone longer, you are the champ until you loose it technically

However, for this to make sense, we have to assume that the blackhawks now have a "one week cup drought", because they haven't won the cup in a week. I think what they are saying, is that it's silly to consider the off-season as time contributing to a cup drought.
- Morris

Exactly.

actually if you want to get technical Leafs were cup champs until it was won in the spring of 68 so the kings and blues have gone longer, you are the champ until you loose it technically
- BuzzKiller

So at the end of the 1968 playoffs the Blues and Kings, who only came into existence after the expansion draft (a Month after the leaf won their last Cup) have droughts one Month shorter than the leafs.

if you want to get technical..........show me the link to a site that starts the leafs drought in the spring of 1968.

good luck.

So at the end of the 1968 playoffs the Blues and Kings, who only came into existence after the expansion draft (a Month after the leaf won their last Cup) have droughts one Month shorter than the leafs.

if you want to get technical..........show me the link to a site that starts the leafs drought in the spring of 1968.

good luck.
- Doppleganger

Drought is by season, which means that the Leafs, Kings and Blues are tied.

By your logic, the Blackhawks are no longer the Stanley Cup Champions.

Regardless, 42 seasons is still better than never

Drought is by season, which means that the Leafs, Kings and Blues are tied.

By your logic, the Blackhawks are no longer the Stanley Cup Champions.

Regardless, 42 seasons is still better than never
- BlueBloodPat

You can believe that if you want, but the consensus in the sporting world does not.

toronto wins the tie breaker between them and the Kings & Blues by virtue of not being in existence before June 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts

You can believe that if you want, but the consensus in the sporting world does not.

toronto wins the tie breaker between them and the Kings & Blues by virtue of not being in existence before June 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts
- Doppleganger

so now we are using "tiebreakers" ? holy sh it this is too funny.

all three teams have gone 42 seasons without a Cup.
Case closed.

You can believe that if you want, but the consensus in the sporting world does not.

toronto wins the tie breaker between them and the Kings & Blues by virtue of not being in existence before June 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...hise_post-season_droughts
- Doppleganger

Thanks for confirming what I said, your link shows that the Leafs, Kings and Blues are tied at 42 seasons

And to further solidify that point, the Blackhawks do not appear on the list at all, but by your logic their drought should be listed at 1 week.

Oh doppleganger, you never cease to amaze me