Answer my question Mr. Ganger
- CaptainRivet

I’ve been reading this thread for ages… and I finally had to make an account and weigh in. First off – I’m a Hawks fan. Have been since the day I was born. I remember when the Wings finally won Stanley’s mug and moved the drought on to the Hawks. It wasn’t front page news (as in the Toronto Sun), but it was mentioned. The drought is in a word: Embarrassing. It belonged to the Hawks for a damn long time (since ’97 I believe). It’s nothing to be taken lightly – but don’t deny its existence! Don’t try to share the shame! Embrace it, create a team around it… and most of all: go win some hockey games! And yeah, the Leafs are tied in the drought – but tied with teams that aren’t original six. Leafs’ history is too long and too proud for fans to compare themselves to the Blues and Kings. This dubious distinction belongs to Leafs. Embrace it, get angry, and win a cup. But until that day, the Leafs need to make some legit improvements – and if that starts happening, and the team starts to win some games, Leaf-haters will slowly start to go away.

I’ve been reading this thread for ages… and I finally had to make an account and weigh in. First off – I’m a Hawks fan. Have been since the day I was born. I remember when the Wings finally won Stanley’s mug and moved the drought on to the Hawks. It wasn’t front page news (as in the Toronto Sun), but it was mentioned. The drought is in a word: Embarrassing. It belonged to the Hawks for a damn long time (since ’97 I believe). It’s nothing to be taken lightly – but don’t deny its existence! Don’t try to share the shame! Embrace it, create a team around it… and most of all: go win some hockey games! And yeah, the Leafs are tied in the drought – but tied with teams that aren’t original six. Leafs’ history is too long and too proud for fans to compare themselves to the Blues and Kings. This dubious distinction belongs to Leafs. Embrace it, get angry, and win a cup. But until that day, the Leafs need to make some legit improvements – and if that starts happening, and the team starts to win some games, Leaf-haters will slowly start to go away.
- LoserSince61

The leafs could win the stanley cup for 10 years in a row and still a lot of people would find a way to say it was a fluke and there is no argueing that

Ten in a row? Let’s start with one.
Anyone who calls a cup team a fluke isn’t worth your time anyhow. So the day the Leafs win a cup (or pull off a dynasty, or by virtue of miracle win ten in a row) and people call it a ‘fluke’ will be the day that I agree that people are too tough on your club.

Ten in a row? Let’s start with one.
Anyone who calls a cup team a fluke isn’t worth your time anyhow. So the day the Leafs win a cup (or pull off a dynasty, or by virtue of miracle win ten in a row) and people call it a ‘fluke’ will be the day that I agree that people are too tough on your club.
- LoserSince61

It was an exaggeration with the 10 in a row but I would be willing to bet any amount of money that even then the majority of people who rag on the leafs now would still rag on the leafs they would find something like they didn't win the cup in 16 games or something stupid like that it doesn't matter as long as the leafs and leafs fans exist leafs haters will exist and point it out.

Its a chicken and the egg conundrum what makes what worse the more leafs fans support their team the more people rag on them the more they rag on leaf fans the more then support the team its a large circle that has grown into a very large and funny argument.

I think a single cup win would shut everyone up. Anyone who'd say anything negative about them at that point would just be stupid.

I think a single cup win would shut everyone up. Anyone who'd say anything negative about them at that point would just be stupid.
- daeth

You get the point now lol

I’ve been reading this thread for ages… and I finally had to make an account and weigh in. First off – I’m a Hawks fan. Have been since the day I was born. I remember when the Wings finally won Stanley’s mug and moved the drought on to the Hawks. It wasn’t front page news (as in the Toronto Sun), but it was mentioned. The drought is in a word: Embarrassing. It belonged to the Hawks for a damn long time (since ’97 I believe). It’s nothing to be taken lightly – but don’t deny its existence! Don’t try to share the shame! Embrace it, create a team around it… and most of all: go win some hockey games! And yeah, the Leafs are tied in the drought – but tied with teams that aren’t original six. Leafs’ history is too long and too proud for fans to compare themselves to the Blues and Kings. This dubious distinction belongs to Leafs. Embrace it, get angry, and win a cup. But until that day, the Leafs need to make some legit improvements – and if that starts happening, and the team starts to win some games, Leaf-haters will slowly start to go away.
- LoserSince61

Easy to say when no one cares or mentions your team's drought.

I think a single cup win would shut everyone up. Anyone who'd say anything negative about them at that point would just be stupid.
- daeth

Heck a playoff game might even quiet the masses.....

Heck a playoff game might even quiet the masses.....
- Big T

Didn't work pre-lockout.

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
- Prax

Sure kinda looks like the Kings Drought might come to an end this week.

And now it's the Blues who are the only remaining franchise from the 1967/68 expansion left to win a Cup.

And now it's the Blues who are the only remaining franchise from the 1967/68 expansion left to win a Cup.
- Doppleganger

Poor Kings. They've already gone 12+ hours without winning the cup. What a drought!

Poor Kings. They've already gone 12+ hours without winning the cup. What a drought!
- Morris

They've got the shortest drought, but who has the longest?

They've got the shortest drought, but who has the longest?
- Doppleganger

The Montreal Victorias. They haven't held the cup since February 18, 1899.

The Montreal Victorias. They haven't held the cup since February 18, 1899.
- Morris

How can they win another Cup if they don't exist?

How can they win another Cup if they don't exist?
- Doppleganger

Well, for starters, they'll have to start existing again. Isn't that what the Senators purportedly did?

Well, for starters, they'll have to start existing again. Isn't that what the Senators purportedly did?
- Morris

Ottawa re-joined the NHL back in 1992 after the first Ottawa franchise (1917 -1934) left Ottawa and moved to St. Louis.

So Ottawa's last Stanley Cup was won in April of 1927. So their drought was from 1927 to 1934 (7 years) when the team left Ottawa (can't win a Cup without a team).

The current Ottawa team has played 19 seasons since re-joining the NHL, so I guess if you wanted, you could add the two droughts together and come up with 26 seasons when Ottawa had a team in the NHL and failed to end their drought, since they last won the Cup.

Gotta be in it, to win it!

Ottawa re-joined the NHL back in 1992 after the first Ottawa franchise (1917 -1934) left Ottawa and moved to St. Louis.

So Ottawa's last Stanley Cup was won in April of 1927. So their drought was from 1927 to 1934 (7 years) when the team left Ottawa (can't win a Cup without a team).

The current Ottawa team has played 19 seasons since re-joining the NHL, so I guess if you wanted, you could add the two droughts together and come up with 26 seasons when Ottawa had a team in the NHL and failed to end their drought, since they last won the Cup.

Gotta be in it, to win it!
- Doppleganger

That seems a little overcomplicated. We're talking about a stanley cup drought - how long has it been since everyone won the stanley cup? For the Montreal Victorias, it's 113 years.

Another wrinkle: No NHL team had a chance to win the stanley cup during the lockout. Should we take a year off of everyone's "drought"?

Another wrinkle: No NHL team had a chance to win the stanley cup during the lockout. Should we take a year off of everyone's "drought"?
- Morris

I did, when stated that Ottawa, since re-joining the NHL has a cup drought of 19 seasons.

You're also forgetting when the NHL was suspended for the two world wars, or does that matter with your system?

All I know is that an team representing Ottawa has been awarded the Stanley Cup 19 times, and has had 12 of these wins engraved on the Cup itself.

And if you want to disregard whether a City had a team of not, then why not go back to the earliest establish human City on the North American Continent and claim they have the longest drought?

That would mean Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala established sometime around 1500 BC has the longest drought by. your complicated system.

I did, when stated that Ottawa, since re-joining the NHL has a cup drought of 19 seasons.

You're also forgetting when the NHL was suspended for the two world wars, or does that matter with your system?

All I know is that an team representing Ottawa has been awarded the Stanley Cup 19 times, and has had 12 of these wins engraved on the Cup itself.

And if you want to disregard whether a City had a team of not, then why not go back to the earliest establish human City on the North American Continent and claim they have the longest drought?

That would mean Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala established sometime around 1500 BC has the longest drought by. your complicated system.
- Doppleganger

did they ever have a hockey team?

I also don't know what you're getting at by "my system".

Since a drought by definition is a scarcity or lack over an extended period of time, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about LA's 12 hour drought. Further, I'll contend that the Blues and Leafs Stanley cup drought are the same length, because I'd figure one ought to judge it in seasons. You might disagree with me.

As for the Montreal Victorias/Original Sens stuff, I was just being facetious. You know, getting your goat. It's the offseason, and we all have to entertain ourselves somehow.

I just think it's so funny that another team has won the cup before the joke of a franchise from Vancouver. . Have a good summer annoyance. your team sucks. See ya in September.

did they ever have a hockey team?

I also don't know what you're getting at by "my system".

Since a drought by definition is a scarcity or lack over an extended period of time, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about LA's 12 hour drought. Further, I'll contend that the Blues and Leafs Stanley cup drought are the same length, because I'd figure one ought to judge it in seasons. You might disagree with me.

As for the Montreal Victorias/Original Sens stuff, I was just being facetious. You know, getting your goat. It's the offseason, and we all have to entertain ourselves somehow.
- Morris

But how could the Blues have ever won the Cup in 1967?

The earliest they had a shot at it was in 1968, but lost in four games to the Habs.

They (the Blues) have at least been to the finals three times since the "original six" expanded...........the leafs have not, and therefore have the longest "finals drought" among current teams (franchises).

But how could the Blues have ever won the Cup in 1967?

The earliest they had a shot at it was in 1968, but lost in four games to the Habs.

They (the Blues) have at least been to the finals three times since the "original six" expanded...........the leafs have not, and therefore have the longest "finals drought" among current teams (franchises).
- Doppleganger

Are you still arguing this?? Seriously....


The Leafs won the cup in 1967, In Oct of 67 the new year started along with2 new teams. In May of 68 the cup was awarded..... It had been 1 year since the Leafs won the cup, and also 1 year of being in the league for LA & St.Louis. Their droughts are the same exact length. It doesn't matter that the Kings and Blues didn't exist the year before, it has no relevance to the question.

But how could the Blues have ever won the Cup in 1967?

The earliest they had a shot at it was in 1968, but lost in four games to the Habs.

They (the Blues) have at least been to the finals three times since the "original six" expanded...........the leafs have not, and therefore have the longest "finals drought" among current teams (franchises).
- Doppleganger

You're aware that after expansion they put the expansion teams in one conference and the originals in another right? All they had to do was be the best expansion team to get to the finals.