He brought it up because Dopple stated that Ottawa had won the cup. So if ttawa was taking the cups from the former team, they should take the drought along with it. If not, then their drought hasn;'t been nearly as long, but then again there is still no cup.
- mfreedman

Are you disputing that Ottawa has NOT celebrated their team being awarded the Stanley Cup 21 times, and have had the majority of those "wins" acknowledged by having 19 of the 21 engraved on the Cup itself?

Yes I'm aware the expansion franchises were awarded sometime around February of 1967, but if you're a leaf fan, and you want to share the misery of having the longest Stanley Cup drought of current teams, then you can have the Blues share it with you. Still doesn't make the 45 years of not even making the finals any less embarrassing.
- Doppleganger

Sure. The leafs have sole possession of a finals drought (by three years), but share a cup drought with the Blues.

If you want to talk realistically though, the leafs would have cruised through the expansion division 1968-1970, but of course that's academic.

Are you disputing that Ottawa has NOT celebrated their team being awarded the Stanley Cup 21 times, and have had the majority of those "wins" acknowledged by having 19 of the 21 engraved on the Cup itself?
- Doppleganger

You missed the point.

Are you disputing that Ottawa has NOT celebrated their team being awarded the Stanley Cup 21 times, and have had the majority of those "wins" acknowledged by having 19 of the 21 engraved on the Cup itself?
- Doppleganger

Longest drought!

Longest drought!
- Schenn-Sational!

But the Canucks doing crap. Is funnier.

Sure. The leafs have sole possession of a finals drought (by three years), but share a cup drought with the Blues.

If you want to talk realistically though, the leafs would have cruised through the expansion division 1968-1970, but of course that's academic.
- Morris

That's why they left the "original six" in one division, and the expansion teams in another.

BTW, if you want to count the days/months/years when a City, does not even have a team, as part of their drought, then are you not measuring "seasons" but actually the date since the team (Victoria) last won the Cup.

Therefore to be accurate and consistent, then you must also count the time between seasons........................right?

That's why they left the "original six" in one division, and the expansion teams in another.

BTW, if you want to count the days/months/years when a City, does not even have a team, as part of their drought, then are you not measuring "seasons" but actually the date since the team (Victoria) last won the Cup.

Therefore to be accurate and consistent, then you must also count the time between seasons........................right?
- Doppleganger

I never mentioned Victoria.

I mentioned the Montreal Victorias, who last won the cup in February of 1899. But the important thing to remember there is that was in the challenge cup era (in fact they held the cup for 14 days only). That was 28 years before the NHL. That was 16 years before they even had "seasons". Comparing the modern era to the challenge cup era is silly.

Now we have a set number of teams and clearly defined seasons, which ALWAYS lead to playoffs and which ALWAYS lead to one team being crowned Stanley cup champions and holding that title, attached to that season. No one is allowed to challenge the Kings to a game of shinny in July and win the cup from them.

There's no contradiction.

I never mentioned Victoria.

I mentioned the Montreal Victorias, who last won the cup in February of 1899. But the important thing to remember there is that was in the challenge cup era (in fact they held the cup for 14 days only). That was 28 years before the NHL. That was 16 years before they even had "seasons". Comparing the modern era to the challenge cup era is silly.

Now we have a set number of teams and clearly defined seasons, which ALWAYS lead to playoffs and which ALWAYS lead to one team being crowned Stanley cup champions and holding that title, attached to that season. No one is allowed to challenge the Kings to a game of shinny in July and win the cup from them.

There's no contradiction.
- Morris

Yes you're right, it was the Montreal Victorias, who despite not even having a team since 1939, you claim they have the longest drought.

So you count the time (1939 till present) as part of their drought, including the "off season" too I presume.

But you don't want to count the "off season" for the current teams................seems a little contradictory to me.

Yes you're right, it was the Montreal Victorias, who despite not even having a team since 1939, you claim they have the longest drought.

So you count the time (1939 till present) as part of their drought, including the "off season" too I presume.

But you don't want to count the "off season" for the current teams................seems a little contradictory to me.
- Doppleganger

Again, there were no seasons then. Their drought is 113 years long. Challenge era and modern era are apples and oranges imo. No one is comparing the Montreal Wanderers to the Philadelphia Flyers. Who cares?

In fact, forget I said anything about their drought. Obviously the only droughts that matter are the current, active ones that teams can do something about but fail to, season after season.

Again, there were no seasons then. Their drought is 113 years long. Challenge era and modern era are apples and oranges imo. No one is comparing the Montreal Wanderers to the Philadelphia Flyers. Who cares?

In fact, forget I said anything about their drought. Obviously the only droughts that matter are the current, active ones that teams can do something about but fail to, season after season.
- Morris

So then by that criteria, the leafs have the longest Finals drought (runners up) and share the longest Stanley Cup (winners) drought.

So then by that criteria, the leafs have the longest Finals drought (runners up) and share the longest Stanley Cup (winners) drought.
- Doppleganger

I think that's what everyone said pages ago.

I think that's what everyone said pages ago.
- burn

It takes Dopps a bit longer to catch up to what everyone is saying.


57 pages into the HOAX thread, and he's still not sure if he's arguing that there's no such thing as global warming, or if he's arguing that global warming is a natural phenomenon.

It takes Dopps a bit longer to catch up to what everyone is saying.



- Schenn-Sational!

"guys you'll never guess what, if you put two pieces of bread together it makes it much easier to eat a sandwich!
#lifechangingexperience! "


first ever #joke for me, #burn

It takes Dopps a bit longer to catch up to what everyone is saying.


57 pages into the HOAX thread, and he's still not sure if he's arguing that there's no such thing as global warming, or if he's arguing that global warming is a natural phenomenon.
- Schenn-Sational!

I'm arguing with those who think Global warming is being caused by human activity alone, and that we should all buy into that Hoax and gladly have governments tax us even more than we are now, under the guise that the earth will end if we don't.

I'm arguing with those who think Global warming is being caused by human activity alone, and that we should all buy into that Hoax and gladly have governments tax us even more than we are now, under the guise that the earth will end if we don't.
- Doppleganger

The earth would be fine after global warming. Humans might eat it.

I'm arguing with those who think Global warming is being caused by human activity alone, and that we should all buy into that Hoax and gladly have governments tax us even more than we are now, under the guise that the earth will end if we don't.
- Doppleganger

Arent u the same guy who said canada shouldnt be the olympic favourites??

Arent u the same guy who said canada shouldnt be the olympic favourites??
- hugefemale dog77

No, I basically said the Russians will be the favorites, as this coming Olympics will be played on International sized ice, and since the NHLers have been participating, Canada has yet to win on the larger surface.

No, I basically said the Russians will be the favorites, as this coming Olympics will be played on International sized ice, and since the NHLers have been participating, Canada has yet to win on the larger surface.
- Doppleganger

That's phenomenal logic. I assume Russia has won several (on either ice surface) in this time frame?

That's phenomenal logic. I assume Russia has won several (on either ice surface) in this time frame?
- prock

So you not agree that Canada, playing at home, on the ice size that Canadians have played on since birth, gave an edge to them at the last Olympics?

Now try and see that this "edge" will be favouring the Russians at the next Olympics.

It will not a be a "cake walk" for the Canadians.

So you not agree that Canada, playing at home, on the ice size that Canadians have played on since birth, gave an edge to them at the last Olympics?

Now try and see that this "edge" will be favouring the Russians at the next Olympics.

It will not a be a "cake walk" for the Canadians.
- Doppleganger

Nope. Most of the top teams are comprised of players that play primarily on NHL rinks anyway.

Why do you ignore my point? Has Russia won many Olympic hockey tourneys on international ice since NHL players were allowed? You're using the point that Canada has never won on international ice since NHL players were allowed as evidence that they can't do it on international ice. How many times has Russia won it on international ice?

I don’t believe it to be a cakewalk either. But I’d say that Canada is the favourite.

Nope. Most of the top teams are comprised of players that play primarily on NHL rinks anyway.

Why do you ignore my point? Has Russia won many Olympic hockey tourneys on international ice since NHL players were allowed? You're using the point that Canada has never won on international ice since NHL players were allowed as evidence that they can't do it on international ice. How many times has Russia won it on international ice?

I don’t believe it to be a cakewalk either. But I’d say that Canada is the favourite.
- prock

The Russians are WAY more "at home on international sized ice, than Canadians ever will be. This is an advantage that you can not overlook.

But seeing how you will always argue the opposite of anything I post, I guess you'll disagree that playing at home, on an ice surface you grew up playing on, in front of your fellow countrymen, friends and family does not give even a slight advantage to the Russians, and a disadvantage to teams, especially from North America.

The Russians are WAY more "at home on international sized ice, than Canadians ever will be. This is an advantage that you can not overlook.

But seeing how you will always argue the opposite of anything I post, I guess you'll disagree that playing at home, on an ice surface you grew up playing on, in front of your fellow countrymen, friends and family does not give even a slight advantage to the Russians, and a disadvantage to teams, especially from North America.
- Doppleganger

Look, its this simple.... pointing to the fact that Canada has never won the Olympics with NHL players on Olympic ice as evidence that Russia should be favourites, is flat out stupid, when Russia hasn't either. If you can't understand that, you've got serious issues.

Look, its this simple.... pointing to the fact that Canada has never won the Olympics with NHL players on Olympic ice as evidence that Russia should be favourites, is flat out stupid, when Russia hasn't either. If you can't understand that, you've got serious issues.
- prock

Look, its this simple.... pointing to the fact that Canada has never won the Olympics with NHL players on Olympic ice as evidence that Russia should be favourites, is flat out stupid, when Russia hasn't either. If you can't understand that, you've got serious issues.
- prock

Look, its this simple.... disregarding the fact that the Russians will be playing at home on Olympic ice (where they're much more comfortable) as evidence that Russia shouldn't be favourites, is flat out stupid. If you can't understand that, you've got serious issues.

Look, its this simple.... disregarding the fact that the Russians will be playing at home on Olympic ice (where they're much more comfortable) as evidence that Russia shouldn't be favourites, is flat out stupid. If you can't understand that, you've got serious issues.
- Doppleganger

But this isn't what you said. You specifically referrenced that Canada has never won on Olympic ice with NHL players.

If you'd like to say you feel they have an advantage because they'll be playing on home ice, go ahead. If you'd like to say you feel they're more accustomed to olympic size ice, then go ahead. But pointing to the fact that Canada has never won on Olympic ice with NHL players, and therefore that makes Russia better, is just plain stupid. Get it? You could say the EXACT same thing about Russia. If anything, that's an argument for Sweden being the favourite. Not Russia or Canada.