What Defines a "successful franchise"?

[radoran]

Ripped from the Shoutbox:

 

How do you define the "most successful" franchise?

 

Is it simply "number of Cups won" or do other factors enter into the determination?

Edited September 23, 2013 by radoran
or being able to spell "successful" correctly?

[TretiakCCCP20]

Number of Cups won is the most important factor in determining a successful franchise. Cups are what every team strive to win, not things like Conference Championships or Division titles. Granted those are nice but they don't mean much if you can't take home the cup. The Cup is what the fans want, the coaches want, the players want, and the organizations want. The most second, third, fourth, fifth place finishes can't stack up to the number of cups won.

[Leach27]

From the owners/shareholders point of view.........Profit

[TretiakCCCP20]

We aren't talking about financial success, that's a whole different form of success.

[radoran]

For me, a championship is the most important determination of "success" in an individual season.

 

However, the sheer number of championships itself does not solely define "success" over the long term.

 

The Islanders' four Cups doesn't, for example, trump their rampant sucktitude for the past 20 years.

 

Calgary's one win doesn't make them - by itself - "more successful" than Vancouver.

 

Tronno's 11 Cups doesn't make them "more successful" than teams that have won Cups in Leagues with more than six teams.

 

And, by counter argument, St. Louis' consecutive playoff appearance streak doesn't elevate them over teams that have actually won.

[TretiakCCCP20]

Like I said, neither argument is perfect. Each has their flaws.

[Leach27]

We aren't talking about financial success, that's a whole different form of success.

 

is it. You can't run any business without $$

[TretiakCCCP20]

@Leach27 No kidding. But that's an entirely different topic. A team can be successful on the ice but have terrible financial trouble. Doesn't really tie in as much as one might think.

[radoran]

@Leach27 No kidding. But that's an entirely different topic. A team can be successful on the ice but have terrible financial trouble. Doesn't really tie in as much as one might think.

 

or be tremendously financially successful and an absolute abject embarassment on the ice.

 

Tronno says "hello"

[TretiakCCCP20]

@radoran Yes, the opposite is certainly true as well.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

http://thehockeywriters.com/montreal-canadiens-the-most-overrated-franchise-in-nhl-history/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferb6ace

Montreal Canadiens: The Most Overrated Franchise In NHL History?

The Montreal Canadiens. Le Habitants. Le Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge. Le Grand Club. Le Saint- Flanelle.

No matter the name, Montreal’s team sits atop the hockey world – and for good reason. They’ve been in existence over a century and still their fan base remains loyal to the CH crest. Montreal has 24 very good reasons why their club is the pinnacle of hockey royalty. Through their doors have walked some of hockey’s elite players to ever touch skate to ice. The names are staggering: Jean Beliveau, Maurice and Henri Richard, Howie Morenz, Yvan Cournoyer, Jacques Plante, Guy Lafleur, Patrick Roy, Serge Savard (the list goes on and on).

But are they really the greatest team ever or just a tad bit overrated? Twenty-four Stanley Cups certainly speaks volumes in a case against the argument I’m about to make, however there is more to their cup wins than just having been dealt a swell hand for the better part of 104 years.

16.67% Chance

The Original Six teams carries with them an aura. The Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks, Boston Bruins, and Detroit Red Wings all did battle against each other for 40 years. They were the only teams duking it out for hockey supremacy until the NHL expanded in 1967.

In a six-team league, the Montreal Canadiens – along with the other five teams – had a 16.67% chance at winning the Stanley Cup when the season began. That’s a far greater chance at winning than the current 3% chance in today’s NHL. During the years 1927-1967, the Montreal Canadiens won a total of 12 Stanley Cups. They were able to snag half of their Stanley Cups by dominating a six team league.

I can hear some of you already, “But Shawn, each other team had the same chance at winning the cup. Isn’t winning a Stanley Cup 30% of the time over 40 years impressive?”

No question it’s impressive. What’s not impressive is dominating a 6-team league. I should probably explain my argument further.

The Quebec Aces

jbeliveau18After 1946, the Canadiens hit a bit of a dry spell with Stanley Cups. It had been a 7-year drought for the city that was so used to winning. That was until the Quebec Aces caught the attention of Frank Selke.

The Aces were a team part of the Quebec Senior Hockey League (QSHL). They had a budding star who, not only had tremendous skills, but was a big, 6’3″, 205 lb center with gamebreaking potential. His name was Jean Beliveau, the leading scorer in the entire QSHL.

The Canadiens owned his rights and could call him up at any point. Problem was, Beliveau did not want to play for Montreal and chose to stick with the Aces.

In his biography on Legends of Hockey:

“The Canadiens owned the rights to Beliveau, so he couldn’t play for another pro team unless Montreal traded him. Since the Aces were an amateur team, there was no conflict with his staying there. Finally, Montreal purchased the entire Quebec Senior Hockey League, turned it pro and added Jean Beliveau to their roster. Without much choice in the matter, Beliveau signed on with the Canadiens in 1953 for a then unheard-of $100,000 contract over five years.”

Sounds fair…

With Beliveau now a lock to play in the NHL, Montreal would go on to win five straight Stanley Cups from 1956 to 1960. He was a cornerstone of their franchise for the better part of the 18 seasons and helped lead the team to 10 total cup wins.

“Come on, Reznik! Just because the Canadiens had the cash and wherewithal to do so, you’re going to hate on them for using their resources to their advantage?”

I’m in school for business. I know what it means to get the best return on investment, even if you have to shell out some cash for a greater payout. But that isn’t the only thing Montreal had in their favor.

First Come, First Served

During the 1950s and early 1960s, teams had no way of drafting prospects so Montreal began scouting and stashing teenagers to add to their minor teams and Quebec league teams, creating arguably the greatest farm system any NHL team had to offer.

Then there was the infamous C form. The C form was contract given out by 18-year old amateur players during the Original Six Era for sole negotiating rights to that player – an NHL contract I.O.U of sorts. The Canadiens’ scouting staff would scour North America for the best young talent around. If they found a player they liked, more often than not, a C form would be awarded.

To boot, Montreal had the upper hand with the 50-mile rule. According to A Thinking Man’s Guide to Pro Hockey by Gerry Eskenazi it was said:

“…each NHL franchise had exclusive rights to players within its 50-mile territorial limits. So the Leafs and Canadiens could browse the neighbourhood rinks near Toronto and Montreal at their leisure, while the Rangers had a lock on the next great goalie from Hoboken.”

At that time, Quebec was churning out talent left and right and was a hockey mecca for development. The team was able to essentially get first pick of the litter in regards to top French Canadian-born players, housed those players in their farm system, and signed those players to C forms at the ripe age of 18. Swell, isn’t it?

In 1963, the NHL Draft was implemented to diminish the effect of C forms and allowed all teams a chance at Canadian talent without the 50-mile radius. However, it wasn’t until the 1969 NHL Draft that the C form issue was completely eradicated:

“However, this process could not be changed overnight. In each of the drafts from 1963 to 1968 there were very few quality players available. This problem developed because most of the best young players had already signed the C form. This meant that the only players eligible for the draft were players who had not signed a C form. It wasn’t until 1969 that the draft became a true amateur draft as the C form faded into history.”

Overrated?

The Stanley Cup is the hardest championship to win in all of professional sports. Players give tooth and nail (most of the times literally) to win the 35 pound trophy at all costs. In order to win the most recognizable hardware in all of sports 24 times, you’re going to need a team made up of dynamic talents paired with grinders who take care of the dirty work. Montreal had every aspect covered during the 60s and 70s.

They iced some of the greatest teams ever assembled and came away victorious on a consistent basis. Their province cranked out excellent young players. Their general managers were ahead of their time in building a farm system before any other team could catch up. They made shrewd business decisions to bring in an eventual superstar and a great ambassador of the sport.

Is the Montreal Canadiens franchise the most overrated in NHL history?

No.

However, they did have a slight unfair advantage.

Edited September 23, 2013 by AlaskaFlyerFan

[ruxpin]

we need @JR Ewing to put together a metric.  I liked his thing with the goalies.

 

(Was it JR or was it J0e?)

[ruxpin]

I do think "most successful" is a much deeper discussion than simply counting Cups.   

 

I guess counting Cups is A factor, but it should not stand alone.  

 

None of these should stand alone either, but should be considered:

What percentage of years does the team make the playoffs (versus not making them)?

How many times have they made the finals?   

How many times have they made the semis?

What is their attendance like over time?  Do they keep the interest of the fan base?

What is the franchise's reputation among players (I suppose on measure of this would be ability to attract free agents, but I suppose you could hang your hat on player polls)?

 

I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of at the moment.  But I guess the issue isn't "stand alone," but weighing these things.   Is a team more successful because they went to four finals but didn't win any of them?  Or is it the team that's one for one?

 

I suppose, too, "recent" or "time frame" vs. "all time" needs to be taken into consideration as well.    Does a Cup won in 1929 with only 6 teams or whatever it was that year (I randomly typed 1929 and don't really feel like looking it up since it's not exactly the point) have the same weight as one in 1999?   Why or why not?

[yave1964]

In my opinion, it varies, not trying to cop out but team to team success is in the eye of the holder. A few:

 

 For the Wings, Hawks, Penguins, Kings, Bruins it is winning the cup. If you win the cup or at least make the conference finals it is a success otherwise it is not.

  For some just MAKING the playoffs is a success. The Blue Jackets, Oilers, Lightning all come to mind. If they make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round this year, maybe winning a playoff game on home ice for the fans, it is a succesful year.

  For some, having a lottery season is a success. The Flames and Panthers come to mind. Evertyone knows they are hopeless right now. The worst case is over acheiving and winding up with the eighth or ninth selection.

  Others want to at least advance to the second round, the Flyers, Rangers, Capitals and Blues are all part of that bunch.

  Obviously off ice profit is huge for all thirty clubs.

[radoran]

In my opinion, it varies, not trying to cop out but team to team success is in the eye of the holder. A few:

 

 For the Wings, Hawks, Penguins, Kings, Bruins it is winning the cup. If you win the cup or at least make the conference finals it is a success otherwise it is not.

  For some just MAKING the playoffs is a success. The Blue Jackets, Oilers, Lightning all come to mind. If they make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round this year, maybe winning a playoff game on home ice for the fans, it is a succesful year.

  For some, having a lottery season is a success. The Flames and Panthers come to mind. Evertyone knows they are hopeless right now. The worst case is over acheiving and winding up with the eighth or ninth selection.

  Others want to at least advance to the second round, the Flyers, Rangers, Capitals and Blues are all part of that bunch.

  Obviously off ice profit is huge for all thirty clubs.

 

OK, this is somewhat on me for my incomplete recitation from the shoutbox.

 

Tretiak opined that the Pens are the "most successful" franchise of the 1967 expansion, based upon their three Cups to the Flyers' two.

 

To which is was pointed out that, while the Pens have three Cups, the Flyers have more Conference Championships (8-4) and Division Championships (16-7) and have only missed the playoffs nine times since 1967 to the Pens' 17.

 

Does the Pens' "three Cups" in this situation make them "more successful" than the Flyers?

 

And, for that matter, does that mean that the Islanders are a "more successful" franchise than either of them? Or that, using this metric, the Leafs are the second most successful franchise in NHL history?

 

Discuss.

[ruxpin]

In my opinion, it varies, not trying to cop out but team to team success is in the eye of the holder. A few:

 

 For the Wings, Hawks, Penguins, Kings, Bruins it is winning the cup. If you win the cup or at least make the conference finals it is a success otherwise it is not.

  For some just MAKING the playoffs is a success. The Blue Jackets, Oilers, Lightning all come to mind. If they make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round this year, maybe winning a playoff game on home ice for the fans, it is a succesful year.

  For some, having a lottery season is a success. The Flames and Panthers come to mind. Evertyone knows they are hopeless right now. The worst case is over acheiving and winding up with the eighth or ninth selection.

  Others want to at least advance to the second round, the Flyers, Rangers, Capitals and Blues are all part of that bunch.

  Obviously off ice profit is huge for all thirty clubs.

 

Decent post and good points.   

 

Given that, how would you (meaning anyone) begin to make a sweeping statement "X team is the MOST" successful.  What measuring stick would you use to rate them apples to apples?   I gave a very small laundry list above but I still think it ends up being very subjective, especially given what you said above.

[yave1964]

@radoran

So it comes down to what is a successful Franchise. If you leave profits out of it, which are difficult to do but quite frankly you nor I nor anyone short of a sports accountant will truly understand the dollars and cents end of the game,nor do I believe we really want to, it takes away from the sport end if you know what I mean. So to define success, off the top of my head I would have to say you need to look at:

Cups won. First and foremost the benchmark of quality.

Final fours reached in the post expansion era.

Playoff appearances.

Ability to hold onto your own stars

Your draft and draft history

Your history of trading. Every team has ones that got away and ones who you stole, overall history should way in as a factor

Your history with free agents. How well you did of retaining your own and acquiring others thru this medium

Attendance and overall franchise stability.

Overall solvency of the ownership group

Stanley cups won: Penguins with the edge, 3-2

Final fours reached Flyers

Playoff appearances: Flyers

Ability to hold onto your own stars easily a point for the Penguins

Your draft history: tough one, but a edge to the Penguins

Your history of trading The Flyers hold the edge here

History with free agents tossup IMHO

Attendance and franchise stability Flyers by a mile. Twice the Penguins have been rumored to be moving only to bailed out by the next one. Nobody has ever suggested the Flyers are going anywhere

Ownership Flyers. For better or worse the Flyers have had the same ownership forever.

So that is, lets see 6 for the Flyers, 3 for the Penguins. I believe in the here and now that I agree with the ESPN ranking of the Penguins as the top franchise in the game right now, this MOMENT in time. That counts for a point I would have to think.

Final Flyers 6 Penguins 4. That FEELS about right to me.

[hf101]

Given that, how would you (meaning anyone) begin to make a sweeping statement "X team is the MOST" successful. What measuring stick would you use to rate them apples to apples?

 

I'm smelling the desire for a "Successfull Franchise Challenge" here..... 

 

[yave1964]

@radoran

So it comes down to what is a successful Franchise. If you leave profits out of it, which are difficult to do but quite frankly you nor I nor anyone short of a sports accountant will truly understand the dollars and cents end of the game,nor do I believe we really want to, it takes away from the sport end if you know what I mean. So to define success, off the top of my head I would have to say you need to look at:

Cups won. First and foremost the benchmark of quality.

Final fours reached in the post expansion era.

Playoff appearances.

Ability to hold onto your own stars

Your draft and draft history

Your history of trading. Every team has ones that got away and ones who you stole, overall history should way in as a factor

Your history with free agents. How well you did of retaining your own and acquiring others thru this medium

Attendance and overall franchise stability.

Overall solvency of the ownership group

Looking at the two teams most mentioned in here, the Flyers and Penguins because I don't have a horse in this race:

Stanley cups won: Penguins with the edge, 3-2

Final fours reached Flyers

Playoff appearances: Flyers

Ability to hold onto your own stars easily a point for the Penguins

Your draft history: tough one, but a edge to the Penguins

Your history of trading The Flyers hold the edge here

History with free agents tossup IMHO

Attendance and franchise stability Flyers by a mile. Twice the Penguins have been rumored to be moving only to bailed out by the next one. Nobody has ever suggested the Flyers are going anywhere

Ownership Flyers. For better or worse the Flyers have had the same ownership forever.

So that is, lets see 6 for the Flyers, 3 for the Penguins. I believe in the here and now that I agree with the ESPN ranking of the Penguins as the top franchise in the game right now, this MOMENT in time. That counts for a point I would have to think.

Final Flyers 6 Penguins 4. That FEELS about right to me.

[radoran]

I'm smelling the desire for a "Successfull Franchise Challenge" here..... 

 

 

How about a "what the frak happened to our tokens Challenge"?

 

[hf101]

How about a "what the frak happened to our tokens Challenge"?

 

The tokens were eliminated in the upgrade.  To the best of my knowledge it is unlikely they will be back.

 

:unsure:

[ruxpin]

The tokens were eliminated in the upgrade. To the best of my knowledge it is unlikely they will be back.

:unsure:

Yeah, but inquiring minds want to know who won (I'm on my phone, so apologies if it made it to the shoutbox. Can't see that at the moment)

[hf101]

@ruxpin

 

Congrats Rux you won!  See the results in the last post of the Final.

[radoran]

@ruxpin

 

Congrats Rux you won!  See the results in the last post of the Final.

 

I, for one, am happy that I won.

 

[jammer2]

  Just skimmed through the thread, not sure if anyone else has mentioned this....I think championships are the most important thing. Having said that, the Habs are not a fair guideline to follow. They had a 1 in 6 chance of winning each year, a lot different odds than 30-1. Then, you have to consider until 1970, they had a REALLY unfair advantage, having the right to every French Canadian player for decades and decades. Could you imagine if the Leafs had the rights to every present day player from Ontario? To be fair, when comparing championships, the original six should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

  Of course, the Habs have won the cup in every decade (except the 2000's, where they missed out). So, they won in post expansion hockey, in the 70's 80's and 90's. That is pretty impressive.

 

  The one thing I don't put much stock in is regular season winning percentage, pretty sure the Flyers and Habs lead there, but it means nothing to me. Ditto for Division championships, Conference championships....all that means is you lost when it mattered most. If you only have those meaningless accomplishments to hang your hat on....you suck.

 

 The Flyers only won 2 championships, mostly on the back of Bernie Parent, Clarke and the boys. I consider them failures...40+ years and counting with no cup, that is disgusting.