Best Team to Never Win a Stanley Cup

[Daradon]

A summertime thread for you guys.

In your opinion, what is the best team to have never won the Stanley Cup? I will add one condition to this. When I say team, I am looking for a multi-year build or version of the team. Like for instance, the Dionne/Triple Crown Line of the Kings. I don't want to limit it to one year because there are far too many teams that were amazing for one reason or another for one year, that couldn't quite seal the deal. So keep your submissions to a general idea of a small era/time frame of a specific team. Let's say three years minimum?

And include your thoughts/stories and even opinions on it, as this is to be a fun thread. There will obviously be many different ideas, and we'll all learn a bit of history along the way.

[dubol]

San Jose Sharks

[Daradon]

^^^ Good pick, but flesh it out for me. I assume you mean the Thornton/Marleau/Nabakov years?

To clarify, the team may have won a cup before or after the time you've picked, just not at that time. Like I mentioned with the Kings. Another example, though a bad one, would be the Iggy/Kipper years of the Flames. Though they did get one game away, so I guess the argument is there.

Makes me think of another, probably better example. The Sedin/Luongo Canucks. (barf) Though that's still going, so it wouldn't really count, as they could still win with that 'build'.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Going to depend on how much leeway you give a team to win a Cup but the Blues probably enter the discussion.

1981 they had a great season, which was only the second year of 25 straight playoff appearances but maybe the most consistent regular season team of theirs was surprisingly at the turn of the millennium when they won the President trophy in the 2000 season and followed it up with 3 ~100 point seasons.

[icarus]

1986 Oilers?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by icarus

1986 Oilers?

They won it in 85 and 87, so not what he's looking for.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

They won it in 85 and 87, so not what he's looking for.

Fair enough.

Are we looking for teams that actually were good or were good on paper? For instance, NYR assembled some monster lineups in the early 2000s that, on paper, could easily have won the Cup but they never got anywhere close because they were assembled like an EA Sports team and without any real thought or heart.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by icarus

Fair enough.

Are we looking for teams that actually were good or were good on paper? For instance, NYR assembled some monster lineups in the early 2000s that, on paper, could easily have won the Cup but they never got anywhere close because they were assembled like an EA Sports team and without any real thought or heart.

For my perspective, I was thinking ones that got close, or at least were tough. To use the Kings example again, they were in the playoffs and put together some decent regular seasons. The Rangers you are talking about weren't.

But ultimately I am leaving it open to interpretation and preference. Which is why I asked for the poster to go into a little bit of depth about it. Maybe it's just a personal favorite of yours and you can go all fanboy on it.

The first example of the Sharks was a perfect example of what I had in mind, I was just hoping for some reasoning and story behind it. It's just a thread to have some fun with, maybe learn some history.

It's the best team in YOUR opinion. So don't be afraid to be opinionated or even homerish. If you liked those Rangers and you feel that was the best team to never win, by all means, just tell us why. (Not saying you did, just using it as another example)

[Oling_Roachinen]

Changing my vote to the 1970-1974 Blackhawks after acquiring Esposito.

Finished 1st in their conference all 4 years, lost to the Stanley Cup Finals against the Canadiens twice. Hull, Mikita, and Esposito setting records and fighting for the Hart.

The 1972 season, for example, saw the team put up 256 goals and only have 166 scored against them for a +/- of +90.

[calgaryred]

In the 90's and 2000's St. Louis and in the last couple years San Jose had teams that were good enough to win the cup but never did.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by calgaryred

In the 90's and 2000's St. Louis and in the last couple years San Jose had teams that were good enough to win the cup but never did.

Flesh it out, tell us who or what you liked about those teams. Why they should have made it, but didn't.

Another idea to think about is, could this team have won in a different year, they just couldn't in that specific year cause of a better team, our just dumb bad luck.

Maybe this concept was too difficult, lol.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Changing my vote to the 1970-1974 Blackhawks after acquiring Esposito.

Finished 1st in their conference all 4 years, lost to the Stanley Cup Finals against the Canadiens twice. Hull, Mikita, and Esposito setting records and fighting for the Hart.

The 1972 season, for example, saw the team put up 256 goals and only have 166 scored against them for a +/- of +90.

That's exactly what I'm looking for.

[Żoso]

Gretzky-led Kings.

[devo22]

one team I remember were the Flyers prior to the 2004 lockout. Recchi, Leclair, Desjardins, Primeau, Therien, Handzus, emerging youngsters like Gagne and Williams ... plus Lindros first and Roenick later. Lost twice in the Conference Finals, both in 7 games - they got really close in 04 vs Tampa ... I feel they should have fared better in the playoffs, especially when Hitchcock was behind the bench. Goaltending really wasn't that much of an issue at that time, Cechmanek and Esche were quite solid ... until they folded in the playoffs (at least Cechmanek did from what I remember).

Then the lockout came ... and with the new salary cap, they couldn't keep guys like Recchi, Roenick, Amonte and Leclair. They were still quite good though, with Forsberg and Knuble coming in.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Daradon

For my perspective, I was thinking ones that got close, or at least were tough. To use the Kings example again, they were in the playoffs and put together some decent regular seasons. The Rangers you are talking about weren't.

But ultimately I am leaving it open to interpretation and preference. Which is why I asked for the poster to go into a little bit of depth about it. Maybe it's just a personal favorite of yours and you can go all fanboy on it.

The first example of the Sharks was a perfect example of what I had in mind, I was just hoping for some reasoning and story behind it. It's just a thread to have some fun with, maybe learn some history.

It's the best team in YOUR opinion. So don't be afraid to be opinionated or even homerish. If you liked those Rangers and you feel that was the best team to never win, by all means, just tell us why. (Not saying you did, just using it as another example)

Those Rangers teams weren't great, so I won't be voting for them.

I would register my vote for the Alfredsson-era Ottawa Senators up to the 2007 SCF loss. 4 division titles, 1 President's Trophy, and 1 conference trophy. They beat some strong playoff teams in those years (Devils, Flyers, Lightning). Alfredsson, Redden, Fisher and a host of rock-solid, if not star, NHLers were core members those years as stars the likes of Hossa, Havlat, Chara gave way to Spezza and Heatley.

Their undoing was the failure to solve the Leafs in the playoffs for three or four of those years.

As a Flames fan in those days, any match against the Sens was pretty much a guaranteed loss.

[Robbob]

was going to say the flyers as well.

[rbochan]

'05-'06 Sabres.

[dammage79]

The blues overall. They were over shadowed by a few teams throughout the nineties and early 2000's. the hull, Oates, Joseph, macinnis and pronger days were solid contention days. Add Pierre turgeon to the mix as well.

[Southside]

The Canucks have never won a Stanley Cup in their entire pathetic history and that is a most excellent, if not the best and most enjoyable outcome for all.

[Flames_F.T.W]

2012-2013 Calgary Flames