What is success in the NHL?

Agreed. The game needs to have things done to it. I think the GM meetings to discuss rule changes was an acknowlegement of that fact. The new CBA may, hopefully, be a huge stride.

I guess it all depends on your expectations, but personally I believe that it is more than just a cup every 38 years or so and is a combination of on-ice and off-ice performance.

Success in Montreal this year was a second round sweep

*tweet*

2 minutes to the doctor for unsportsman-like conduct.

Success is winning the Stanley cup,thats it.Playoffs a hundred teams are in there.If you dont win the cup your done,no-one remembers the loosers.

redefine the question please

Sucess for whom?

For the team, if they sell enough tickets and merchandise....make enough money for the corporation and turn a profit - win or lose...it is a good year!

For the fans, anything less than a winner would not do. Unless you're a Leaf fan...like I've said in a previous post; Leaf fans (myself included) are suckers. We have put up with a team and managers who haven't been to the cup finals since the 67 expansion (never mind win one). Some people say the fans are dedicated - I say foolish. Why support a substandard product?

For the players, these are grown men that are paid handsomely to play a GAME. Every so often you see true heart, honor and dedication but not often in sports ( the exception is Tillman).
A player is paid, they're happy. It just so happens that these men won the genetic lottery that allows them to PLAY these games. But thats the operative word - PLAY. So for them, if you get paid it's a good year.

Success for every NHL team is making the Playoffs. Anything can happen and anyone can win.

rayfinkel said:

Success for every NHL team is making the Playoffs. Anything can happen and anyone can win.

Click to expand...

Personally how can success be just making the playoffs,when so many teams are in it every year?

Because some teams are just mired in mediocrity for such a long time that when they do make the playoffs it is a success to them! It is all based on the franchise. I mean Nashville making the playoffs, that is a success for them. Ottawa and Boston making the playoffs and losing in the first round, not a success.

And the statement about entertainment value eroding? I largely disagree. Playoff hockey is one of the best spectacles in sports, I mean watching OT hockey in the playoffs is great. I mean no other sport offers that type of drama. Playoffs offer intensity which the regular season doesnt, nor does any other sport for that matter. Except OT football, and that in itself is a rarity. Okay I may not get as excited over an OT game between Philly and Tampa, but that game 6 with Toronto was nerve racking AND entertaining at the same time. However, I'd still watch hockey OT over basketball OT, or baseball extra innings any day!

Peace4u said:

Personally how can success be just making the playoffs,when so many teams are in it every year?

Click to expand...

You cant win the Cup if your Golfing after the 82 games. I bet if you were to ask any Player Coach or GM what the goal of there season is, answer making the playoffs.

Success is relative - it has different meanings under different circumstances.

The ultimate success for any team is to win the Cup. While only one team can do it in a given year, success for the non-championship teams can be measured by a team’s progress over a period of time. Ottawa is a success having improved from mediocrity to respectability. Its failure to get over the hump is a minor setback but the team has succeeded in collecting abundant talents that could be built on, Tampa Bay is a huge success moving from nowhere to being on top of its division and a genuine cup contender, showing successive improvements in the process. Canucks is a success under Brian Burke, progressing from a perennial laughing-stock to a powerhouse.

Apart from winning the Cup, true success has got to be sustainable. Anaheim and Carolina have failed to succeed with only a one-year stint to show for. Detroit and Colorado can be considered a success, having won the Stanley in recent years while consistently doing well in regular seasons, though falling short in winning the ultimate trophy in the last couple of seasons.

Success must also be measured in conjunction with the available financial resources. Edmonton and Calgary are both successes, being competitive teams with lacklustre funding. NJ Devils is a huge success, having won the Cup every once in a while with an average payroll.

As for the Leafs, 37 years without a Cup despite a fan support second to none, and one of the highest gates and payrolls in the league, is not a success in by books, though it consistently makes the playoffs. The likes of St. Louis, this decade’s Philly and Islander fall into the same category. Worse still, the Leafs shows little real progress in the last 5 years. Relatively speaking, Leafs are not a total failure as the Rangers, but given the team’s enviable operating and financial environments, any management marginally smarter than me could have produced better results for the City of Toronto.

I disagree with that last sentence, iam0234. Sports management isn't a science. The Leafs have been a very successful team in the last ten or so years, the fact that they haven't won a Cup notwithstanding.

iam0234 said:

Success is relative - it has different meanings under different circumstances.

The ultimate success for any team is to win the Cup. While only one team can do it in a given year, success for the non-championship teams can be measured by a team’s progress over a period of time. Ottawa is a success having improved from mediocrity to respectability. Its failure to get over the hump is a minor setback but the team has succeeded in collecting abundant talents that could be built on, Tampa Bay is a huge success moving from nowhere to being on top of its division and a genuine cup contender, showing successive improvements in the process. Canucks is a success under Brian Burke, progressing from a perennial laughing-stock to a powerhouse.

Apart from winning the Cup, true success has got to be sustainable. Anaheim and Carolina have failed to succeed with only a one-year stint to show for. Detroit and Colorado can be considered a success, having won the Stanley in recent years while consistently doing well in regular seasons, though falling short in winning the ultimate trophy in the last couple of seasons.

Success must also be measured in conjunction with the available financial resources. Edmonton and Calgary are both successes, being competitive teams with lacklustre funding. NJ Devils is a huge success, having won the Cup every once in a while with an average payroll.

As for the Leafs, 37 years without a Cup despite a fan support second to none, and one of the highest gates and payrolls in the league, is not a success in by books, though it consistently makes the playoffs. The likes of St. Louis, this decade’s Philly and Islander fall into the same category. Worse still, the Leafs shows little real progress in the last 5 years. Relatively speaking, Leafs are not a total failure as the Rangers, but given the team’s enviable operating and financial environments, any management marginally smarter than me could have produced better results for the City of Toronto.

Click to expand...

Now heres a logical Leafs fan.This makes sense.

The truth is, if you'd been managing the team iam0234, you wouldn't have lasted two seasons.
To be fair.
(One can only imagine what L0ser4u posted, but he likely couldn't fill in the application form. )

How can a team be successful and not win the cup for 37 yrs?

Peace4u said:

How can a team be successful and not win the cup for 37 yrs?

Click to expand...

And how many times were they in the Cup final in 37 years? And how many times were they in the final 4 in 37 years? I have 5 fingers on one hand, do I need to use them all?

Ranger, I beg to differ, with the enviable financial position of the Leafs and given a player payroll of some 60 million (all figures in US, of course), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together a playoff team, which is what the Leafs is - nothing more. I don't doubt that I won't last for 2 years at the helm of Leafs, but the City will have a playoff team - for at least the next two years, probably for most of the next 37 years - if this is your definition of success.

Well, iam, how do you know the job could be done better? I'm sure the Leafs could have PERFORMED better, but what would a better GM have done?

Sports management isn't a science. It's not even really an art. And there's too much luck to discount so easily.

Ranger, I agree with you that management is neither science nor art. This is why business schools are separate from the Faculty of Arts and Science in most, if not all, universities. While sports management can be deemed a breed of its own, fundamental good management principles apply in the building of a successful sports team as in the case of other businesses.

I’m speaking from experience. I happen to be part owner of a not too shabby business as well as part owner of a Junior A hockey team. Unlike the Leafs, the hockey team I’m associated with is a winner in the rink but a perennial financial ***** (which has cost me a few bucks over the years). This is why I kept saying given the Leafs’ enviable fan support, one should expect a better product. This said, my experience has been that management of a sports team is not significantly different from that of a business. All successful businesses require great people from the top down - from the bottom up, whichever order one wants to put it. Good management is capable of mapping out the right strategy for the organization and envisioning the people the team needs to carry out the strategy; capable of scouting and hiring the right people; developing and motivating the people it has assembled, and blending the chemistry of the individuals into an enthusiastic winning team, while achieving all these within the confines of the team’s financial resources, which is often, limited. This is Management 101. The principles are simple, the execution is easier said than done. Those who execute are successful; those who don’t are not.

While people is always the biggest asset of any organization, it is more so in a sports organization. What would a better GM have done for the Leafs? A lot. He is responsible for putting together the scouting team whose ability to tell talents from “also-skates” makes or breaks a team. He is responsible for player trades; for defining the chemistry of the team; for hiring the right coaches to get the best out of the players he brings in; for the successful operation of the farm team to ensure a continuous supply of new bloods. He is responsible for bringing in the right people at the right time, at all levels of the organization.

I don’t discount the luck factor. But like they say in hockey: “one has to be good to be lucky”. 37 years without luck? Well, Ranger, is it unsuccessful or merely bad luck?

My frustration of the Leafs vented:

Go Flames Go – you are our only hope of bringing the Stanley to the Great White North this season, where the silverware belongs.

Go Leafs Go – next season, and the next, and if it still doesn’t work, there is always the next.

Go Sens Go – Alfresson will guarantee again that the Cup will land in Ottawa, though he might have meant an all-natural 38DD cup.

Go Canadiens Go – you have been the pride of Canada; your tradition will rekindle despite US ownership.

Go Oilers Go – Have faith. CBA is on its way; Cdn $ will soon par US$; Sather will be available at your disposal even sooner.

The problem with drawing parallels between business management and sports management is that the performance of a sports team, as opposed to a business, is HUGELY influenced by factors beyond management control - luck, first of all, and injuries, next.

Frankly, I think it's a very bad analogy.

You didn't really answer my question about what a better GM would have done - you just defined his list of responsibilities.

OK Ranger, enough said. You have made your point and so have I. Neither you nor I have the privilege / misfortune of running the team – there is no point to wrack our brains over it. You maintain that the Leafs is on the right course, I think otherwise. Time would tell. Frankly, I hope you are right and I’m wrong. At the end of the day, both you and I want to see them do well. Go Leafs Go – next season.