And what if the Maple Leafs are hockey's Chicago Cubs, doomed to suffer more than a century (and still counting) without the ultimate prie? (They DO sahre the same colors, the Cubbies and Maple Leafs, Blue and White...) ;)

And what do you have against Boston, out of curiosity, at least in comparison with Toronto?

I love Boston. It's my favourite city in the States. And I hope its either them or the Canucks that take home the cup. So you see, I chose Boston to compare to Toronto because it was the only one that could be. But it still doesn't deserve being compared to Toronto.

Toronto can't be Hockey's Cubs because even Chicagoans (?) hate the Cubs. Even thought its been over forty years, Leaf players are superheroes in TO. Leaf management are the only ones that couldn't walk into McVeigh's and have a pint waiting for him, especially Burke.

Only an american would blather on about "making the playoffs". There's the Stanley Cup champions, and there's the rest of the losers.

Count 'em.

13 to 1, bitch.

+1 maple

More than half the teams make the playoffs. How can that be considered an accomplishment?

Well, as a Leafs fan... or a Toronto sports fan in general. We have to take every accomplishment we can. I'd be thrilled if we could make the playoffs (in any sport).

Toronto fans bragging about 13 championships in the 6 team era is like Cleveland Browns fans bragging about 8 football championships. While technically true, nobody is impressed anymore.

You also can't simultaneously belittle making the playoffs while showboating about winning a league with 6 teams. Sorry.

Sorry Putin33, you moron, but Jim Brown is STILL impressive.

"You also can't simultaneously belittle making the playoffs while showboating about winning a league with 6 teams. Sorry" Why not? It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive like, say, soap and your mother's vagina.

@Yonni: the Toronto Rock is pretty boss.

Putin, you're an idiot.

Six teams meant less spots available, allowing only the best of the best to play. We're talking an era where every team's roster was filled with Crosbys and Ovechkins, prodigies and veterans alike.

To use maple's term, the league is "dilluted." There are way too many fluff teams with the real talent spread so thin the game has turned into boxing-on-ice. Making the playoffs now just means you had smart management and a bloated budget.

Championships back then literrally meant you had the best team. Not a few superstar forwards, not a carrying goalie, but all of it. And more because every team you faced at just as good a lineup.

@TBroadley: Yeah, they are. And Lacrosse is pretty fun to watch.... but the NLS just isn't as meaningful to me as any of the major sports.

Are the Toronto homers really going to claim that there was the same amount of talent in the 1920s and 1930s as there is today, but that there were just more teams?

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlallstar/allstarselectionyr.html

Look at the all star selections for these years. It's same handful of guys year after year. So no, it's not a matter of there being too few spots. It's a matter of less people playing hockey, of hockey not being a big sport yet, etc. Also, the teams only played a couple dozen games. Today's teams play 82.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920%E2%80%9321_NHL_season#Final_standings

Look at how evenly matched those four teams were...Those Hamilton Tigers were full of Ovechkins and Crosbys, sure they were.

The Hamilton Tigers were not one of the original six.

Putin, if you're going to learn through google, at least do it right. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=original+six

The original six started after the war. And, yes, the talent was worse. The money and conditioning and training all have improved. You could take a mid-level player now and he would be a star 30 odd years ago. Especially goaltending. It's dreadful to watch some of those old games.

I don't care about the 'original six'. The Leafs won 5 of their 13 titles before 1945. The original six have nothing to do with nothing.

Unless the Toronto fans are going to discard their pre-1945 titles and just focus on the ones won between 1945 and NHL expansion. In which case you can shut up about your "13 titles".

Being originally from Buffalo (although I support Detroit teams too), I have to say that I'm contractually forbidden from respecting titles of any sort, no matter how many or when.

You're right, for once, the original six have nothing to do with nothing and everything to do with everything.

SacredDigits, if that's any consolation, 1999 final match was a thrill to watch.

Don't get me started on the Brett Hull no goal.

It required big balls from the referee when so many similar goals were disallowed...

But the rule was totally stupid in the first place, I'm glad it's gone.

It was a dumb rule and the ref made a bad call. Officiating is not a science, ref mistakes are a part of the game. Plenty of other sports have had epic battles decided in the same way. Last year's world cup. Enough said.

I'm also glad the rule is gone, and also understand that bad calls happen, but that was seriously our one shot at a Cup, and it's easier to say, "Well, the refs are a part of the game and sucks to be you" when you have 13 championships or whatever to fall back on. :)

Well, find another Hašek and go for it again :)

To put it another way, I'm not mad at the ref, or the rule, or even Brett Hull himself (well, maybe a little at Brett Hull himself) so much as a general Buffalo rage about continuously getting so close and being unable to finish. Wide Right, Music City Miracle, etc.

Dangit...my cousin has Sabres playoff tickets...but...it's a sixish hour drive for me now...decisions, decisions.

For starters I want to say this
'I think your RED WINGS are dirtier than my Ducks! ;)"
as I have watched every play-off game since 2004 I can say that the Sharks are the dirtiest play-off team in the league, followed by the Ducks. The Red Wings (Who are my 3rd fav team) are the cleanest team in the league. Or has Datsyuk won the Lady Bing trophy (Sportsman in the NHL of the year award) every year because he is dirty? Last time I checked, but I could be wrong, being dirty is not very sportsmanship like.

In the WESTERN CONFERENCE...

1. Canucks vs. 8. Blackhawks (Canucks in 6, In the last 17 years, only twice has the cup champs gotten into the second round)

2. Sharks vs. 7. Kings (Sharks in 4, its the Sharks and the Kings... LA is not good enough to go up against the best offense in the league, while the Kings only have 1 20+ goal score, the sharks have 7. If the Sharks even loose one game, I will call it an upset)

3. Red Wings vs. 6. Coyotes (Wings in 7. If you watched the last years play offs, or the year before that, or the year before that. You will see that the refs HATE Detroit, and have loved Coyotes since Bettman became the GM (The power play opportunities have gone up 15% and number of penalties has gone down 40% since Bettman (Who is also commissioner of the NHL) became in charge, and it was the same players, so a consipiracy that all my hockey loving friends believe in is taht Bettman controls the refs))

4. Ducks vs. 5. Predators (Preds in 6, not much to say since I don't care for either team)

Second Round

1. Canucks vs 4. Predators (Canucks in 7, both of these teams suck in my oppinion, as generally go no where in the playoffs, but I have to give one team the win...)

2. Sharks vs 3. Wings (Either one, I think one of these is going to win the cup, and either could do it. I am giving an edge to the Sharks because:
1. The refs love Thorton (Who can break his opponents hand during a face-off and not get a penalty)
2. Sharks don't get injured
3. The refs love Heatley (Who can punch a guy in the face and not get a penalty)
4. Sharks swept Wings last year
5. The refs hate Kronwall (who gets a diving penalty whenever he is tripped/a tripping penatly whenever the enemy team has a diver on the ice)
6. The Sharks are the only team with 20+ goal scorers, and by far the best offensive in the league.
7. The refs hate Franzen, who last time got 7 in a game got 8 PIM and 1:30 of Ice Team in the following game.
I think those 7 reasons cover why Detroit wont win)

Conference Finals
Sharks vs Canucks (Sharks in 6, Luongo is famous for getting worse the further into the play-off he goes, old habits rarely die out,)

Eastern Conference
I'll make this quick because I have to go soon

Caps over Rangers in 7
Sabers over Flyers in 6
Bruins over Canadians in 4
TBL over Pens in 4 (Crosby and Malkin injured. Anyone who thinks the Pens can win doesn't watch hockey)

Sabers over Caps in 7 (Ovi got 3 shots in the first 3 games of last years play-offs. He is famous for sucking during the play-offs. And this year should be no different, Miller proved in the Olympics that he has what it takes to go all the way)
TBL over Bruins in 7 (This one could go either way and is the second closest series behind the Wings vs Sharks, I'll give it to TBL because Boston lacks good management and has been relying on Tim Thomas, who has been an unreliable goalie in the past)

TBL over Sabers in 7 (Teams that rely on Goalies generally only get to the semis)

FINALS to come next time, I should have left 20 minutes ago...

@maple:

1967 to 2007, no playoffs to home ice.

Prattle on about the past--the present and future belong to the Ducks.

Game 1 getting ready to start now...Let's Fly, Ducks!

Pittsburgh and Detroit both won, the Caps kind of lucked into overtime vs. the Rangers, not a good start for them.