from Justin Bourne of Sportsnet,

These days it seems as though fans and analysts have reached a consensus on the proper way NHL teams should be operating that I believe has, in recent years, twisted away from the original logic. This concept is that, in the NHL, you either want to be a Stanley Cup contender or bad enough to draft at the top of the board in the off-season, so you can acquire the type of elite, game-breaking talent that can help you be a Cup contender when it’s your team’s time.

One of hockey’s most colourful and experienced individuals is Brian Burke, a man for whom I’ve got a great deal of respect. In our brief time working together hosting a radio show, he used to put this concept into a simple turn of phrase, something like “In the NHL, you either need to be getting good fast, or getting bad fast.”

The mushy middle is the worst for everyone involved, right? It felt like the Minnesota Wild lived around the league’s middle forever, never really contending for the Cup, but never drafting high enough to get the types of special players who kept eliminating them from the playoffs. The Nashville Predators saw a Cup Final, but by and large have spent most of their time being just…pretty OK, with some great D-men and goalies in their past, but just a handful of players with Hall of Fame credentials. Along the way the fans rarely felt they were favourites, they were rarely on pins and needles waiting for the next generational talent, and they were just hoping for one of those lucky runs that sometimes happen in hockey.

That’s not to denigrate those franchises, who’ve done something noble: they’ve tried to win (gasp!) even when it’s looked fairly clear they weren’t among the league’s five or even 10 best. Every team should be doing that (for the good of the product), but because of the league’s incentive system, we’ve been left with “either get good or bad fast.”

continued