Eric Lindros has been the top item for a little too long in the blue seats, so here’s a topic to divert our attention … maybe.

The Rangers went 54 years without a Cup until the Mark Messier-led Blueshirts took back Lord Stanley in 1994. The Red Wings went 42 years without the hockey holy grail until Steve Yzerman, Brendan Shanahan and a roster of some of the best hockey names ever sewn on sweaters returned glory to Detroit. Montreal speaks for itself.

The Bruins, Leafs and Blackhawks have all gone without a championship for a while, with the ‘Hawks suffering the longest … what’s the deal? What is/are the essential element(s) missing from a club that can turn a once-storied franchise into a perennial punchline? The Rangers had a few chances during their 54-year drought. So have the Blackhawks had their shot at glory since 1961 … five of them, in fact. It’s been 40 years since Johnnie Bower and the Leafs kept the Cup in Toronto, and in that span they’ve not even made the finals. Finally, the Bruins haven’t had their moment since Bobby Orr’s days, even thought Ray Bourque and company had a few opportunities that ended in disappointment.

Obviously only one team can win the Cup each season and, by most accounts, the best team in the league is the one to do it. But … what makes a championship team? Is winning the Cup the same as catching lightning in a bottle? The infrequency of dynasties would seem to support such an argument, but the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers (and, to a lesser extent, the Red Wings from ’97-’02) are proof that great management can make winning the Cup a practical guarantee.

So, that begs the question: how difficult is it to build a champion? The Bruins, Leafs and ‘Hawks pedigrees suggest it’s pretty hard. Vancouver’s been to the finals more than once and has no hardware to boast besides the Clarence Campbell trophy.

I’m interested to hear your opinions on what it takes to win — and win repeatedly — and, with the teams that can’t win, what’s to blame?