JediDefender.com Forums

Community => JD Sports Forum! => Topic started by: Scott on September 22, 2003, 02:38 PM

Title: 2004/2005 NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on September 22, 2003, 02:38 PM
With the pre-season well udner way its time to get going on this years thread and start discussing the rapidly upcoming season!  

My (new) team the Wild are set to come off a storybook year for a third year team.  

Two major problems they have right now is Gaborik and Dupuis their two leading scorers last year are both holding out.  Not a good way to start  the season :(

I look for them to do about the same as last year, make the playoffs and have a chance to win a series or two and that is about it.  I think Detroit and NJ will both be strong yet again.  I also am really intrigued to see how the Avalanche do without Roy, signing Sellane and Kariya is so tough, their Offense is unbeatable and might have to be to overcome the loss of the greatest goalie ever...Sakic-Sellane-Kariya on a line is almost unfair :-\ And then to have Forsberg-Tanguay-Hedjuk after that is criminal!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on September 22, 2003, 03:04 PM
I think you're right Scott about Colorado but then I think to myself Aebischer?.  

Look at the playoffs last year.  Who made it far and who was in net?

Jersey - Brodeur.
Ottawa - Lalime.
Anaheim - Gigeure.

Gotta have a goalie to go far.  Sure Aebischer could pull a 'giggy', but it's sort of doubtful.  

Detroit looks good (what will they do with Cujo?).  Dallas has signed Turco, so they're set for a decent season.  Ottawa should be good again, though Havlat's negotiations are not going well and they lost Arvedson to Vancouver.  Vancouver may actually step up, but we'll see what the goaltending does out west.  

Better watch twice as many games as you usually do.  It's going to be quiet at the end of 2004.  

Scott, are you going to the all star  game?
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DarthWormie on September 23, 2003, 11:45 AM
Don't be surprised if Colorado goes out and picks up a veteran goalie (Burke? Khabibulin?).

As for my team of choice, The Bruins look like they're ready to stumble their way to another pathetically medicore season, finish 8th in the conference and lose to NJ or Ottawa in 5 games. Other than Thorton and Samsonov, they are devoid of talent and are run by the Three Stooges of NHL management (O'Connell, Sinden, and Jacobs) who refuse to invest dime one into the team. Once again they will have one of the lowest payrolls in the league but will finish in the top 5 again in highest ticket prices and profitability. :'(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Sith Lord Cosmo on September 23, 2003, 11:52 PM
Defense wins championships.  Despite all their fire power, the Avs aren't going to win unless they have a better goalie.  

My Red Wings look to be set for the year, with the best defense in the league.  Losing Fedorov wasn't good, but it won't be devastating.  If only they could do something with Cujo
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on September 24, 2003, 02:28 PM
Defense always wins championships agreed, but the Avs still have some pretty good defensemen as well, its the Goalie who is a question mark and as was shown last year with Giguerre and the Wild goalies, virtual unkowns can carry you far into the playoffs

Brent...I am not planning on attending the All Star Game, might go to some of the festivities though
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on November 7, 2003, 09:23 AM
Bump da da Bump Bump

Been a while since we've talked puck.  The Wild finally signed Gaborik and Dupuis and have turned things around since starting 1-6-1 and are now 5-6-2.  Nice little turn around...

Ducks are struggling as are the AVs who have a ton of injuries...haven't been paying too much attention though as it is Football season
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on November 7, 2003, 09:53 AM
Oilers are now unbeaten in 4! Tie game last night against Ottawa. Now there on the road for 4 games & they play Minnesota on the 13th.  :-*

Oh, the big Heritage Classic Hockey game coming up on Nov 22, Edmonton Oilers vs. the Montreal Canadiens!  8)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on November 14, 2003, 09:00 AM
Shutout! Edm 2 - Wild 0.   ;D   :-*
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Mikey D on November 14, 2003, 09:24 AM
The Flyers are on a 5 game winning streak and one of only two teams unbeaten at home.  Hopefully they'll end their playoff futility of the last few years and bring back Lord Stanley's Cup to the City of Brotherly Love.

Go Broad Street Bullies!!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on November 19, 2003, 05:13 PM
The STARS were set to have a great season with our record setting (lowest goals against) goalie newly signed and everything, right? Wrong! The STARS suck, their season is slipping away...
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on November 23, 2003, 01:50 PM
Here's some pic's I took from the Heritage Classic Hockey game.

Rink from Section C, row 61. Legends game.

(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/djustus/1%20Heritage%20Hockey%20Classic.jpg)

Just before Oilers game.

(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/djustus/2%20Heritage%20Hockey%20Classic.jpg)

Moved to section S, row 27.

(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/djustus/3%20Heritage%20Hockey%20Classic.jpg)

Some fireworks after the game.

(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/djustus/4%20Heritage%20Hockey%20Classic.jpg)

57,164 crazy Canuks. Tempature, -18.4 Celsius, windchill, -26 Celsius . (http://adwoff.com/ubb/graemlins/bundledup.gif)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on November 24, 2003, 12:09 AM
The STARS were set to have a great season with our record setting (lowest goals against) goalie newly signed and everything, right? Wrong! The STARS suck, their season is slipping away...

It's been an odd year for some teams.  The team I cheer for is having a similar year.  Ottawa has a sweet goalie in Lalime but his record thus far is a dismal 8-7-1, not good.  The team is languishing too.  

Colorado, for all their firepower isn't doing much either.  Wings are losing, Anaheim is sucking.  

Parity?

Dale, nice pics, you dog.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on November 24, 2003, 09:02 AM
Dale, nice pics, you dog.

 ;D   8)   :-*  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: JediMAC on November 24, 2003, 06:44 PM
Cool (pun intended) pix Dale!  Looks and sounds like you had a blast, even if you froze your cojones off!  So was that Legends game the one that Gretzky was to play in, that I first mentioned here several months ago?  Was he there?  If so, did people go crazy, or what?!

Pretty weird to see a hockey rink way out there in the middle of the ice, all by it's lonesome, with the fans so far away.  Even stranger to see it in a huge outdoor stadium.  Awesome that you got to be a part of history by attending the NHL's first ever outdoor game!  Congrats!  Now go sit your ass in a sauna for a while and dethaw...   :P

Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on November 24, 2003, 10:16 PM
So was that Legends game the one that Gretzky was to play in, that I first mentioned here several months ago?  Was he there?  If so, did people go crazy, or what?!

Yes, Gretzky was there, infact the whole dynasty team was there.  8)

The fans went wild. Never thought I would see the day he would wear an Oiler jersey again! Wayne's daughter Paulina sung "I Will Remember You" & she sure has a voice.  8)

The game was televised around the world, did you not watch it Matt? Atleast you would have been warmer that me!  ;D
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on November 25, 2003, 12:33 PM
Yeah, those pics were awesome. I would have loved to have gone to that!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on November 25, 2003, 05:17 PM
That would have been great...and man if my wife thinks she is cold at a Hockey Game now, imagine that!!

OF course if we tried that here, it would be water polo....

By the way, when does Dallas get the All Star game?  I thought it was either this year or next since we got the new Arena.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on November 26, 2003, 10:14 PM
Not this year.  Minnesota has it this year.  Is it sold out yet Scott (Jim)?  I'm still trying to work it out so I can get there, but hard finding somebody from here to go.  Got a buddy that's a prof at UofM so I may just try to convince him.  Unless Matt messes it up with Vegas plans.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on December 4, 2003, 03:25 PM
For those who have not seen this:

MegaStars Game Worn Jersey - Wayne Gretzky (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2768437563&category=50120)

 :o
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on December 18, 2003, 12:45 PM
Not this year.  Minnesota has it this year.  Is it sold out yet Scott (Jim)?  I'm still trying to work it out so I can get there, but hard finding somebody from here to go.  Got a buddy that's a prof at UofM so I may just try to convince him.  Unless Matt messes it up with Vegas plans.
The game and skills competition have been sold out forever.  I think there are still tickets for the Practice sessions

BTW Brent...saw a ton of NHL 6 everywhere yesterday...no variants and no Jets Sellane
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on December 18, 2003, 09:30 PM
Thanks for looking.  I'm not desperate for anything, I have what I need save the 3rd Jersey Patrick Roy and I am not holding my breath for that one.  

Not likely I'll be down for the allstar game either.  Pity, but finances just won't allow.  Probably moving to a newer house next year and going to Hawaii next December, so really not that much more expendable cash beyond what I already waste on toys ;D
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on January 26, 2004, 10:36 AM
Ugh, the Wild are bad news this year.  Gaborik's contract hold out really hurt the chemistry on the team.  They cannot score goals, its really sad to watch.  They have tied 16-17 times and around 5 of those are due to letting in goals in the last minute of play.  They need Offense, they have tons of young talent which will help in a few years, we got spoiled here last year :P
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on January 29, 2004, 12:00 AM
Ugh, the Wild are bad news this year.  Gaborik's contract hold out really hurt the chemistry on the team.  They cannot score goals, its really sad to watch.  They have tied 16-17 times and around 5 of those are due to letting in goals in the last minute of play.  They need Offense, they have tons of young talent which will help in a few years, we got spoiled here last year :P

How 'bout them Predators this year huh!? I've been to 9 games this year already, including the Wild a couple of Mondays ago, which is already more than I went to all of last year. Fingers are crossed that we get into the playoffs this season and decide to open up the wallets even a little bit to lure someone over. In the meantime I'll proudly sport my Jamie Allison jersey, which I believe other than his own personal jersey is the only one in existence!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on January 29, 2004, 11:40 AM
Just saw on the news last night the Wild are 0-0-15 in Overtime this year, a NHL record for most straight OT ties, they have also blown 15 games going into the 3rd period leading, last year they were 30-0-1 in the same situation
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on January 30, 2004, 10:04 AM
Make that 16 games >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on January 30, 2004, 10:11 AM
Edmonton 5-2 over the Chicago Blackhawks.  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on February 27, 2004, 09:50 AM
Stick a fork in the Minnesota Wild, they are done for the year.  They spoiled us last year

So what are the chances there will be a 04-05 season?
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on February 27, 2004, 11:17 AM
Stick a fork in the Minnesota Wild, they are done for the year.  They spoiled us last year

So what are the chances there will be a 04-05 season?

Yep, Brunette is about to be yanked in my pool.  

But to answer your question:

Zip, zero, nada, zilch, no stinking way.....

The players have no interest in a new CBA with a salary cap, so it will be long and ugly.  

The owners may or may not be telling the truth about the number of teams losing money.  One thing is certain though.  They can write off their losses due to the lockout and don't have to pay the players.  If the money losing is true, the lockout probably leaves them further ahead financially, or in a no lose situation.  

No offense intended to the players, but they are a bunch of highly talented and greedy, spoiled little children.  Listening to the player reps has to be the most annoying thing in the world as they talk about deserving and entitled to.  Um.  No.  Sorry, you're not.  Like all sports you're grossly overpaid, often for a distinct lack of effort.  

Couple all of that with Bettman's mismanagement of the league (yes, the US has all the money, but none -relatively speaking - of the interest).  I have no disagreement with places like the northern states having hockey or Texas for that matter.  But San Jose, two teams in LA, Carolina, two if Florida, Nashville?  Give me a break.  

Do note this all comes with a major heaping of sour grapes.  Being from Winnipeg where we averaged a meagre 12,500 fans per game (by the way that's butts in the seats, not tickets given away :-*) it's really annoying to tune into what should be a really good game in Carolina or LA and see 60%+ of the seats sitting empty on a Saturday night.   >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on February 27, 2004, 11:59 AM
Do note this all comes with a major heaping of sour grapes.  Being from Winnipeg where we averaged a meagre 12,500 fans per game (by the way that's butts in the seats, not tickets given away :-*) it's really annoying to tune into what should be a really good game in Carolina or LA and see 60%+ of the seats sitting empty on a Saturday night.   >:(

It is kinda sad to think that 12,500 fans in Winnipeg wasn't enough to make money, but 6400 in Tampa is?  Huh?  The dollar isn't THAT strong.

Unless some serious negotiations start in June the only Hockey I'll have next fall will be the World Cup of Hockey matches... and College Hockey... and High School Hockey... hmmm.  Maybe it won't be so bad after all.

Jeff


ps
Better luck next year boys.  
Wild bright spots for 03-04=
Daigle's return to the NHL and Rolie's All-Star gig!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on February 27, 2004, 12:04 PM
That's right Jeff, lets go Gophers!  And Elks (Girls are in SemiFinals right now and Boys are favorites in their section)! :-*  Where did you go to high school?
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on February 27, 2004, 04:33 PM
Inver Grove Heights, MN

Mostly we were a wrestling power-house while I was in High School, but lately we've improved in boys baseball, hockey, and girls hockey.

My little bro plays for the IGH travel team/JV right now.

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on February 27, 2004, 07:38 PM
I was at the Preds game last night wathing the Wild Mild get their arses handed to them, good stuff! Tomorrow's the Rangers, but after the game Jamie Allison is having a benefit concert at a local bar! I'll be sure to post my pics from it!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 1, 2004, 01:06 AM
Forget the Wild, Golden Gophers or anything else, the Lady Elks of Elk River, MN are the '03-'04 MN High School Champions!  w00t
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on March 2, 2004, 04:45 AM
Just got home from a good night of drinking following a somewhat lackluster performance by the Preds against the Blackhawks. For some reason they've had our number all year...but at least we made out with a point. I'm really hoping we pull some deal where we dump Arkhipov and Schnabel for a solid defensemen.

The Jamie Allison benefit concert was really cool, he only sang three songs but he was actually pretty damn good (how can a  Bad Company cover not be good!) I blew him away by showing him my Allison jersey, he said that's the first time he's ever seen one in person beside his own! I got some pics with him, and Jordin Tootoo was sitting at the table next to us so I got him to sign a puck and take a pic with me, I'll have to post them once i get it developed. Chris Mason, Steve Sullivan, David Legwand and Adam Hall plus a few other Predators were there to heckle Jamie also, so I got to meet most of them. Good times, and if his audition with RCA went well, expect to see a Jamie Allison country record sometime in the future!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 2, 2004, 09:38 AM
Looks like the East is a pretty tight race with 5 teams within 2 points  for the #1 seed while the Wings have went ahead of the Avs who have stumbled a little here recently...

Wild needed another goal scorer this year, their propensity to blow 3rd period leads is maddening as well
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Darth Paul on March 6, 2004, 10:55 AM
Talk about an arms race in the East!  
 
Philly lands Zhamnov, Burke, Markov.
Ottawa gets Bondra.
B's land Gonchar and Nylander.
T.O. gets Leetch.
The Swamp-Dwellers get Hrdina.
Habs land Kovalev.

I don't think these guys are done yet either, and Tampa has made no moves as of yet and are the hottest team in the league right now.
Whew!  There's going to be some good teams going home after the first round this year...
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 6, 2004, 12:38 PM
Wild have traded 6 players in 3 weeks :-\
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on March 6, 2004, 01:18 PM
Predators GM David Poile announced today that the club has acquired defenseman Brad Bombardir and center Sergei Zholtok from the Minnesota Wild for Buffalo’s third-round selection and a fourth-round selection in the 2004 NHL Entry Draft.


Thanks OCB!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 6, 2004, 02:17 PM
No problem, Go Preds! :P
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 6, 2004, 04:27 PM
I was hoping (still am) that they move Brunette.  No particular malice to the Wild, but I've got Brunette in a hockey pool and would be a whole lot happier if he was playing on a team that wasn't scoring less than a goal a game lately.  

I'm currently in fourth place, about 15 points back.  If Brunette can start scoring and the Blues can come out of their slump, I've got a real decent shot at winning this thing for bragging rights and about $150.  

My team is comprised of:
Demitra - Blues
Lecavalier - Lightning
Gonchar - Bruins
Stillman - Lightning
Bondra - Senators
Spezza - Senators
Zetterburg - Wings
Brunette - Wild
Handzus - Flyers
Horcoff - Oilers
Khabibulin - Lightning (goalies are good for two points for a win, five for a shutout/goal/assist)

I had no idea that the Lightning would do so well this year, but I was picking late in the pool.  Couldn't get many Avs or Senators early.  Bondra and Gonchar were of course drafted from Washington and traded.  Zetterburg did what he was supposed to.  Brunette, Handzus and Horcoff were all picked in late rounds and have been very positive picks.  

We have a few spares too.  I had snagged Boguniecki in the middle rounds and he started the season injured.  My spares have performed so well that he hasn't been in my lineup all year.  The only surprise to me is Marcel Hossa out of Montreal.  Marian Hossa of the Senators is top five and this is his little brother.  He spent the whole off season training with his brother, so I picked him with my last pick.  2 points in the first two games and I look like a genius.  Zero points since.  Oops.  Guess that's why he's sitting on the bench.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jokabofe on March 9, 2004, 01:23 AM
wow, anybody catch that avalanche game tonight?  :o  :o
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 9, 2004, 08:44 AM
Does the Marty McSorley incident come to mind?  :o
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on March 9, 2004, 10:20 AM
So, lets see...

Hendrickson - Colorado
Marshall - San Jose
Dowd - Montreal
Zoltok - Nashville
Bombardir - Nashville
Brown - Buffalo

I think we've only got 2 players left who will be Free Agents next year, so they'll probably be traded today!

I guess it's a good move though... we're not gonna make the playoffs, so it's better to stock up on cheap draft picks and then try to re-sign some of these guys after the lock-out is over...

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 9, 2004, 10:37 AM
My mighty Penguins beat up on the Rangers the other night...  Bright spot to a dismal season.  Love seeing Jagr do a turn-over that leads to an unanswered 3-goals in the 3rd...  

For a team in last in the NHL, the Penguins have a possible bright future if they make the right moves.  I just hope we make solid use of our draft picks coming up...  We need to, to stay afloat.  

I'm a loyalist to the Pens though, and hope things improve, and they're still fun to watch sometimes.  Bright spots like that Rangers game are worth waiting for.  :)  So long as you can stand games like that Nashville blowout that happened, yeesh...

It's funny to look around and see all the stars from here at other teams though...  Naslund, Francis, Jagr (though he's nothing without good linemates), Lange, Nedved, etc...  Francis and Kovalev are the only two I regret seeing leave the city.  Both were great guys on top of being great players.  

Pens are more worried about building a solid foundation of talent up and coming, and getting a new arena, rather than winning games though...  So the oldies gotta go to the teams that can afford them I suppose.  Damnable non-salary capped league. >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 9, 2004, 11:39 AM
Damnable non-salary capped league. >:(

Not for long.  That's what the owners really want.  Enjoy what's left of the rest of the season.  

BTW, Tommy Salo went to the AVs.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 9, 2004, 12:07 PM
What is the deadline for Trades today? Is it Midnight or is it during the day?

The Stars Picked up Valerie Bure (excuse my ignorance, but is he any relation Pavel?) and we also got some guy from Philly who is on the "Day to Day" list and in NHL lingo that could mean he has been dead for weeks or lost an arm in a thresher incident or could just have a hang-nail.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 9, 2004, 12:36 PM
Valeri and Pavel are brothers...

BErtuzzi is a thug, he should be suspended for 20 games, ******* idiot
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 9, 2004, 12:54 PM
Good, Pavel was one of my favorite players early in his career.  And that was even before I knew he was dating Anna K.

Hopefully his brother is the Russian Rocket part II.  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 10, 2004, 08:27 AM
The hammer falls down on Bertuzzi today. My guess, bye, bye!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 10, 2004, 11:28 AM
Bertuzzi hearing delayed (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20040309_112031_3092)   :-\
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Darth Paul on March 10, 2004, 12:03 PM
I think the NHL is going to make an example of Bertuzzi and that he will be gone for the season, including the playoffs.  
There go the hopes of my favourite team in the West.
My finals prediction:  Ottawa vs. Detroit.
I would say Leafs-Wings but I don't want to jinx my Buds.... :P
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 10, 2004, 12:22 PM
I saw it last night and it didn't look as bad as I heard everyone was saying it was, its horrible Moore cracked his neck and it could have been a ton worse...

Bertuzzi though like I said is a thug and Public Enemy #1 here in MN, I'd be happy if he was gone for the rest of the year, it was a cheap shot and stupid, him falling on top of Moore and almost killing him was almost secondary and looked accidental. Serves him right for being an idiot
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 10, 2004, 12:31 PM
Bertuzzi should be charged!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 10, 2004, 12:34 PM
I don't think its as bad as the McSorley/Brashear incident...Bertuzzi took a cheap shot but I really don't think he wanted to do as much damage as he did
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 10, 2004, 12:59 PM
It was premeditated. The intent to injure was there & theres no excuse for it. If he gets charged, that will be up to the court of law as to what they will do & that would be very interesting.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 10, 2004, 02:13 PM
I concur that it didn't look as bad as I'd heard but I still think Bertuzzi is an idiot.  How many stories have you heard where bar fights break out and someone gets killed?  Hello sh!thead, you're fit and strong, over 200 pounds and still wearing your glove.  You pop a guy in the side of the head with all your strength and he's going to get hurt.  

8-2!  That was the score.  Nobody but an idiot would fight at that point.  

I have zero sympathy for a thug like Bertuzzi.  He's exactly like some clown that kills a guy in a bar fight and uses being drunk as his defense.  shucks, I didn't mean to break his neck.  Yeah well my boot didn't mean to hit you between the eyes either jackass. >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 10, 2004, 05:52 PM
Hmmm, I disagree with the authorities getting involved...

Hockey's a violent game...  I've been one who supports the fighting, and I think an incident like this (and the McSorely one) where the authorities take over is going to have an impact on how the NHL handles fighting overall.

I think it's inevitable that fighting will someday be banned...  I'm an old-time purist that will be sad to see it go though.  I think it's a part of the game, no matter how brutal it is.  

And I agree, this wasn't as bad as it was blown up to be (and is still being touted as "horrific"), but it ended in a broken neck...  I could see a year's suspension without pay, or worse...  Not many teams are goiong to want him on their side either.  He'll pay outside what punishment he would've gotten from the league anyway.

Criminal charges are unnecessary I believe...  

I've had cheapshots taken at me, some of them pretty brutal in games, and I wouldn't want "criminal" charges filed.  Just my shot back at him next time I saw him.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 11, 2004, 08:38 AM
Did you see Bertuzzi's speech/plea last night!  ::)
"I don't play the game that way. I'm not a mean-spirited person".   (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilies/musik/15.gif)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 11, 2004, 09:22 AM
The verdict is in...$250,000 fine and out for the rest of the year and playoffs ;D
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 11, 2004, 09:33 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Mikey D on March 11, 2004, 09:37 AM
Although I agree that the hit didn't look as bad as made out to be, it was still a cheap shot.  The worst part was probably having all the players piling up on him.  I have no problem with fighting, actually enjoy it in fact, but if you want to do it, be a man about and don't sucker punch someone.

I saw the "apology" this morning before I left for work.  The wiping of the tear seemed kind of fake to me.  Pretty hefty fine, but deserved.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 11, 2004, 09:52 AM
Pretty hefty fine indeed!  ;D  Now its up to the Vancouver police who are investigating!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 11, 2004, 10:41 AM
I think it is also a bit telling that the league is now also fining the Team.

What irritates me about this most is that all the Non-Hockey Fans, or people who don't know any better, in the media are going crazy about how this kind of stuff happens in EVERY game and that is why Hockey is the #4 sport here in the US, blah blah blah.

I'm like most of you and believe the fighting is part of the game and a good part at that.  But it has to be done FACE TO FACE.  Not by hitting somebody in the back, hitting them with a stick or ramming their Knee into the wall (the Brian Marchment way).

I also think that having the Police get involved is also a very bad idea.  The league has rules and standards and this is something that for all intents and purposes is "part of the game".  Bertuzzi did not pull out a gun or break his stick over his knee and stab the guy (which would be considered, NOT part of the game).  Whats next, a visiting team "Enforcer" (or GOON as I've heard it called by the hockey-haters) is arrested after a game because he gets a game misconduct for instigating and fighting?  All things that would get you arrested in a bar, but are already contemplated in the rules of the game?

I was at a minor league game where the visiting captain came out of the box over the glass to get at the fans that were throwing beer and stuff at him.  NOT part of the game, both parties went to jail that night and rightfully so.

I think the other thing that gets lost in this is that Moore was a Checker/Grinder too.  I wonder what the suspension would have been if he had run Sackic or Forsberg or one of the other poster boys and ended their season/career.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jokabofe on March 11, 2004, 11:06 AM
I think the other thing that gets lost in this is that Moore was a Checker/Grinder too.  I wonder what the suspension would have been if he had run Sackic or Forsberg or one of the other poster boys and ended their season/career.

that was one of my biggest questions about the incident. not what bertuzzi's fine/penalty would have been, but why go after moore - a nobody on the ranks of the avs - instead of going after someone more important to the team? sakic, forsberg, kariya, selanne, hejduk, blake, foote - the avs have quite a few guys that they would miss a lot more than moore.

and i'm not quite sure i would call them "poster boys" when they can put up numbers like they do  ;D

and i just read this on one of the news sites (yahoo, i think):

Quote
It is possible other suspensions could be handed down today. Vancouver's Brad May, whose comment that Moore would face a bounty hunt by the Canucks for his original hit on Markus Naslund in a game Feb. 16, also may be suspended.

thoughts?
Title: Bertuzzi
Post by: Thomas Grey on March 11, 2004, 12:09 PM
I live in Colorado. It's been Moore/Bertuzzi radio 24-hours-a-day since the incident. I do find it compelling, but I assume it is not as big an issue outside of Vancouver maybe.

My take:
Bartuzzi intentionally mugged Moore seeking retribution for an earlier incident. Moore had already survived a fight and the score being 8 - 2 when this all happened - damn! It was like watching a shark patrol before it goes in. Bertuzzi had ill intentions, but I do not think he meant to have it be that brutal and that damaging. The evidence that it was intentional is all over the place.

Bartuzzi is more concerned for his career and ego than Moore. Moore is doing better from what I've heard despite 2 fractured vertabrae. The fine and suspension are questionable. Hockey is violent, but there also exists a code of respect. You look a guy in the eye before you clock him... Bartuzzi broke the code and committed assault in my opinion. It's too bad the NHL can't sack up and deal with this appropriately. I think because of the looming strike, they fear a dramatic change will complicate matters more.

Ultimately, I think a lot is being made of this and the NHL is not listening. I think fighting has a place. But I think this exceeds the code and players cannot police themselves when these matters arise. If they did, Bartuzzi would never play again for fear he would be on everyone's hit list.

Another serious event and the NHL turns the other cheek. Such a great sport with such poor leadership. Some major front office shake up needs to be done. The NHL needs better pub. and the violence needs to be looked at.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 11, 2004, 12:19 PM
Good take Tom, and I'll merge this with the NHL thread where we're already talking about it
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Darth Paul on March 11, 2004, 12:30 PM
I thought Todd's apology at the press conference yesterday seemed very genuine.  He looked like hell, and he spoke from the heart not from notes prepared by the team's P.R. department.
That said, I think his punishment is fair and richly deserved.  The NHL showed balls by suspending him for the playoffs, which is a much more serious consequence than regular season games.  Vancouver's Cup hopes this year are gone.
On that note, all I can say is:

GO LEAFS GO
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 11, 2004, 01:11 PM
Whats a LEAF?   :P
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Thomas Grey on March 11, 2004, 01:34 PM
First - thanks Scott. My bad...

Second - Are you serious Darth Paul?
Yeah, it was genuine, but what is he upset for, hurting Moore severely or the consequences marring his reputation and career. The thing that really burns me is that he had the nerve to say the hit wasn't intentional. Maybe the consequence wasn't intentional, but if that's inadvertant, I'd hate to see a hit with intent. He meant to hit Moore and he meant to hurt Moore. Not as badly as he did, but he had intent. The freaking Canuck players put a bounty on his head in the press. I believe the guy Moore hit, May, said Moore would be out for a while when they did it. Moore hit him hard and he was out for 3 games. The league reviewed the hit and found that it was within the realm of a clean hit.

Bartuzzi is 250+ and hit him super hard and helped propel him, face first into the ice. If an Avalanche player hadn't gotten involved, Bartuzzi was attempting to start laying into Moore even further. So, cry for him because he screwed up his career and rep, but not because he didn't mean to do what he did and he's sorry. The dude cold cocked Moore! And hard!

Bartuzzi was nails last season. He inks a new and lucrative contract and he relaxes and hasn't put forth a very impressive effort this year. He's a thug and I don't feel for him at all. There's no sportsmanship, respect or unwritten code in what he did. It's criminal if you ask me. He may regret it, but he did it like he was out for blood. I'm getting repetitive. I just think he crossed the line and it's too bad the NHL can't define that line better. That's not hockey.

A fine on the Canucks of $250,000 may be a statement, but why not fine Bartuzzi also. I know his suspension involves not being paid, but he was the perp. I also think that it has a really big impact on the Canucks as a franchise. On Crawford, on the team... That must really burn up the Vancouver faithful. I know it's not a reflection of the team, but there are some questions now about who is promoting the character that Vancouver intends. A young, tough, scrappy team that comes out to play hard every night.

When a statement is made to the press about revenge or a bounty, the league/referees need to step in and take action. It has always been unspoken, they made it public. The league could have stepped in and told the Canucks that the consequences would be stiff if the threat is carried through. The game was 8 - 2! The refs missed their opportunity to start cracking down and let a couple majors go. Teams read this and what else does Vancouver have to do when it is hopeless. They will make the Avs pay and build some intimidation factor for the next meeting. How hard is that to see? It can be prevented, but the refs blew it.



Title: Re: Bertuzzi
Post by: Morgbug on March 11, 2004, 02:26 PM
I live in Colorado. It's been Moore/Bertuzzi radio 24-hours-a-day since the incident. I do find it compelling, but I assume it is not as big an issue outside of Vancouver maybe.


No offense, but this is pretty good evidence of the lack of understanding on the part of Americans of how big hockey is in Canada.  Not picking on you specifically Thomas, but your quote helps to illustrate a pint.  

This is a huge issue in Canada.  All of it.  I live in Winnipeg, former home of the Jets, now Coyotes (ptui).  Our AHL team is the farm team for the Canucks, but for most of us there is no love for Vancouver as we played in the same division as them.  Nonetheless, this has been a lead story on the news each day since it happened.  On TSN and Sportsnet or whatever our other channel is called, this has circumvented 80% of their other program.  Hockey is our game and this dominates coffee talk across the country.  

I suspect, and this may be my own arrogance, that most places in the US have barely batted an eye at the event, other than to write it off as typical hockey barbarism.  

That said, I completely agree with you.  Bertuzzi is a thug and the intent was clear.  The critical point that no one mentions is that when Naslund was interviewed the day after being hit by Moore, the event that precipitated this, he stated that it was a clean hit and he shouldn't have had his head down.  The first victim said that.  Sure, the Canucks may not have believed him, but the league made their ruling.  May fought Cooke earlier in the game.  Yes, a lame fight, but he stood up to it.  The mentality I cannot comprehend is that Moore was supposed to keep fighting until he was hurt?  Who the hell thinks like that?  

I have no doubt Bertuzzi did not mean to crack vertebrae and probably didn't mean to knock him out, though I doubt had a single punch merely knocked him out cold that Bertuzzi would have been anything other than gloating.  

A long time ago a Jet named Jimmy Mann hit someone like that.  He was regarded as a coward and a cheapshot artist.  Why the difference?  Not one of the games stars.  

The league is seriously messed up right now.  Bettman needs to realize that his vision may not be the ideal for the game.  The league also needs to realize that modifications are necessary.  Right now they cannot do that as the players do not share that vision.  I do believe fighting should be allowed.  But fighting involves both guys facing each other, both guys dropping their gloves, both guys or neither wearing visors.  Size matters not.  There is no honor, no courage in coldcocking a guy from behind/beside.  Had Bertuzzi not hit him, Moore would have been regarded as a chicken/turtle or otherwise.  

I think Bertuzzi is genuinely remorseful.  For what, I remain unconvinced.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Thomas Grey on March 11, 2004, 02:40 PM
No offense taken. I admit that 'ockey in America is not as widely publicized, scrutinized or well-covered. Excuse my ignorance with May fighting Moore earlier in the game (and Moore holding his own) and Naslund being the guy that Moore hit to start all this. I definitely need some help and Canadian perspective with hockey. I follow it pretty well, but I am not fanatical about it or any sport right now for that matter (due to the individual being more important than the team - exceptions can be made; Marlins, Patriots and the Wild).

This has definitely put a damper on hockey. I'm more tentative to watch it and feel almost squeamish - anticipating more extemities or feeling that the skating might slow a step for cautionary reasons. It just feels wierd. Listening to the game last night, even our announcer, Mike Haynes was a little reserved. Just strange how it can envelope everyone even though it's caused by an individual...
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 11, 2004, 02:51 PM
Well, the routine complaint in Canada is that this type of hockey and clutch-and-grab type of hockey employed by the Ducks, Wild and Devils are highly detrimental to the league.  The other complaint, though not common up here is fighting.

Fighting doesn't need to go, but goon-ism does.  The offender is irrelevant.  Whether it is a previously high-scoring player a-la-Bertuzzi or a career goon like Domi, this type of retalitory action without participation on the other players part must be ended.  Fighting with both participants agreeing can stay.  And I really don't see it as a fine line at all. It's pretty clear when both players are willing.  

The clutch and grab stuff is addressed every year by the league.  Scoring is down, hockey is boring, blah, blah, blah.  But until they address the play in the neutral zone where interference with players is currently allowed, it will stay that way.  It's a bloody efficient way to play hockey and extremely intelligent for defense.  But it's also bloody boring for fans to watch, notably in the playoffs where the game is supposed to be showcased.  The Gretzky era spawned numerous players in the 200+ point range and multitudes in the 100+ range.  Selanne scored 76 goals in his rookie season, a good proportion on break out passes from a defenseman from his own end.  He was not allowed to be interfered with in the area between both blue lines and the net result is that goal total.  Let them skate, simple as that.  If the defenseman can't keep up, too bad.  

Still, this kind of stuff hurts the league, noticeably in the US.  I just take it as a good sign that Winnipeg will get a franchise again. :P  After a new collective bargaining agreement with salary caps, profit sharing, etc. ::)  yeah, right.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Darth Paul on March 12, 2004, 12:42 PM
I stand by my statement that Bertuzzi seemed genuinely remorseful.
It's certainly up for debate WHAT he was more remorseful for, Moore or himself.
Bertuzzi may be a hothead with thuggish tendencies.  He is now paying the price for his actions.
But there's no way he meant to break Moore's neck or put him in the hospital.  I'm sure he feels terrible about it, and about letting his team, fans, and league down.

On another note, if you want to understand hockey up here in Canada:  it's like Americans' fanaticism about the NFL multiplied by 10  8)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 12, 2004, 01:55 PM
No shot to the Hockey fans in Canada, but in 13 years playing and watching the game for even longer (And in canada quite a few times), I can honestly say I've NEVER seen anything that rivals the tenacity of Football fanatics.

Football fans even love their teams when they lose.  Hockey, sadly, doesn't have that kind of support South OR North of the border.  The fact it's an expensive sport just to watch probably doesn't help either, but that's beside the point.

I'd liken hockey more to the US's national passtime of baseball...  The country loves it overall, but a lot don't avidly support it.

You really don't see that problem with the  NFL ever.  

Even when the Browns were leaving Cleveland, I remember seeing their stadiums at least near capacity, if not sold out.  Why they left, I do not know.  And the new Browns pack in the seats again.

The Steelers, even though we had a dismal year, sold out every game I am pretty sure.  

Getting tickets here is like pulling teeth unless you get season tickets.  

Crappy Hockey teams in Canada often go about as well as Crappy teams in the U.S.  They don't sell out the arenas like they need to, to compete with the rest of the league.  Baseball is the same way here.

Pirates have a brand new and GORGEOUS stadium.  I mean, it's amazing if you see it.  And it rarely gets over half full I think.  Pirates suck...  And it shows with empty seats.

NFL though, that is more cmparable with the world's love of soccer...  The way European stadiums are crammed with people.  THat is what I'd cmpare US Football to instead.  It's mind boggling.

I almost expect them to change the US pass-time at some point to football.  It'd make sense, as Baseball slowly fades away.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Mikey D on March 12, 2004, 02:06 PM
Agreed Jesse.  I like hockey, but football fandom is where its at.  Even with pathetic teams like the Raiders and Rams, the place is packed.  I haven't seen any other sport where fans show up in minus degree weather with a 30 mph wind or two feet of snow (excluding that one outdoor hockey game).  Christ, baseball teams barely play in a drizzle.

I like baseball too, but football is the American past time to me.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 12, 2004, 03:11 PM

Football fans even love their teams when they lose.  Hockey, sadly, doesn't have that kind of support South OR North of the border.  The fact it's an expensive sport just to watch probably doesn't help either, but that's beside the point.

I'd liken hockey more to the US's national passtime of baseball...  The country loves it overall, but a lot don't avidly support it.

Even when the Browns were leaving Cleveland, I remember seeing their stadiums at least near capacity, if not sold out.  Why they left, I do not know.  And the new Browns pack in the seats again.


Crappy Hockey teams in Canada often go about as well as Crappy teams in the U.S.  They don't sell out the arenas like they need to, to compete with the rest of the league.  Baseball is the same way here.



I'm going to argue with you, mostly because I like to argue.  But also because in some respects I disagree.  

Living in Winnipeg I don't think your statements apply.  Winnipeg is a fairly unique situation.  Only about 700.000 people to draw from.  We had a team you may recall, the Winnipeg Jets.  I'm not sure how much of their history you recall, beyond their moving to Phoenix to become the Coyotes (ptui).  

During their NHL stead here they averaged about 12,000 fans a game, year in, year out.  After it was announced they were leaving the attendance jumped.  All the way to an average of around 13,500.  

A pittance you say?  True, notably because the capacity of the arena was around 15,300.  The problem is you and most people have never been in that arena.  It was and is horrible.  The additional nearly 2000 seats were horrible, with awful sight lines, uncomfortable seating and at times were downright dangerous.  Basically, it was easier to watch the game in a bar or at home and not just because of cost.  

During that time the Jets had highs and lows.  One of those lows was a winless streak that still might still be on the NHL record books.  33 games straight without a win.  Attendance during that streak (I believe they might have won all of 12 games that year) was 11,500.  Nothing changed.  A subsequent year we had a record that had the Jets finish third in the league, behind only the Oilers and Flames (all three of whom were in the same division, thereby eliminating one of the leagues top three teams in the first round).  Attendance that year:  11,500.  

The point is yes, football has fanaticism, no doubt.  But don't doubt the same occurs here in Canada.  You can't get tickets in Toronto.  Period.  You never used to be able to get tickets in Montreal until they left the Forum.  Edmonton and Calgary are both in trouble to some degree, for largely the same reasons the Jets left Winnipeg, but the attendance kicks the snot out of anything in the southeastern US.  Vancouver, IMO is a fickle city and doesn't support anything but winners, but again, just my opinion.  


Poor attendance in Canada is about 10,000 butts in the seats, not 10,000 tickets raffled off, given away or sold at discount coupled with 4000 fans attending the game.  Nothing galls me more than watching a regular season or playoff game from Carolina, Anaheim, Los Angeles or one of the other non-supportive cities.  The only reason they have teams is a broad base of population to pick from and an owner with unbearably deep pockets that can handle financial losses as a tax writeoff applied to other profits.   Bettman is an ass.  He doesn't want a team here in Winnipeg and for that I hate him.  He doesn't want it here because we "don't have sufficient corporate support, aren't a team Americans want to watch and it isn't a city that fans can identify with".  Well pardon me, but what has that got to do with real fans????  So it's better to have a team in Carolina (poor Hartford) or Tampa Bay where no one shows up, win or lose than a place where fans show up win or lose?  Twisted logic at it's finest.  Bettman cares not for the game, he thinks he's the second coming of David Stern.  The great difference is that Stern understands what and where his audience is.  

I think Canadians support it, win or lose.  Another problem is and remains a disparity in the dollar.  That is why smaller market teams here are having difficulty, paying salaries in US dollars.  Granted, it is only a 25% disadvantage now, but when margins are tight :-\  As far as weather goes, you don't have a clue for the most part what we'll drive through to get to a game.  During the better part of the season in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Montreal it is so cold that if your car isn't plugged in with an engine block heater, your car may not well start after the game.  It's that cold.  No, the fans don't sit outside in inclement weather, they just risk life and limb before and after the game.  The Heritage classic could have been held anywhere in Canada and people would show up in the same numbers.  Hockey is played indoors because the ice melts otherwise in the US or it's so damn cold in Canada that it would become a life risking exercise.  

The essence is I beg to differ.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 12, 2004, 03:49 PM
I'm not doubting Canadian Fanatacism of Hockey...  U.S. fans can, and often are just as fanatical...  Something Canadians don't seem to see.  Pittsburgh, even though we're one of the worst teams in history right now, is still drawing SOMEWHAT of a crowd.  It's impressive for here...

But Football fans deal with as many problems as Hockey Fans in Canada often deal with...  Not all stadiums are nice, nor have been nice.

I'm not even a HUGE football fan, just a passing one, but when you look at the attendances of even the worst teams in the NFL...  Bad stadiums, bad towns, bad weather...  You'll see that the NFL is just so damn big here that it's on-par with the absurd fanatacism of European Soccer...  

I don't doubt Canadian's hockey fanatacism...  They love it, and I've spent enough time up North to know they love it both when I was playing and just going up there on my own, but the fact that the Jets weren't selling out (no matter what excuses like a bad arena or weather) tells me something.

The Steelers had a dismal season, but sold out every game...  Rain or shine, Snow and cold, it didn't matter...  It's just that HUGE here.  

Sadly, hockey doesn't get that kind of treatment in the U.S. save for the Northeastern states...  Pittsburgh is a good  hockey town, but support is waning in recent years.

I don't doubt hockey fanatacism up in Canada...  I just think the NFL dwarfs it in every respect.  I love hockey, and simply enjoy Football, but I have to admit that the support cities give to football teams in the NFL (And football in general...  Friday night HS Ball is damn near as big as the NFL, as Canuck HS Juniors and things are as well I'm sure) is downright absurd...  They love football.

Only in the NFL could a city lose a team, and  have one back within what, a year?  I think that's how quick Cleveland got their team back...  

I agree about Bettman with you as well.  he doesn't care, and he doesn't realize there is a market for Hockey up north in the cities it originated in.  He sees dollar signs though, and unless you're selling out arenas you won't compete.  The Jets didn't sell out, no matter how fanatical people were, and that's gonna equate to the team leaving every time.  The Pens are on the verge of this exact same thing actually.

We have the oldest building in the NHL, and quite likely the worst...  Fans don't want to go, the team is losing games and $, Lemieux wants a new stadium...  I want him to get a new stadium, but if they don't start selling out instead of just bringing in 13,000 a game, they will go the way of the Jets and move...  I wouldn't doubt Lemieux would try moving them to Canada actually.  He wants them here, and I want him here, but we're in the SAME boat as you are in Winnipeg where we need a new stadium...  Nobody wants to fund it.  So we're in limbo as to whether we'll have a team or not in the next couple years.

By no means do I doubt the way Canadians love their hockey though, so I think you misunderstood me.  I just see that the NFL outperforms it.  Perhaps it is their salary cap...  Perhaps it is their marketing...  Perhaps they're simply run by a more competent group of people than Bettman and the NHL is, but damn near every NFL team sells out no matter how craptacular they are it seems.  

And it's like Baseball here...

We get TONS of baseball coverage here, just like you get tons of Hockey coverage, and the people are always geared up for the games, but that sport is failing here now as well...  New stadiums and arenas seem about the only thing to keep teams planted.  The pirates are improving too, and attendance was up last year I think, so maybe there's something to that.  Maybe all it would take is new arenas for Winnipeg and Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 12, 2004, 03:55 PM
Football regular season:  16 games.

Hockey regular season:  82 games.  

'Nuff said ;)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 12, 2004, 04:04 PM
That has a huge amount to do with it...Season Tickets for the NFL can be had for $2000 a seat (10 games, $200 tickets)

NBA/NHL packages run $4000 a seat (41 games, $100 tickets) its a big difference for sure...I agree that Americans are much more fanatical about the NFL than any other sport, the Sports Radio guys here in town say the same thing, passion is there 365 days a year and they get 3x the amount of phone calls on the Vikings than they do the rest of the sports.

I have no basis for comparison to Canadian Hockey, never been North of the Border, I can only imagine its comparible passion wise not 10x the interest
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 12, 2004, 04:08 PM
Yeah, but fanatacism should know no bounds right?  And Football's a hell of a lot more expensive here for its short season than Hockey is...  Shorter season, but equally high costs then when you look at season tickets and things.

People SHOULD be coming out to support their team if they are truly fanatical...  They don't always though.  The Leafs wouldn't be selling as well if they weren't so great.  It wasn't that long ago they weren't so great actually, and their ticket sales were down dramatically...

Like I said, I don't doubt canadian fanatacism (and some US too) of Hockey, but the NFL just dwarfs it as I can see.  Even with a shorter season, it's generating more revenue even.  I don't know who has more teams though?  NHL I'm guessing?

I wish Hockey sold out all year everywhere (North and South) but it just never seems to.  Even some solid, winning teams don't sell out all the time...  Including in Canada.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 12, 2004, 04:29 PM
Yeah, but fanatacism should know no bounds right?  And Football's a hell of a lot more expensive here for its short season than Hockey is...  Shorter season, but equally high costs then when you look at season tickets and things.

People SHOULD be coming out to support their team if they are truly fanatical...  They don't always though.  The Leafs wouldn't be selling as well if they weren't so great.  It wasn't that long ago they weren't so great actually, and their ticket sales were down dramatically...

Like I said, I don't doubt canadian fanatacism (and some US too) of Hockey, but the NFL just dwarfs it as I can see.  Even with a shorter season, it's generating more revenue even.  I don't know who has more teams though?  NHL I'm guessing?

I wish Hockey sold out all year everywhere (North and South) but it just never seems to.  Even some solid, winning teams don't sell out all the time...  Including in Canada.

Not true about Toronto.  Even when losing, you can't get tickets.  People might not show up, but it is sold out.  Besides, they last won the cup in 1967.  I can't recall the last time they were in a cup final.  Fans still go.  

NFL is a huge market, no doubt.  But again, 300 million people growing up and playing football in the US.  How many grow up playing hockey?  In the northern STates, no doubt a ton, but Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana aren't exactly the most populous states.  Michigan and Illinois have football and basketball as well as baseball to compete.  Canada has 30 million people.  Oops.  

Fanatacism does know bounds, no way around it.  Do you honestly believe that if there were 82 NFL games per team per season the fanaticism would be on the same level?  Every game matters in the course of an NFL season.  Outside of the Bertuzzi incident in the Colorado-VAncouver game, losing 8-2 was meaningless for the most part.  Both teams will make the playoffs, have a decent shot at home ice advantage and even if not, get at least two home games.  

What I'm saying is you've got a limited time frame of games that ALL matter.  Of course the fan base is rabid.  If they miss a game or the team loses a game, there is a tangible impact.  If you miss an NHL game as a fan, so what?

The costs are simply a reflection of the fan base x limited market (i.e. games and seats).  NFL costs a lot because there are a lot of fans and a limited number of games.  $200 a game for football versus $100 a game for hockey?  Of course you're not going to go see this year's version of the Wild if you live in LA.  But in Canada, those same 11,500 are going to show up regardless of who's playing.  4000 will show up in LA.  For a football game between Minnesota and LA (oops, sorry Matt, hypothetically speaking) you could jack the price up to $400 and still sell out.  So many people, so few seats, so few games and everyone knows football.  

Team numbers are pretty similar.  But you don't find NFL teams in Canada or, for the most part (Green Bay) in relatively small markets.  the NHL is trying to limit small markets but going where it shouldn't.  Please explain how the following cities are hockey hotbeds:

Columbus
Nashville
San Jose
Anaheim
Carolina (sorry, I don't even know where they play out of)
Tampa Bay

And that's just to start.  Hockey just isn't meant for the southern US.  You want to put a team in Maine and can draw enough fans?  Go for it.  

I'll leave you with this thought.  If the NHL reduced it's season to 16 games prior to playoffs, how many empty seats do you think there would be?
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 12, 2004, 04:41 PM
That's a good point on the compression of the NHL season...  I agree, I think you'd see more vehement fanatacism out of Canadian fans, and fans in general...

I disagree on the dramatic expansion of the NFL season though.  

I can safely say that Pittsburgh would still sell out.  I can't speak for all cities, but I would wager Pittsburgh at least would still sell out all year.

I really don't doubt Canadian fanatacism about Hockey, and that's not my point here, but I do think NFL fanatacism is 10x higher in every respect.  It's born and bred into us, as I believe Hockey once was to Canadians.  I just see a decline there.  I don't agree with it...  I want more Canadian Market teams personally because I'm "old School" like that I guess, but I really just don't see the same vehement support in Canadian Hockey that I do in U.S. Football...  I don't see much of ANY sport that compares short of possibly NASCAR (Believe it or not) in the southern U.S. and Soccer on a global scale.  Soccer's downright frightening at times.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 12, 2004, 04:51 PM
I think all three long season sports need to cut back...the NBA and NHL could have 2 gams against their Conference 1 against the other making for around, Basball could cut it down to 82 games and nobody outside of the places with new parks would really blink
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 12, 2004, 05:18 PM
I see your points Jesse.  One thing that caught my eye that I don't often contemplate is the following:

Quote
snip...as I believe Hockey once was to Canadians.  I just see a decline there.

I think you're right.  And I think that it has to do with spiraling salaries.  It is having a negative affect at all levels and we are seeing things that never occurred when I was a kid and playing.  

We now have hockey parents.  These are the idiots that are certain that their kid is going to the NHL.  They berate the kid, they berate the other parents, they berate the coaches, they berate other peoples kids, they berate the refs.  It is quite simply obscene.  I am a competitive individual but this is not competition, more obsession.  

As fans, I think there is a lot of bitterness.  Listening to multi-millionaires talk about how they deserve their salaries and more leaves most people cold.  I think for the average fan of hockey, regardless of nationality, is secretly hoping for a lockout.  It will be devastating and create a hole not dissimilar from the one I felt when the Jets left.  But it is necessary and I sorely hope that the owners stick to their guns.  Fix the problems relating to income, profit sharing and throw a frickin' bone to the fans but readjusting the the pricing, be it tickets, concessions or whatever.  

I also think that Canada as a whole is bitter evermore towards the US, though undeservedly so.  It is the league's management that needs an attitude adjustment as well.  While places like Toronto and Montreal are fairly secure, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary all function under the perpetual threat of moving to the US.  Not because they are rabid hockey fans (though they may well be) but because for a functional a profitable league to exist, that may have to happen.  No one wants to hear that and that isn't the point for the average fan anyway.  I don't believe any professional athlete deserves over a million dollars a year.  

Hmm, I wonder if hockey is a focal point for me ;)  A productive day at work, to say the least :-*
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jokabofe on March 12, 2004, 08:54 PM
Football fans even love their teams when they lose.  Hockey, sadly, doesn't have that kind of support South OR North of the border.

not true. i've been a hardcore new york rangers fan since around 1979. and i've been disappointed more times than i've been happy. and i won't even count this season in that tally.

but i will agree that football fans are more hardcore than hockey fans, baseball fans, or basketball fans, at least the ones that i know.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 13, 2004, 12:05 AM
I am a Pens fan...  Imagine how I feel?   :P
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 13, 2004, 08:30 AM
I'll take this opportunity to defend those of us Southerners who have hockey and Love it.  And give you an example of why having hockey teams in Phoenix, Nashville, Columbus, DALLAS etc is the only way to keep the NHL more viable than the XFL.

Prior to when the Stars moved here to Dallas, it was a sad state of Hockey Affairs indeed.  If as a kid I had wanted to play hockey (which I did, want to that is) I would have had to go to one of 3 malls in the area with a sheet of ice.  I would have had to wait till the "all skates" were over, the broomball, the wanna be figure skaters etc.  I think their was one actual "rec-league" rink, and I only know that because a transfer buddy from "up north" played hockey in High School.

I grew with one of my earlier memories as being at a Minor League game between the Fort Worth Red Wings (Farm club) and the Dallas Blackhawks (also a farm team).  My dad was a HUGE hockey fan (almost as fanatical as my Mom).  But I never got the opportunity to play.  So we had hockey, but not on TV (unless it was the Olympics)

Flash forward to 2004 and 10+ years after the Stars get here, I now have 3 Dr. Pepper Stars Centers within 10 minutes from my house, there are Hockey Leagues for people from 5 to WAY OVER 5.  

The High Schools now have Hockey Teams (Club level, but that is more Title 9 than interest).

You have to plant the seed.  It will grow.  And if I could just learn how to skate, I'd be playing Instructional League Hockey right now with all the other Over 30 first timers.

It also doesn't hurt that the area I am in is very desirable for the relocation of families from Northern Areas.  And their kids wanted to be able to continue playing.  It has even gotten to the point where there is a chain of (successful) Hockey Equipment Re-sale shops.

So, I'd say give it a chance south of the Polar Ice Cap.

on a second topic, With peoples schedules the way they are it is very difficult no matter how fanatic you are to commit to 41 Home Games (especially when the schedule is erratic at best).  I can make an appointment/proclamation that for 16 Sundays I will NOT be disturbed (assuming no Monday or Thursday Games) and it is pretty much a given.  When the Stars play on the West Coast a game won't start till 9:30 local time.

Another thing is and I don't want to start a socio-economic RS style political debate and nipple twist, but Hockey is still a "White" person sport.  Yes I am well aware that the league is not all lilly white, but for the most part the fan base is for now.  So the potential fan pool is really to only 60% or less of our US population.  

And if we are talking levels of Fanaticism in fans, my votes go for:

Texas High School Football
European Soccer as a distant second. (but that is another thread)

Sorry for the long post, I had to play catch up.  "GAME ON"
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Darth Paul on March 14, 2004, 12:58 PM
Wow, a lot of replies!
Maybe I should clarify my earlier statement.   I said Canadians are fanatical about hockey.  I did not say they were fanatical about NHL hockey, although many are.
Hockey is part of the fabric of Canadian life and culture.  Many of us are on skates before we are in school.  The local rink is often the locus of community life, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.   For those who no longer play on ice, road hockey is the next best thing.  And it's not just kids, I play road hockey regularly with a group of 30-year-olds, and my buddies and I always play on our lunch break when we are at a location that is suitable.
Ask any Canadian to list 10 things that make Canada distinctly Canada, and one of those things, probably one of the first two things listed, will be hockey.  I'd be willing to bet my house on that.  Whether the person being asked is a sports fan or not.
Hockey is a big deal in Canada.  Even NHL hockey.  In Toronto season-ticket holders at the new ACC paid a $10,000 "license fee" per seat just for the privilege of buying a season-ticket :o
I don't know what this all says about my country  ???  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 16, 2004, 05:00 PM
Some excellent points, senor mundheim.  

Quote
And give you an example of why having hockey teams in Phoenix, Nashville, Columbus, DALLAS etc is the only way to keep the NHL more viable than the XFL.
Disagree.  Phoenix is struggling, some 8 years into the game.  I expect Nashville and Columbus will as well.  Dallas is a success story, no doubt about it. Buried in the novella that we composed while you were away, I noted that Texas has more professional (NHL, semi-pro, etc) than does Canada.  No argument at all about the love and support of the game in Texas.  

I still maintain that no amount of time will fix the league in Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim, etc.  

Quote
Another thing is and I don't want to start a socio-economic RS style political debate and nipple twist, but Hockey is still a "White" person sport.  Yes I am well aware that the league is not all lilly white, but for the most part the fan base is for now.  So the potential fan pool is really to only 60% or less of our US population.  

Full credit for having the cohones to say it bluntly.  I had alluded to it in the cost of equipment issue.  I do hope we are mature enough here to discuss this.  Without blatantly stereotyping, poor kids cannot afford all the necessary equipment for hockey.  A ball, bat and glove can be had for considerably less than a full set of hockey gear.  A field may typically be available for free, ice time is not.  

I am in no way suggesting that people of Mexican or African-American descent are not as afluent, capable or disinterested, just that in broad, general terms, the other "big three" will simply prove to be more popular.  I didn't grow up with football, so it's less likely I will encourage my kid to play.  

It simply galls me that I can tune into an important game in (pick one - Carolina, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, etc) and see empty seats.  As in half the place is empty.  A crucial game in Winnipeg circa 1992?  Standing room only.  But no, we don't need a team, the future is in the US?  Nuh-uh, not going to wash.  

Quote
Texas High School Football
European Soccer as a distant second. (but that is another thread)

Dramatic difference between high school sports in the US and Canada.  I played basketball in high school and probably the biggest crowd was 400 people, most of those waiting for a party at a guy's house that played on the team. Biggest crowd I played in front of in Fargo, ND - 14,000 people.  Surreal the way sports are supported there.  

I am not sure why the difference exists, but it does.  It's downright depressing for a US athlete to come here to play college sports.  College basketball draws maybe 400 on a good night, you can't get into the University of Minnesota.  Or anywhere else.  Just weird.  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 16, 2004, 09:22 PM
I would not say that the Southern US is the hotbed of hockey for "Adults", my point was mostly that it is now catching on in the kids/rec leagues, it will take time, but I think in my lifetime we will see a Hockey star that was born not only South of the US-Canadian border, but the Mason-Dixon line as well.  

Besides, the main problem for those empty seats is that they are all "Corporate" seats.  They are not for Fans they are for those that want to See and be Seen (or the Cocaine and Boob job crowd as the local radio calls them).  Kids don't work for corporations, they don't get to see the game up close.  It is a patience thing.  It will happen, maybe not in all the new franchises, but enough that it will take hold.

If it is all said and done, I PREFER teams to be in Canada, it is part of the Sports Heritage.  I by no means think that the US (and it's Dollar) is the savior of NHL Hockey, more like it is a vast new market that is just barely being tapped by the NHL marketing and farming machine.  

Teams in the NASCAR belt (Carolinas, Georgia, Florida) just have demographics issues.  The sport doesn't appeal to fans there.  You would think that after their run for the Cup just a few years into their existence that the Panthers would have enjoyed a loyal fan base for years.  

And to add to our discussion of "sociology".  There is a reason that Soccer is so big in Latin America.  You can play by yourself, you can play on a field for free(like Morgbug mentioned) and out of 22 people, only one person has to own or have access to a ball.   The same goes for Basketball in the Cities (I live in the Suburbs so most of the B-Ball is played in driveways, not at a local court with a bunch of people).  

But this all takes away from the excitement that is on its way.  We are only a few weeks away from the PLAYOFFS.

It will be Hockey on 3-4 channels every night.  All the games count.  They start at 5:30 or 6pm local time and the last one is over at 11pm.  I'll watch teams I haven't seen play all season.  Once the seeds are set, I usually pick my teams in this configuration:  Dallas Stars, then I pick an Eastern Conference Team (usually the Devils), then I pick my Team from Canada to watch and root for, then I root for whoever is playing against the team with Eric Lindros on it or on it's Injured list(because I wish nothing but failure for him).
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on March 16, 2004, 11:14 PM
Hey All,

I just got home from watching the beloved Minnesota Wild distribute a thorough butt-kicking of the Ottawa Senators.

M Gaborik = 5 points (3 goals, 2 Assists) in a Wild 5-2 victory with 36 great  saves by Roli the Goalie.

Where the heck has this Gabby been all year?  Stupid hold-outs
*grumble, grumble*

Eh, at least we get to play Eastern Conf spoilers this week... next up Boston.

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 17, 2004, 12:27 AM
Pens have been kicking ass of late...  

Why'd they wait?  WTF?   >:(

Whooped up on the caps tonight, which isn't saying a lot since they're being predicted already as the worst team next season...  Finally someone to pound on!  :)  Oh wait, we always pounded on them before?  

I shouldn't speak too soonn actually, we have a few games with them left this year...  It's just nice actually to win some for a while.  I think we're 4-1 in our last 5...  That, for the dead last team in the league (or they were last I checked) isn't too shabby.   :o
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 17, 2004, 08:25 AM
Well my previous post must have displeased the hockey gods...after I got offline I watched the Stars go up 3-0 on the Sharks.  I then watched them give it back with 5 minutes to go.  So instead of making up some points...they just made it push.

I could even see it coming, the announcers "jinxed" them.  And you guys all know I am talking about, they show a stat or graphic about how this will shut out # blah blah for the Goalie, or how many times a team has beaten the other, etc etc.

Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 17, 2004, 04:58 PM
That happened to the Pens all the time like early 1990's...  93 especially, they'd show a graphic, then boom it backfired on the Pens and they'd screw up whatever record they were going for.

I remember Lange and Steigerwald at the time actually knocking on wood and things so it wouldn't happen but it always did.  They'd even laugh at how often it occurred a few times.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 20, 2004, 09:14 AM
Ok sadly the Stars are not going to get any help from the rest of the league catching the Sharks.  (Not that they deserve help after giving up a 3 goal lead)

The only bright side I can see is that barring some sort of very crazy last month of regular season, the Stars will at least get to start the playoffs against somebody that ISN't the Edmondton Oilers. (who at this point are the only team from Canada not in the NHL playoffs).

Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 20, 2004, 09:29 AM
Edmonton is within 2 points of Nashville in the race for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Western Conference. So close but yet so far.
Interesting side note from Sportsnet:

Friday's game wasn't on local TV in Edmonton, nor was it available on pay-per-view, so the Oilers set up a $10 per person broadcast at Edmonton's Jubilee Auditorium, drawing roughly 2,000 fans to the concert hall.  8)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 22, 2004, 08:23 AM
Getting closer!  ;D  Edmonton moves within 1 point of St. Louis for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Western Conference.

Bring on the L.A.  Kings.   :-*
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Paul on March 22, 2004, 10:55 PM
I was in no way meaning that the Oilers weren't going to make the playoffs, just that it looks like the usual first round matchup of Edmonton/Dallas would be difficult to see this year.  Heck at this point only Chicago can definately start making plans for Golf trips in May. :(

I am thrilled they beat Dallas.

Right now I see Dallas, Edmonton and Detroit finishing strong like the Ducks did last year.  The Stars are finally scoring more than 1 goal a game.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 23, 2004, 08:34 AM
I even surprised that the Oiliers may make the playoffs. They are know to make the 1st & 2nd round then its, hey, lets play golf!  :-\

Well they beat L.A & have now jumped from 9th place in the Western Conference to a tie for 7th with Nashville.

The next game will be interesting.  ;)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 23, 2004, 09:06 AM
It wasn't even that long ago that the Oilers were in last place behind the Wild, they really have turned it on while the Wild have too, it was about 2 weeks too late.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 23, 2004, 09:44 AM
Theres always next season.   ;)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Mikey D on March 23, 2004, 09:46 AM
Damn the East race is tight.  5 points seperating the first place team (Tampa Bay) and the 5th place team (ottawa?).  Should be a good race to the finish.

Go Flyers!!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 23, 2004, 01:18 PM
Theres always next season.   ;)

Theres always next season*

*If there is a next season >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 25, 2004, 08:48 AM
Well we didn't win the game but were still sitting pretty thus far.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on March 25, 2004, 01:58 PM
Theres always next season.   ;)

Theres always next season*

*If there is a next season >:(

I think not.  Frankly, I hope not.  I'm over (mostly) the loss of the Jets and now watch hockey again and I am enjoying it, but they (players) just aren't getting it.  I do not need to see you make millions of dollars.  If you're so arrogant to believe you deserve that amount of money for playing a game, I'm sorry, but I hope the lockout lasts two years.  

I expect the players and their representation are sufficiently deluded to believe their value and fan demand will force a settlement.  I do not believe that at all.  I think the owners will happily lock out the players for a full year.  I think after that, the players might just be willing to negotiate a little more openly.  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on March 25, 2004, 05:37 PM
Greeeaaaatt...  Pens are gonna drag themselves from the basement just enough to lose the #1 draftpick...  Buncha DB's.

Anyway, I'm pulling for the Flyers now I think.  Deserving team.  Rivalry any other time, but I can dig them right now.
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 29, 2004, 08:23 AM
;D  (http://www.axemusic.com/services/custom_installations/arenas/images/oilers.gif)   ;D
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 29, 2004, 09:45 AM
No doubt Dale, I saw they are now the #7 seed, holy crap!  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 29, 2004, 09:52 AM
The boys are on a role!  :o  From Sportsnet.ca:

Edmonton has been one of the NHL's best teams down the stretch and now has points in 16 consecutive games.  8)

3 more games to go!  ;D  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Mikey D on March 29, 2004, 02:03 PM
I was happy Saturday because the Flyers were playing on tv, which doesn't happen all that often in the Boston area.  I figured they're playing the Rangers, it will be an easy win and they'll expand there lead on the Devils and possibly catch TB for first place overall.  I figured I'd turn the radio on, mute the game and enjoy while organizing my comics for my upcoming move.  Well, that didn't last long.  Within a period and a half, they were down 3-0 and I got pissed and turn it off.

It looks like their problems in past playoffs, goaltending, is going to bite them in the ass again this year.  >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on March 29, 2004, 03:40 PM
The boys are on a role!  :o  From Sportsnet.ca:

Edmonton has been one of the NHL's best teams down the stretch and now has points in 16 consecutive games.  8)

3 more games to go!  ;D  

No kidding!  I saw last night that they were 7-0-0-3 (17pts) in their last 10 games!  Nothing like turning it on at the end of the year to head into the playoffs at full steam.  At this rate, they're gonna keep up the rep of being first round giant-killers...

Even better, if the playoffs started today, they'd match up against Detroit.  I'm a big fan of the beloved Red Wings (they filled in the void after the North Stars left), but they've got a notorious reputation for LOSING to 8 seeds.


Jeff

ps.
the Wild were officially mathematically eliminated over the weekend.  So, too, did the season end for the Gophers Men's Hockey teams as they lost in the NCAA tourney... at least our Lady Gophers held up the Sate of Hockey's reputation with a NCAA Womens Hockey championship!



Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on March 29, 2004, 03:45 PM
at least our Lady Gophers held up the Sate of Hockey's reputation with a NCAA Womens Hockey championship!
Minnesota hats off to thee
To thy colors true we shall ever be
Firm and strong united are we
Rah Rah Rah for Ski-U-Mah
Rah Rah Rah
Rah for the U of M
M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A
Minnesota!
Minnesota!
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay GOPHERS!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on March 31, 2004, 01:23 AM
Preds picked up a huge win tonight, and coupled with the Oilers loss, I'm one happy camper right now (sorry my north of the border friends). I've got great tickets to Saturday's home season finale against the Blues, and am really glad I splurged for good seats not knowing what a huge game this would turn out to be. C'mon playoffs!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 31, 2004, 08:21 AM
 :'(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on March 31, 2004, 10:32 PM
Edmonton 3, Dallas 1.  ;D  
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on April 1, 2004, 12:18 AM
But only one game left Dale.  They're going to need some luck.  That Blues loss might come back to be a very, very bad nightmare.  

My pool guys seem to have gone on holidays for the last week :'(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on April 1, 2004, 09:02 AM
They broke that bloody Dallas jinx that haunted them since 1996 & I'm happy with that & Calgary, first playoff berth since 96. Brew must be crapping his pants!  ;D

These next few games will tell the story.  :-\
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on April 1, 2004, 09:07 AM
Oilers have 1 game left while the Preds and Blues both have 2 right?  With 2 points up on the Preds...Should be an exciting last few games.  The suck ass thing, the Wild hold on to half of their third period leads and they are right there too >:(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on April 1, 2004, 09:54 AM
The Preds & Blues have 3 games left to our 1.

Preds:
Apr 1: Predators & Blackhawks.
Apr 3: Blues & Predators.
Apr 4: Predators & Avalanche.

Blues:
Apr 1: Red Wings & Blues.
Apr 3: Blues & Predators.
Apr 4: Blues & Wild.

From our Edmonton Journal: Playoff picture remains murky.

Now that the Oilers have finally found a way to beat Dallas and climb to 89 points, what's their playoff picture look like? Well, it's still murky.

- Nashville (87 points) needs only four points in their final three games against the Blackhawks tonight,

St. Louis Saturday afternoon and Colorado Sunday afternoon to confirm their first playoff appearance in their sixth NHL season. If they get two wins, the Predators are in and the Oilers are out. Even if Nashville only gets one win and two ties, while the Oilers add another win Saturday, the Predators would get in on the basis of a better head-to-head season series.

To make the Oilers game in Vancouver meaningful Saturday night, Nashville cannot earn more than three points against Chicago and

St. Louis. Even with Nashville at 90 points, the Oilers can still get in the post-season if they beat the Canucks.

- St. Louis (89 points) needs only one win in their last three games with Detroit, Nashville and Minnesota to guarantee their post-season spot. If the Blues and Oilers tie in points, the Blues get in because they have more total wins.

Shes a nail biter & I'm not placing any bets!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on April 2, 2004, 12:35 AM
Big win for my boys tonight in Chicago....cannot wait to be in the GEC for Saturday's game!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on April 2, 2004, 01:29 AM
(http://www.ironmanhockey.com/images/toothless.jpg)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jesse James on April 2, 2004, 06:43 PM
Well, it's shaping up that the Pens will have the #1 draft pick, and ironically to likely pick the player being touted as "the next Lemieux".

Let all of us in Pittsburgh pray.    ::)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on April 4, 2004, 12:02 AM
15 mins left against Vancouver. Canucks 4, Oilers 2. So much for that!  :'(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Rob on April 4, 2004, 12:07 AM
Go Bolts!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on April 4, 2004, 12:36 AM
Can the Oilers say Fooooooooooooooooooooooooour!

5 to 1 for Vancouver! Go somebody!  :-\
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Scott on April 5, 2004, 12:53 PM
Sorry Dale :'(
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: DSJ™ on April 5, 2004, 01:09 PM
(http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilies/icq/41.gif)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Jeff on April 5, 2004, 02:11 PM
Sorry man.

The Wild did thier best by whooping St. Louis for ya, but it was too little too late I guess...

And as Scott pointed out earlier, if the Wild had managed to win half of their league leading 20 Ties, they would have had 10 more points, which would have translated to 93 points, the Seventh Seed and a showdown with the Sharks, but ALAS.  

It was not meant to be this year.

Here's to hoping there is a next year... and congrats to Zholtok and Bomber who get to keep playing with Nashville.

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: JediMAC on April 5, 2004, 04:33 PM
So I haven't been following hockey at all this season as you may have noticed by my lack of participation in this thread, but now that the playoffs are rolling around, I guess my bandwagon ass better start tuning in to see how my Ducks fare in defense of their Western Conference title.   8)  Hopefully the Kings make some noise in the playoffs this year too...

So where are my teams currently seeded?  Think either of them has a good chance at the Cup?  I'm sure one of them's going to finally win it all this time.  The Ducks were SO close last year, that I'm sure their playoff experience and hot goalie will bring them through to the promised land this time.  So you guys better watch out, 'cause SoCal hockey is in da hizzouse!

- Bandwagon SoCal Hockey Fan, and 4-LOSW wannabe

P.S.  Sorry to any of you whose hockey teams aren't going to make the playoffs this year.   :-*
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: Morgbug on April 5, 2004, 05:37 PM
Yore bandwagon jumping arse better click here (http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy2004/firstround040504.shtml) for a wee bit of an update. :-*
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: jjks on April 5, 2004, 06:36 PM
My playoff tickets are on the UPS truck as we speak on the way to my house! Sorry to all Oilers fans, but I think us getting in will hopefully have a very positive impact on how hockey is perceived.

That said,  Bomber will get some ice time, but you guys can have Benchtok back for all I care!
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: JediMAC on April 5, 2004, 06:38 PM
Well that makes no sense...   ???  How'd you pull off a tricky little scam like that Brent?

Now if someone would please show me the real playoff schedule, with the Ducks and Kings involved, I'd be much obliged.  Please hurry too, 'cause I don't want to miss any of their games.  Thanks!

Go Ducks!  2004 Stanley Cup champs!   8)
Title: Re: NHL '03-'04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on April 6, 2004, 08:50 PM
Turco comes back from his suspension and the STARS finish the season with a 5-2 win over the Blackhawks.

We play the Avalanche in the first round. I think the STARS can take them. I'd rather face the Avs sooner than later in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 7, 2004, 10:41 AM
Playoffs tonight baby!

Eastern Conference

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/tam_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/nyi_01.gif)

#1 Tampa Bay Lightning vs #8 New York Islanders
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/bos_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/mon_01.gif)

#2 Boston Bruins vs #7 Montreal Canadiens
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/phi_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/njd_01.gif)

#3 Philadelphia Flyers vs #6 New Jersey Devils
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/tor_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/ott_01.gif)

#4 Toronto Maple Leafs vs #5 Ottawa Senators
Series Tied 0-0

Western Conference

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/det_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/nas_01.gif)

#1 Detroit Red Wings vs #8 Nashville Predators
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/san_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/stl_01.gif)

#2 San Jose Sharks vs #7 Saint Louis Blues
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/van_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/cgy_01.gif)

#3 Vancouver Canucks vs #6 Calgary Flames
Series Tied 0-0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/col_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/dal_01.gif)

#4 Colorado Avalanche vs #5 Dallas Stars
Series Tied 0-0
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jeff on April 8, 2004, 11:51 AM
My thoughts...

Boston over Habs (3-0):
A good goalie in Boston = a REAL good chance this year... props to Raycroft on his first Playoff Shutout.  In his first Playoff game.  As a rookie.  Marc-Andre Fleury who?

Avalance over Stars (3-1):
Welcome back Marty!  Little rusty are we?

Detroit over Preds (3-1):
Welcome to the playoffs Nashville!  Scoring 16 seconds into the game!  Awesome!  BUT, obviously someone forgot to tell you that Playoff games last 3 periods, just like the regular season  :P  Seriously though, Detroit has a good track record in losing in the first round, so you've still got a chance.

Evil over Calgary (5-3):
Stupid Canucks.  Ugh.  They better keep scoring goals if they want to win.  Dan Sieve-ier is gonna give up a lot of them...


Jeff
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on April 8, 2004, 01:37 PM
Yeah, the STARS got spanked. But we only need to come away with 1 win in Denver and then defend the hell out of our home ice.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 8, 2004, 02:19 PM
I'm not really sure who I am rooting for...probably the Avs though, they were my team when the North Stars were stolen
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 8, 2004, 03:15 PM
SENS - LEAFS!  TONIGHT!!  Lets get this one on!!

Its the Sens year this year, if our POS Goalie Lalime can keep it together!!

Scott
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on April 8, 2004, 09:33 PM
SENS - LEAFS!  TONIGHT!!  Lets get this one on!!

Its the Sens year this year, if our POS Goalie Lalime can keep it together!!

Scott

Damn Scott, I had you pegged as a Leafs fan.  Sorry about that.  Horribly sorry.  Were you one of the silent Sens fans in Rad74's poll?  

I'm a big Lalime fan, but his history has been riddled with hot seasons followed by cold.  Belfour I'm afraid will be the deciding factor in this series.  


Oooh, ooh, ooh.  Looky, looky who won ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 8, 2004, 10:40 PM
I must have missed the poll.  I accept your apology though ;)

It was a great game tonight, and though Lalime didn't have to face much (17 shots) he played well, even with the diving save!

Patrick.... stay in your damn net!  

If Lalime can hold up, and the Sens defence can protect him we should be OK.  That being said, I look for TO to come out HARD on Saturday night.  That one should be tough.  If Ottawa can come home up by two man, that would be awesome!!

GO Sens!!!

Scott
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on April 9, 2004, 11:41 AM
Any other Lightning fans in this place?
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Pistol Pete on April 9, 2004, 12:32 PM
Hopefully the Devils will repeat!!!  Not likely though :'(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on April 10, 2004, 12:06 PM
The damn STARS lost again! Turco is great all season then sucks when he gets tpo the playoffs. Our whole defense stinks. When your offensive philosophy is to win games 2-1 or 1-0, then you can't give up 5 frigging goals!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Darth Paul on April 10, 2004, 02:26 PM
GO LEAFS GO
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 10, 2004, 03:31 PM
Hope everybody's watching the Preds/Wings game right now. Both teams are really moving the puck right now, and if Nashville can keep this pace going into the 2nd period I think we'll definitely have a chance. I don't see how the Wings can maintain this pace much longer!

Have I mention I can't stand Hatcher??
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on April 11, 2004, 09:36 AM
Hopefully the Devils will repeat!!!  Not likely though :'(

Not likely is right.  Flyers are up 2 games to none.  Hopefully this is the year.

Go Flyers!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Paul on April 11, 2004, 11:19 AM
Well my "rooting" jinx is in full effect this year.

The 16 teams in the playoffs on my rooting scale are listed here:

1. Dallas
2. Toronto (my Eastern Conference Team, this year)
3. St. Louis Blues
4. Montreal
5. Detroit (yes I know blasphemy)
6. Nashville
7. New Jersey
8. Vancouver
9. Ottawa
10. Colorado
11. Calgary
12.  Boston
13. San Jose
14. Tampa Bay
15. Islanders
16. Flyers

Again this is not who I think will win, in fact if my Jinx goes into full effect it will be a Philly vs. San Jose Final....these are who I am pulling for when I am watching 6-8 hours of hockey on the NHL CENTER ICE...

I'll be at the Dallas game tomorrow night, gotta love the fair weather fan, once the Stars went 0-2, the tickets became magically available from one of my buddies.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 11, 2004, 08:28 PM
Just got back from Nasville's first ever home playoff game, and I have absolutely no voice left! Don't know how it looked on TV, but the crowd has NEVER been that loud in any of the games I've ever been to at any hockey game. Crowd really got behind the Preds, usually the Wings bring out a pretty loyal fan base here, but that wasn't the case tonight at all. Bring on Tuesday, we're on a roll right now!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on April 11, 2004, 10:22 PM
Just got back from Nasville's first ever home playoff game, and I have absolutely no voice left! Don't know how it looked on TV, but the crowd has NEVER been that loud in any of the games I've ever been to at any hockey game. Crowd really got behind the Preds, usually the Wings bring out a pretty loyal fan base here, but that wasn't the case tonight at all. Bring on Tuesday, we're on a roll right now!

I caught the first goal and part of the later portion of the game - the crowd was definitely going nuts.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 12, 2004, 11:01 AM
Playoffs in almost all sports are so much more fun than the regular season.  The players are much more into it and thusly the crowd is too

I can remember sitting in the upper deck of Target Center with goosebumps beyond goosebumps in a T-Wolves/Seattle playoff game that hasn't been matched since.

Glad to see the Preds win one, in fact I wouldn't mind seeing them go on a Wild/Duck type of run here
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on April 12, 2004, 11:34 AM
Just so long as the Leafs lose, any other team can do what it wants.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 13, 2004, 01:38 AM
Little known OCB fact...Paul Martin Defenseman for the New Jersey Devils and his family went to our church when I was a lad...I used to babysit him and his sister a couple of times a year.  We always would play wrestling in their living room, I'd usually kick the crap out of him

As such, I will be cheering for the Devils for the remainder of the Playoffs.  Also...I feel my ass whoopings I gave him as a wee lad toughened him up a tad and made him into the man he is now...

(http://www.newjerseydevils.com/2004/html/devilsinfo/profiles/headers/martin.jpg)

And hey...he scored a goal tonight even better, he was probably thinking of the full nelson I gave him in 1987 soon after
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Pistol Pete on April 13, 2004, 02:44 PM
GO DEVILS!!!  Great game last night...hopefully they can keep it going
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 14, 2004, 01:09 PM
I wonder how Detroit can actually play hockey with two hands wrapped around their necks???  I'm rooting for the upset here...
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on April 14, 2004, 01:10 PM
I'm hoping all series for the entire playoffs go the full seven games.  Going to be a while before we see hockey again,so I want this into June.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 14, 2004, 04:53 PM
I wonder how Detroit can actually play hockey with two hands wrapped around their necks???  I'm rooting for the upset here...

And we appreciate your support!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 14, 2004, 10:21 PM
Sens win tonight!!  Yahoo its now safe for people to talk to me again.... until next game that is. ;)

Re: The Devils... does anyone else think something is up with Brodeur?/  Man he just doesn't seem himself.  He doesn;t have the same look in his eyes I am used to seeing.  He is just off?

Any ideas??

Scott
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 15, 2004, 09:15 AM
Big 2OT win by the Avs last night to go up 3-1 on the Stars (good)

Devils got shutout so looks like that wagon to which I am hitched is about done.  

Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 15, 2004, 09:25 AM

Eastern Conference

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/tam_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/nyi_01.gif)

#1 Tampa Bay Lightning vs #8 New York Islanders
Lightning Lead 3-1

Game 1: TB 3 NYI 0
Game 2: NYI 3 TB 0
Game 3: TB 3 NYI 0
Game 4: TB 3 NYI 0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/bos_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/mon_01.gif)

#2 Boston Bruins vs #7 Montreal Canadiens
Bruins Lead 3-1

Game 1: BOS 3 MON 0
Game 2: BOS 2 MON 1
Game 3: MON 3 BOS 2
Game 4: BOS 4 MON 3

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/phi_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/njd_01.gif)

#3 Philadelphia Flyers vs #6 New Jersey Devils
Flyers Lead 3-1

Game 1: PHI 3 NJ 2
Game 2: PHI 3 NJ 2
Game 3: NJ 4 PHI 2
Game 4: PHI 3 NJ 0


(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/tor_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/ott_01.gif)

#4 Toronto Maple Leafs vs #5 Ottawa Senators
Series Tied 2-2

Game 1: OTT 4 TOR 2
Game 2: TOR 2 OTT 0
Game 3: TOR 2 OTT 0
Game 4: OTT 4 TOR 1

Western Conference

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/det_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/nas_01.gif)

#1 Detroit Red Wings vs #8 Nashville Predators
Series Tied 2-2

Game 1: DET 3 NAS 1
Game 2: DET 2 NAS 1
Game 3: NAS 3 DET 1
Game 4: NAS 3 DET 0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/san_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/stl_01.gif)

#2 San Jose Sharks vs #7 Saint Louis Blues
Sharks Lead 3-1

Game 1: SJ 1 STL 0
Game 2: SJ 3 STL 1
Game 3: STL 4 SJ 1
Game 4: SJ 4 STL 3

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/van_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/cgy_01.gif)

#3 Vancouver Canucks vs #6 Calgary Flames
Series Tied 2-2

Game 1: VAN 5 CGY 3
Game 2: CGY 2 VAN 1
Game 3: VAN 2 CGY 1
Game 4: CGY 4 VAN 0

(http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/col_02.gif) vs (http://espn.starwave.com/i/nhl/playoffs2004/teamicons/dal_01.gif)

#4 Colorado Avalanche vs #5 Dallas Stars
Avs Lead 3-1

Game 1: COL 3 DAL 1
Game 2: COL 5 DAL 2
Game 3: DAL 4 COL 3
Game 4: COL 3 DAL 2
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 15, 2004, 10:58 PM
friggin Detroit  >:(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Paul on April 18, 2004, 08:59 PM
Just got back from out of town for 5 days in the woods/boonies with no TV or Radio....

Well I Tivo'ed the Stars game, guess I can erase that one....

Per my Rooting chart from the previous page, it looks like my rooting Jinx is running 50//50 right now, get your requests in now for me to support your opponent in round 2!!!


oh well, in a way it is a bit more fun to watch now that the Stars are out, I can watch all the games and not get too worked up over a win or loss (not that i would trade that for a place in the 2nd round or beyond)

PM
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 19, 2004, 10:16 AM
Looked like a great game between the Sens and Leafs last night...2 OT with elmination on the line.  

Habs and Bruins and the Canucks and Flames Game 7's tonight...

So...Devils are out that means I'll jump on the Avs bandwagon
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 19, 2004, 02:08 PM
GAME 7 BABY!!!!

GO SENS

Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on April 20, 2004, 12:07 AM
The Habs won :o  Sorry Mikey.

BTW, does anyone else think Kelly Hrudey's hair is awful?  Is that a hairpiece?  

Calgary, 1-0 at end of 2nd.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 20, 2004, 01:10 AM
******* Canucks score with 5 seconds left to tie it up...****!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 20, 2004, 01:37 AM
Wow that was quick...SO LONG CANUCKS!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 20, 2004, 08:06 PM
Oh man.... this is not loking good for the Sens.  3 - 0 Leafs at the end of the first. :(

This town will implode if we get bumped by the Leafs again!

Lalime sucks tonight... those two goals by Newindyke never should have gone in!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on April 20, 2004, 08:10 PM
The Habs won :o  Sorry Mikey.


Don't be.  I'm a Flyers fan.

Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 20, 2004, 10:27 PM
No one talk to me.....  >:(

I will give credit where due... The Leafs deserved to win tonight.  Ottawa sucked...

I can't believe we came out that crappy in Game 7.  Its like to those two soft goals totally deflated the team.  I wonder who the goat is going to be Lalime... or Martin.

sniff

Scott
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Darth Paul on April 21, 2004, 12:01 AM
GO LEAFS GO!  
The next victims to step into the ring...the former Broad Street Bullies.  Sorry Mikey...the Flyers are going down!  Neither Esche nor Burke can hope to out-duel Belfour. 8)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on April 21, 2004, 07:19 AM
We shall see Paul.  Should be a hell of a series.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: SPIDERLEGS on April 21, 2004, 03:00 PM
Tom Hicks met with the Stars one last time and bitched them out. Heads will roll in Dallas. Expect the team and the front office to be gutted prior to next season. The Stars were sorry this year. As a fan, I'm ready to start from scratch, get some hungry players in here. The Stars haven't been worth a dAmn since they lost to the Devils in the finals a few seasons ago. It's been downhill ever since. No defense the past two seasons, and now no offense, either. Sorry, Mo, you'll have to go.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: CHEWIE on April 21, 2004, 05:05 PM
Go Wings!  Brett Hull, Brendan Shanahan, and Curtis Joseph.  Now why didn't the Blues think of that! ;)

 :P
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 21, 2004, 08:09 PM
And on that note, go Flames!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on April 21, 2004, 10:16 PM
Go Wings!  Brett Hull, Brendan Shanahan, and Curtis Joseph.  Now why didn't the Blues think of that! ;)

 :P
Good one CHEWIE!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Paul on April 22, 2004, 10:24 PM
Wow, I have to apologize to all Red Wing fans....I was rooting for them tonight....I should have known better....

Look at the faces on the Joe Louis Arena crowd...you'd think somebody killed their pet Octopus....

I feel responsible for the Red Wings and Maple Leaf losses....for my next trick...I'll root for the Avalanche...that game is on the deuce right now..
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on April 22, 2004, 10:53 PM
No one talk to me.....  >:(

I will give credit where due... The Leafs deserved to win tonight.  Ottawa sucked...

I can't believe we came out that crappy in Game 7.  Its like to those two soft goals totally deflated the team.  I wonder who the goat is going to be Lalime... or Martin.

sniff

Scott

I guess I got my answer today... Senators fired Martin, Jackson (Assistant) and Phil Myre (Goalie) coaches....

Man, I wonder what players they will dump in the off season...

The playoffs are over for me now....  goodbye.

Scott :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jokabofe on April 22, 2004, 11:16 PM
I feel responsible for the Red Wings and Maple Leaf losses....for my next trick...I'll root for the Avalanche...that game is on the deuce right now..

please no!! we don't need anymore fans, we have enough  ;)

but did anybody watch the game? i didn't read about it online or in the newspapers, but apparently they changed some rules. apparently it's now okay to lay on the goaltender of the opposing team while someone shoots the puck into the net  ::)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on April 23, 2004, 07:16 AM
One down, three to go!

Go Flyers!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jjks on April 25, 2004, 05:51 AM
Just like to take one last second to congratulate the Predators on their first ever postseason and thank them for the package I got in the mail today. Got home from a late night on drinking and had a package from the Predators thanking me for being a season ticket holder next year by sending me a Steve Sullivan autographed puck. Gotta love fan relations, they really have treated me welll!

And on an unrelated note, go Flames!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on April 25, 2004, 10:37 PM
Flyers up 2 games to none!  Eastern Conference finals, here we come.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on April 26, 2004, 01:25 AM
Same for the Lightning!

EDIT:  Who just swept the habs and can take a few days to rest up for the conference finals!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 1, 2004, 12:17 AM
What happened?  Everyone around here just stop watching the playoffs?

I guess that was bound to happen as teams are eliminated... but I've still got lots to be excited about.  :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jokabofe on May 1, 2004, 12:32 AM
yeah, it's bound to happen. i'm still watching the games - no matter who plays, 'cause i just enjoy watching hockey - but my avalanche are just about done. i have little hope left that they can win 3 in a row against the sharks. the sharks just came out and completely overwhelmed the avs.

oh well, there's always next year :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 1, 2004, 01:52 AM
oh well, there's always next year :)

Not really true this time around...  :(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 1, 2004, 11:08 PM
Flyers up 2 games to none!  Eastern Conference finals, here we come.

Maybe not.  :(  Now tied up 2-2.  I think this series is going seven.  And that's going to really hurt whoever wins.  A tough, physical series and then having to play a speedy and restful TB team.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 2, 2004, 09:16 PM
Flyers up 2 games to none!  Eastern Conference finals, here we come.

Maybe not.  :(  Now tied up 2-2.  I think this series is going seven.  And that's going to really hurt whoever wins.  A tough, physical series and then having to play a speedy and restful TB team.  

Well, Philly put on an ass-whupin today...

But, they lost their goalie it would seem (anyone hear what the injury was?) and game 6 is up North...

This series has game 7 written all over it.

And I hope it does go to 7 - so the winner can be even more gassed when they play Tampa.  :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 2, 2004, 10:08 PM
Still no word on Esche's injury.  Not a bad backup goalie to have though in Burke.  He's had his good times.  

I agree completely about game 7.  Belfour always comes back from a shellacking with a standout performance.  Almost always with a shutout for that matter.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 4, 2004, 07:15 AM
Good to see Detroit eliminated.  With NJ already gone, it's nice to see some new talent win the Cup.  Hopefully it's the Flyers ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 4, 2004, 09:27 AM
Should be the Flames and the Sharks vs the Lightning and the ???  Interesting year in Hockey no doubt, Flames have been out of contention for so long (last cup in '89???) and the Sharks and Lighting are virtual newbies.  My old standby of rooting against teams who have never won a championship before my team does will hold, I'll be pulling for the FLyers/Leafs or the Flames.  And if they meet probably the Eastern Conference team
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 4, 2004, 09:51 AM
Prediction:

Flames win the cup in 2004.  

No new collective bargaining agreement is reached in 2004/2005.  Owners relent midway through 2005/2006 season.  Several teams fold, one of which is the defending Stanley Cup champion Flames.

Bettman still thinks everything is ok.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 4, 2004, 10:33 AM
Prediction:

Flames win the cup in 2004.  

The way there playing... :o  Go Oilers Flames!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jeff on May 4, 2004, 10:43 AM
I'd love to see the Flames vs. Toronto in the Cup Finals.  

Go Canada!  Teach those southern boys how the NHL was meant to be played!  

I'll go with Calgary over San Jose in 6 games and Toronto over Bolts in 6 games (after Toronto passes Philly in 7 games).

Then I'll go Toronto over Calgary in 7 games.

But again, I'm crappy making picks like this.

Jeff
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: stormie on May 4, 2004, 03:15 PM
Yeah, great to see Calgary doing well. Not that I like to think this way, but I'm not so sure SJ will make it past the Avs. They've looked a little timid the last two games. Yes, they have two more chances to do it, but Colorado can smell blood. Plus, as much as I've always rooted for the Sharks, I'm scared to think of how this town would react if SJ actually managed to win the Cup. We live about a block and a half from SJ home ice, and I really don't want some drunken hockey fans (or any fans, for that matter) hooting and hollerin' outside our house at midnight....or worse. :-X The neighborhood's crappy enough as it is.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 4, 2004, 10:01 PM
And the flyers advance....

Tampa vs. Philly - I'm hoping for a repeat of the outcome of the last time their respective football teams met one playoff round from the finals...  :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: sp00ky on May 4, 2004, 10:08 PM
Leafs are out... all is well in my world now.

Around Ottawa... I could just about hear the Leaf Nation's tears.....

;)

Scott
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 5, 2004, 07:21 AM
And the flyers advance....

Tampa vs. Philly - I'm hoping for a repeat of the outcome of the last time their respective football teams met one playoff round from the finals...  :)

And I'm hoping for the opposite.  I'm glad the Philly / Toronto series didn't go 7.  Gives the Broad Street Bullies some time to rest up.  The physical play of the Flyers vs. the speed of the Lightning.  Should be a good series.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 5, 2004, 10:49 AM
And the flyers advance....

Tampa vs. Philly - I'm hoping for a repeat of the outcome of the last time their respective football teams met one playoff round from the finals...  :)

And I'm hoping for the opposite.  I'm glad the Philly / Toronto series didn't go 7.  Gives the Broad Street Bullies some time to rest up.  The physical play of the Flyers vs. the speed of the Lightning.  Should be a good series.

It definitely should be lots of fun.  

(keep in mind the Lightning won all four regular season match ups - I know it doesn't count for jack, but at least it indicates that they stand a good chance)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 5, 2004, 10:52 AM
Well, looks like I'll be rooting for the Flames and Flyers then (sorry fans of the other teams)  Like I said, I like to root for teams that have won a Championship over those that haven't especially when my team hasn't won one
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 5, 2004, 10:59 AM
(http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 7, 2004, 11:14 AM
Conference Finals start tomorrow...

I'm rooting Flames/Flyers but I think it will actually be Sharks/Lightning and be the least watched Cup in history
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Paul on May 7, 2004, 12:24 PM
Ok since my rooting Jinx is apparently in Turbo right now (sorry Leaf fans, see my rooting chart from days agao)

I have decided to sell/rent my rooting Jinx.  So get your bids in early, I will root for the "other" team during the conference finals for a low low price.

I just want Hockey back on TV, it has been a long 3 days.  

The most Hockey I've seen is what I DVR'ed from the last few weeks.  The best hit/aftermath of the whole playoffs is the guy in the last Philly/Toronto game who got hit and didn't know where he was, but was warrior enough to try to find his bench.  Having had my bell rung a few times and never even having the sense to know where I was, this guy (can't remember his name) is truly a player.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 11, 2004, 07:35 AM
Flyers put an ass whipping on the Lighting to tie the series at 1 apiece heading back to the City of Brotherly Love.

Go Flyers!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 11, 2004, 09:01 AM
Article in our Sun paper today.

Shark bait for Klein?

The Terminator came calling and King Ralph was up for the challenge. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger phoned Premier Ralph Klein yesterday to place a wager on the Calgary-San Jose NHL playoff semifinals - even though the Sharks are already down a game. The duo agreed to put up $1,000 apiece on the outcome of the best-of-seven series, said Klein's press secretary Marisa Etmanski.

"Each person will decide what charity to support once the winner is decided," Etmanski said, noting Klein is leaning towards helping out the Special Olympics.

She added that during the five-minute chat between the two leaders it was not clarified if the loser of the bet would have to pay in American greenbacks or Canadian loonies.

"I imagine if it's Arnold giving it to us, it'd be in American," she said.

She said Klein thought talking to Schwarzenegger - dubbed the Governator - was "cool. They also discussed other things like Alberta's role in energy in California," she said. "He was quite receptive and hoped that they could meet face to face some day."

As to whether the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger, 56, is a hockey fan, Etmanski said he "indicated he definitely wanted San Jose to win."

Last week, Klein mused that he was interested in placing a friendly wager on the series, which continues tonight in San Jose, as long as it did not involve physical activity of any kind. Calgary won the first game 4-3 in overtime Sunday.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 11, 2004, 12:01 PM
Wow what a rout, go Flyers go Flames!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 12, 2004, 12:07 AM
(http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 12, 2004, 08:37 AM
(http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg)

Damm hot!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 12, 2004, 10:32 AM
I've always sort of had a soft spot for the Flames.  The first pro athlete (Joel Otto) from my hometown played a lot of years for the Flames.  They won the cup in '89, his mom was my Gym teacher that year and she was always wearing Flames clothes.  He brought the Cup to our that year ;D  Since then there have been two other Elk River hockey players make the NHL, Dan Hinote on the Avalanche and the aforementioned OCB protege Paul Martin
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 12, 2004, 12:01 PM
Update from the Sun paper on the bet with the Terminator:

Leaders' bet just a hoax!

"A reported wager between California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Premier Ralph Klein has turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by an Edmonton radio station. "It's not the first time something like this has happened," an aide to the governor said yesterday from Sacramento.

Klein received a phone call Monday morning from what turned out to be an Arnie impersonator who offered to place a $1,000 bet on the Calgary-San Jose NHL semifinal playoff series, said Klein's press secretary Marisa Etmanski.

"I had made some calls (to Schwarzenegger) on Friday, so this all made sense," she said.

Yesterday, the station - CFBR-FM the Bear - came clean, admitting its morning jocks faked the phone call using computer-generated voice-altering software to trick Klein and his staff.

Station general manager Marty Forbes admits in a letter to Klein the prank was taken too far and has agreed to donate $1,000 to the charity of Klein's choice - Special Olympics.

PROFESSIONALLY EMBARRASSED

"I simply cannot tell you how personally and professionally embarrassed I feel about this stunt ... and I wish to apologize most sincerely on behalf of our radio station," he told the Sun yesterday.

"I have ordered the tape destroyed and can assure you it will not make it to our airwaves at any time in the future. This was a total lack of respect for ... Premier Klein and the government of the state of California."

Etmanski said when she told Klein of the hoax, "he had a pretty good sense of humour about it. He laughed and then he said, 'For a hoax, that was a pretty good hoax.' "

Etmanski said she's "seriously disappointed" by the prank.

"This sort of practical joke doesn't help anybody. It doesn't help the image of the media and it doesn't help us. We conduct ourselves in a very professional, honest way and when someone calls our office we don't question who is calling us."

Schwarzenegger's aide said the governor is not interested in placing a wager, but could not provide details as to why.

Last fall, the same radio station faked a call to Schwarzenegger from the Prime Minister's Office. A disc jockey adopted a bad French accent and exchanged pleasantries with Schwarzenegger, who later grew suspicious and hung up."

These guys pull alot of pranks up here, why? They have the best lawyers in the city! Not to mention a big promo for the station. Must be ratings month.

Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 15, 2004, 05:55 PM
So I was able to catch the first period of the Flyers/Lightning game and saw the crowd was doing the everyone wear Orange bit and saw the Flames had their crowd do the same with Red.  Did the Jets start that with their fans wearing White shirts or does it predate them??  Its a cool effect though :)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 16, 2004, 12:21 AM
We like to claim it here in Winnipeg with the "white out" but I have no idea if it really did originate here.  It was pretty awesome though.  15000 plus all in white shirts.  And loud, man, even Don Cherry said it was the loudest arena in the playoffs.  But remember, we don't deserve a team :'(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 16, 2004, 02:52 PM
[size=9]Go Flames[/size]
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 16, 2004, 09:38 PM
Whoa, the Sharks beat the Flames to tie the series up.  :-\
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 17, 2004, 12:33 AM
Which is good - I was afraid that the East series would go to 6 or 7 games (hopefully with the Lightning coming out on top) and that Calgary was going to sweep and be well rested...

With both series set to go at least 6 games - the fatigue factor should be less of an issue.

And we should get some exciting hockey over the next week.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 18, 2004, 09:41 AM
Calgary Flames  One win away!  8)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 18, 2004, 11:43 AM
How weird is it that the Road team has won the first 5 games.  Looks like the Flames are almost a lock
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 18, 2004, 10:37 PM
Calgary Flames  One win away!  8)

Same for the Lightning!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 19, 2004, 12:26 PM
Tonight its Calgarys turn!  8)  Bring it on!  :-*
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 19, 2004, 11:43 PM
(http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jeff on May 20, 2004, 12:03 AM
Finally!

O Canada makes a triumphant return to the Stanley Cup Finals after a ten-year absence.

Sweet... Props to a Canadian  team making it this far.  An appearance in the Finals should help Calgary's bottom line and strenghten their position finanacially as we may or may not head into the lock-out.

Besides, of all the Canadian teams in the NW division, I like Calgary best and Vancouver the least.  Sorry D, but the Oilers are in the middle.  Sure, they had 99, which goes a long way, but they have some sort of a magic hex on my beloved Wild.  So Calgary it is!

Go Leo!  Gophers Rule!

Jeff
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 20, 2004, 01:00 AM
Sweet!  (http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/images/thumb.gif)

Go Flames Go!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 20, 2004, 10:25 AM
I forgot about Leopold being on the Flames too.  I'll be rooting big time for them, the Canada thing, the history (see a few pages back), they are in the Western Conference and I don't hate them yet

It really is too bad that the Wild aren't in with the Wings Blackhawks, Blues and Stars.  That was our old rivals and it would be better for the team to have to renew those but there have been some budding rivalries in the Northwest and the Flames aren't one of those teams yet.

Go Flyers! (Sorry KBZ ;))
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 20, 2004, 01:39 PM

Go Flyers! (Sorry KBZ ;))

Not necessary.  :)   Tampa's got that us against the world thing going on right now - and I think the team and the city like it that way.   I don't know if I can stand another game like game 5 though without throwing up...my stomach was in my chest the whole last 30 minutes.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 20, 2004, 09:22 PM
Okay - is anyone watching this game or what???!  4-3 Bolts at the second intermission - and I'm about to have a heart attack...

Lots of hockey left to play...

I can barely take this.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 20, 2004, 10:08 PM
Holy! Tie game. Going to overtime!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 20, 2004, 10:20 PM
Holy! Tie game. Going to overtime!

I really think I'm going to puke.  (not from disgust, from nerves)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 20, 2004, 10:51 PM
Wow - can't say I didn't expect that to happen the way Philly controlled the entire game...

Game 1:  Tampa Bay
Game 2:  Philladelphia
Game 3:  Tampa Bay
Game 4:  Philladelphia
Game 5:  Tampa Bay
Game 6:  Philladelphia
Game 7:  See a pattern developing here?  

Hopefully it holds true - gotta say I'm awfully glad the next one is at home...

Wow.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 20, 2004, 11:03 PM
Great game, caught the OT and it was awesome...Go Flyers!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 21, 2004, 07:47 AM
Due to a late softball game, I too only got the OT.  The Broad Street Bullies could have ended it early in the period, but had to keep me glued to the TV and on the edge of my seat for almost an entire period.

This series has turned out to be one of the best I've seen.  Great stuff from both teams.  Hopefully the Flyers break the trend and take the next one.

Go Flyers!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 22, 2004, 09:49 PM
STANLEY CUP FINALS HERE WE COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Bolts!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jeff on May 22, 2004, 11:38 PM
Congrats to the Bolts and Tampa Bay and KBZ.

However, I'll still be rooting for the Flames! ;)

Jeff
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 22, 2004, 11:46 PM
Congrats to the Bolts and Tampa Bay and KBZ.

However, I'll still be rooting for the Flames! ;)

Jeff


Best of luck to you.  :)  I dont' know too much about how the Bolts will match up with the Flames...anyone have the scoop???

(http://espn.starwave.com/media/nhl/2004/0522/photo/g_fedotenko_ft.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jesse James on May 23, 2004, 03:15 AM
I disappointed in Philadelphia's loss...

Go Calgary.  

Was really hoping to see two teams I liked go to the playoffs, but alas it wasn't to happen.  Now it's all on Calgary for me.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 23, 2004, 03:20 AM
I just got back from a Poker game & had no idea who won till I checked in here. The hockey game that is. My Poker game was not too bad.  ;)

This is going to be a great series.

Go Flames Go
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 23, 2004, 09:00 AM
I too will be rooting for the Flames but I must say I have enjoyed watching the Lightning...they play a great style of Hockey.

I also really don't care who wins ;)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Mikey D on May 24, 2004, 09:46 AM
Congrats to the Lightning and all their band wagon "fans".  Reminds me of the Marlins of last year.  ::)

Here's hoping the Flames sweep.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 24, 2004, 10:00 AM
Reminds me of most southern hockey towns

Just checking attendance at such Hockey Hotbeds such as Carolina, Nashville and Atlanta, unless the team was close to the playoffs (Preds) attendance was around 12,000-13,000 per game

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2004

Nice to see Ducks fans (Colman ::)) support their team a year after they went to the Cup (same goes for Devils fans ::))
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 25, 2004, 09:59 PM
Calgary is kicking Tampa's ass! 2nd period, 3-0.  ;D

GO Flames GO
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 26, 2004, 12:07 AM
Flames spanked em...Burn Baby Burn!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 26, 2004, 01:30 PM
Saw this at BloodyDisgusting.com Spawn.com...good read

Stanley Cup for Calgary, it's only fair

Dan Bickley
The Arizona Republic
May. 23, 2004 12:00 AM

On the back of Canada's $5 bill, four boys are playing hockey on a frozen pond.
There is no such passion on our currency, much less our television ratings.
This is why the Calgary Flames must win the Stanley Cup Finals. This is why they must beat the Tampa Bay Lightning in a series that will struggle to draw an American yawn.

With the NHL perhaps about to go dark due to a work stoppage, it would do well if the trophy were to loiter in Canada and help ease a decade of depression - and brighten a murky future.
Poor Canada hasn't raised the Cup since Montreal won it all in 1993. It hasn't played for the Cup since Vancouver lost it all in 1994. For more than a decade, the game has been slipping from the national grasp, and we are at the root of all problems.
So if America didn't have enough global enemies, you can add another to the list. Maybe not in a diplomatic sense, but in the visceral, "Hey hoser, you stole my culture," kind of way. This indignation may come as a surprise to many, seeing that we buy their beer and cheer for Mike Weir. But try standing in their snowshoes.
Hockey was born in their country. It matters to a higher percentage of Canadian citizens than football does in the United States. There, the passion truly lives, and yet here, on our soil, is where the game slowly dies.
The NHL's new television deal is proof. It will give games to NBC for free. The $60 million a year it receives from ESPN is half the amount of its previous contract.
These chilling figures coincide perfectly with reckless American expansion, and this is how feelings get bruised, dating all the way to when a Canadian treasure was pawned off to a Los Angeles coin collector.
With our savage love of celebrity, the glittering Wayne Gretzky landed in Hollywood the way a comet hits earth. The NHL soon burst from 21 to 30 teams, with franchises popping up in the strangest places, including those where liquor is still made in bathtubs.
Without Gretzky in LA, hockey wouldn't have made its way to Nashville, Charlotte and Columbus, bringing along a blueprint for financial disaster.
Canadian teams reap much of their revenue in Canadian dollars, yet they pay players in American dollars. They pay American dollars in 24 of 29 road cities. And while we're spanking them with exchange rates, they've faced heavier tax burdens and zero public support when building new arenas.
The Coyotes migrated from Winnipeg. The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver. The Ottawa Senators nearly went bankrupt. Today, Canada has six teams left, even though they contribute more than half the league's players.
If this weren't embarrassment enough, the Expos are being yanked out of Montreal and the NBA moved a team from Vancouver - a sparkling cosmopolitan city - to Memphis, better known as the curators of Elvis, the great American icon.
Meanwhile, their icon - the great Gretzky - goes from one ugly American (former Kings owner Bruce McNall was convicted of fraud) to a partner (Steve Ellman) who may not be paying his bills. It's all a terrible blow for a country mad with hockey, and for now, there is only one solution:
Go Flames.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 26, 2004, 03:41 PM
Blah.  There's no 'fair' about it.  If Calgary wins, it's because they're the better team - and that's fair.  If Tampa wins, it's for the same reasons, and it's still fair.

Last night Tampa played like a team coming off a tough series, and the Flames played like a well rested team - and pulled out a much deserved victory.  They're definitely a very very good team and are no fluke.  They were also faster than Tampa in their passing and in regular moving around the ice.    They have also been an excellent road team - so a win was not to be a suprise.

If Tampa can't win tomorrow - I expect the flames to win in 5 or 6.

If Tampa can even it up tomorrow, they'll be very much alive given the Flames tendency to play worse at home than on the road.

Plus, the Lightning just got their first look at a very very different team than the one they spent the last 2 weeks playing.  Now they'll have something to adjust to.   I still expect a close series - but I guess I won't be too suprised if Calgary cruses.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 27, 2004, 02:37 PM
T-Minus 3 games & counting!

[size=8]GO[/size] (http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg) [size=8]GO[/size]
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 27, 2004, 10:50 PM
HOw could they not win at home?  TB didn't get this far and have a good regular season by not being a good team.  I really like the Lightning.  Let's hope Calgary can take both at home.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 27, 2004, 11:02 PM
HOw could they not win at home?  TB didn't get this far and have a good regular season by not being a good team.  I really like the Lightning.  Let's hope Calgary can take both at home.  

I won't be suprised if they win game 3 at home, Tampa will have to adjust to the air pressure and all...But I'm confident that they'll at least split the games in Calgary.

We've got ourselves a series!!

Nasty play tonight from both teams, but especially from Calgary.  Twisting St. Louis' head off and breaking a stick on a crosscheck over Kubina's back...  Disappointing.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on May 27, 2004, 11:06 PM
Agreed it got cheap at the end.  I was impressed with Tampa's bench basically reaming their player to get off the ice and onto the bench.  Also liked Khabibulin in there seemingly telling his guy to back off.  Smart.  You won 4-1, where the hell is the merit in fighting at that point?
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 29, 2004, 07:27 PM
[size=8]GO[/size] (http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg) [size=8]GO[/size]
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 29, 2004, 11:29 PM
2 games to go!  ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on May 29, 2004, 11:32 PM
Nice game by the Flames tonight, flipped back and forth betwixt this and hard core porn NBA and the game.  Looks like the home ice jinx is over for the Flames!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 30, 2004, 12:14 PM
Nice game by the Flames tonight, flipped back and forth betwixt this and hard core porn NBA and the game.  Looks like the home ice jinx is over for the Flames!

Nah, they got back to .500 - and the Lightning have to get used to the altitude...They looked just fine the first half of the game, then simply ran out of gas...didn't race to the puck, didn't look like they cared anymore.  I predicted above that the flames would probably win game 3, but Lightning would bounce back for game 4 - then they'll take game 5 at home.  

Although I am concerned about Fedotenkov and that nasty nasty face-first header into the boards he took...hopefully he's okay.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on May 30, 2004, 12:34 PM
Yeah, that was a nasty face plant into the boards. I thought he left half his face on the boards & that gash didn't look too good at the bench. Hope he has a speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on May 31, 2004, 10:53 PM
Yeah, that was a nasty face plant into the boards. I thought he left half his face on the boards & that gash didn't look too good at the bench. Hope he has a speedy recovery.

Now add a nasty faceplant into the boards on Lecavaleir for a major to rob your team of any chance of coming back in the final minutes...  talk about dumb.

Khabibulin does it again rebounding after the loss.

Now it's 2-2 and headed back to Tampa.  Game 5 is a must win for either team - whoever takes it will take the series.

And Brad Richards has his record 7th game winning goal in the playoffs - and the Bolts are now 30-0-2 when he scores a goal this season.

Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 1, 2004, 09:18 AM
Now it's 2-2 and headed back to Tampa.  Game 5 is a must win for either team - whoever takes it will take the series.

Ditto. A big game it will be.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 1, 2004, 10:11 AM
Probably true, saw a stat on the NBA the other night, winner of Game 5 wins the series 93% of the time.  Stoopid penalty late in the game might cost the Flames the Cup.  

Khabibulin was an animal
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 1, 2004, 12:24 PM
Probably true, saw a stat on the NBA the other night, winner of Game 5 wins the series 93% of the time.  Stoopid penalty late in the game might cost the Flames the Cup.  

Khabibulin was an animal

They'd have needed to hypotheticall have been able to score in those last 4 minutes for the penalty to cost them the cup - but agreed.  It might as well have.

And on Khabibulin being an animal...that glove save in the last couple of seconds just about gave me a heart attack - incredible.

I expect Fedotenko and Kubina to be back for game 5 given the two days rest - anyone heard anything?
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 1, 2004, 12:56 PM
Haven't heard a thing thus far. They may tell us on the game day.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 4, 2004, 01:10 AM
[size=8]GO[/size] (http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg) [size=8]GO[/size]

 ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 4, 2004, 08:23 AM
[size=8]GO[/size] (http://www.millerhouseofsports.com/CalgaryFlames/images/flameslogo.jpg) [size=8]GO[/size]

 ;D

Sweet! If Calgary wins the Stanley Cup Saturday night, there going to party like it's 1989!  ;)   ;D
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 09:46 PM
Tie Game! 2-2...great game so far
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 5, 2004, 09:55 PM
Tie Game! 2-2...great game so far

That last goal was a killer.  But the second Richards goal probably felt the same way for Calgary fans...

Very even - Brad Richards for the hat trick anyone???

One can hope eh?
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 10:02 PM
I think you could have heard a pin drop after the Bolts scored #2...talk about a gut punch!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 11:00 PM
Oooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvverrrrrrtime

I'd be going nuts right now if the Wild were playing...
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: jokabofe on June 5, 2004, 11:28 PM
how was that not a goal? it looked like it was 100% over the goal line to me...
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 11:38 PM
Looked like it from one angle but when Khabibulin kicked it...it didn't look in...hard to say.  Not sure why they haven't developed a technology to say a ball or puck goes over a line for TD's and Goals :-\

Double Oooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvverrrrrrtime
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 5, 2004, 11:45 PM
how was that not a goal? it looked like it was 100% over the goal line to me...

More of a goal than Hull scored a couple of years back? :P

Too close to make that call during the action and the goal judge would have been behind the pads so he never would have seen it.  

It'll hurt if they lose tonight, but it is the right thing to do to not call it a goal.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 11:47 PM
I was thinking the same thing about that BS Hull goal, damn Stars >:(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 5, 2004, 11:54 PM
that was quick :'( :o :(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 5, 2004, 11:55 PM
That was quick (relatively speaking)

I was going to say something about Calagary's sloppy turnovers in the 3rd and OT...cost them...perhaps the Cup

Game 7...Go Flames (I actually don't care :P)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 5, 2004, 11:58 PM
Pity you can't change your name to Mr. 6000.  

I care.  I want the cup in Canada.  No disrespect to Tampa fans, but it matters right now to a whole country, not just one teams fans, especially with a lockout coming.

I do think Tampa is deserving and were they playing pretty much any other US based team, I would be cheering for them.  They've had a tremendous year and I had three of them in my regular season pool, so count me as a fan.  But I need the flames to win.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 6, 2004, 12:03 AM
According to upstairs the puck didn't fully cross the line - and, wasn't it kicked in anyway????  

Either way - game 7 here we come!

Go Bolts!!!!

I can't wait to hear Darryl "the league is against us" Sutter's press conference.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 6, 2004, 12:06 AM
Well, then for you and all Canadians...I say Go Flames Go :-* (sorry KBZ)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 6, 2004, 12:10 AM
No sweat.  I think I'm the only person here or at the scum who's rooting for the Bolts.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 6, 2004, 12:15 AM
Well blah!  >:(   Do or die now.

I saw that replay over & over & even if that puck was in, it came off a skate & he was in the crease. It would have been a no goal.

Monday night, be there!

Go Flames Go!  :P
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 6, 2004, 01:07 AM
According to upstairs the puck didn't fully cross the line - and, wasn't it kicked in anyway????  


Well, that's a nice politically correct response that doesn't matter (not from you, from 'upstairs').  Not sure what channel you saw the broadcast on, but CBC showed pretty clearly it was in.  

There was no protest and bluntly you can't protest something like that, IMO.

As far as kicking it in, no, it was not.  Yes, it went off a skate, but it would have been considered a deflection.  There was no intent to kick it, no forward motion of the foot in a kicking motion.  The player was coming in and stopping hard when the puck went off the skate, so it would not be termed a kick.  

Again, it doesn't matter.  A 7 game series is fantastic.  And hey, Tampa held on and certainly took it to the net hard in the second OT.  Good goal.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 6, 2004, 01:27 AM
Understood on the kicking thing - wasn't kicked.  I think the idea is that the angle that showed it 'over' the line was not a dead above angle - and the puck was in the air, so there's no telling from the broadcast angle whether or not it crossed the line all the way.

Even Sutter said in the press conference that it wasn't a goal - so that should really be the end of any controversy that could be brewing.

Can't wait for Monday...all my friends back home are going to the game...I'm so jealous!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 6, 2004, 08:54 AM
I just can't believe the Flames propensity to win on the road and then lose at home...its amazing :-X
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 6, 2004, 02:57 PM
I just can't believe the Flames propensity to win on the road and then lose at home...its amazing :-X

Yep.  The road team has won 4 of 6 games in the finals.

Which doesn't bode well for Monday.  The Bolts will have to play like they played in game 2 to win.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 7, 2004, 09:01 AM
(http://www.katrin-und-frank.de/images/calgaryflames1981.jpg)

Wadda team.

(http://www.globeandmail.com/RTGAM_Archive/images/20020930/wmacle/1macleanout.jpg)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 7, 2004, 03:19 PM
So....who's gonna win tonight?  I'm thinking the Bolts are going to take it extending the 10 years of misery for Canuckia (which may turn into 11...12...13....14 thanks to Bettman)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 7, 2004, 03:55 PM
So....who's gonna win tonight?  I'm thinking the Bolts are going to take it extending the 10 years of misery for Canuckia (which may turn into 11...12...13....14 thanks to Bettman)

Man I hope so... Home ice hasn't meant much in this series, but home teams are 10-2 in game 7's (for the finals).

Go Bolts!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 7, 2004, 09:28 PM
1-0, mid way through the second, Tampa winning :-\
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 7, 2004, 09:34 PM
[size=8]Go[/size][/b] (http://www.sportsnet.ca/images/FEED/06/07/h060706A.jpg) [size=8]Go[/size][/b]
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 7, 2004, 09:45 PM
Not good, 2-0 for Tampa, second period.  :'(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 7, 2004, 10:30 PM
2-1!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 7, 2004, 10:32 PM
Nail biter!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 7, 2004, 10:41 PM
Wowza was that good Hockey!  Khabibulin just made two amazing saves
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 7, 2004, 10:52 PM
Wow what Stoopid Hockey!  

Congrats to the Lightning and their Fans...Let's Riot!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 7, 2004, 11:15 PM
Oh to be back home tonight...

Title Town Tampa bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 7, 2004, 11:21 PM
Oh to be back home tonight...

Title Town Tampa bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait I though Green Bay was Title Town? :P

I've had the pleasure of savoring 2 World Series Championships but a boatload of disappointment, especially in the last 6 years

Vikings lost 2 NFC Championship Games 1998, 2000 and a Playoff Games in 1999
Twins lost in Playoffs in 2002 (ALCS), 2003
Wild lost in the Western Conference Championship 2003
Timberwolves...7 One and Dones and then losing to the Lakers in 2004 Western Conference Championship

I need to start cheering for Tampa Bay teams...Go D-Rays!!!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 7, 2004, 11:22 PM
Now the Devil Rays thing is quite a stretch at this pont...but 3 years ago the Bolts sucked ass too...and now look at them.

I hope this team can stay together - they're very good and very young - now with Stanley Cup experience!
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 8, 2004, 12:27 AM
Very sad, Canada is weeping right now :'(

Congrats to the Lightning though, very deserving, talented team.  Good series and they played their hearts out.  The truly bad part about this is that Bettman is gleaming. >:(

Now comes the ugliness.  How long will the lockout be.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 8, 2004, 12:30 AM
I'm guessing January of '05...players will cave and the NHL will open its books wide open.  Its their own damn fault and its too bad because people have no idea what they are missing.   :'(
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Rob on June 8, 2004, 12:40 AM
I'm guessing January of '05...players will cave and the NHL will open its books wide open.  Its their own damn fault and its too bad because people have no idea what they are missing.   :'(

Count me among the group that only recently discovered it...

I've started watching any and all playoff games I could get on my T.V. the year Lemieux came back and immediately started rooting for my home team (Bolts) - who were terrible for quite a while.  Hell, they were terrible two years ago - and made huge strides last season...

Loads of young raw talent finally starting to mature, an ever improving goal tender, and a few shrewd trades and whalla - two years later they're the champs.

There is no other sport like hockey - I love football first and foremost - but it doesn't give you headaches for hours and make your stomach sit on edge for entire games the way hockey can.  I'll probably be watching as long as I live.   I really wish it was more popular in the States...
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 8, 2004, 12:40 AM
Whoo, glad to see you've switched to optimist mode.  My guess is around November 05.  Full season for sure, then they'll start sweating when the second one doesn't ring up.  

I think lots of players will have contingencies for a year.  But not beyond that.  I think owners have other things to do and other sources of income, aside from tax deductible, money losing sports teams.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 8, 2004, 12:49 AM
Football is king in most of the US but Hockey here is #2 ahead of baseball and basketball.  I'm almost sheepish to admit this but I never have really learned how to ice skate so I never played.  My cousins all played but my dad played basketball and so that's what my family did.

I've played lots of Indoor Floor Hockey and Boot Hockey and Roller Hockey

The thing that got me interested was the Flames in '89 because of my teacher and then the Stars in '90-'91 and their almost Win against the Pens.  

I also played thousands of hours of Sega NHL so its been a passion for a long time

Agreed on the butterflies, Basketball has so many points that really the last 2 minutes are all that matter...Hockey like Soccer is sooo critical on every possession and play that it can't be beat


As for the lockout...I think the Owners will break up before the players cave.  Some of them were making money and won't sit there and watch profits go out the window.  Its such a mess that I can't even begin to think of all the bad things that could happen...plus all of the Negative PR and bad karma Baseball got for their lost World Series...the NHL can't be stoopid enough to do that again...can they :-\
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Morgbug on June 8, 2004, 01:02 AM
Wayne's world.  Caaaaaaaaar  That's every kid in Canada from age 6 (earlier now) to, well, 66.  The guys in the Winnipeg thread on the spawn.com board get together to play street hockey.  They rage in age from 13, to, well, me.   :-[

My daughter can skate.  She's 4.  She has a plastic hockey stick.  She learned late in life.  

I keep a hockey stick in my car, just in case.  

I own Nordiques, North Stars and Jets jerseys.  

I only played hockey from 6 to 14, replacing it with basketball after 14.  Reason being I wasn't good enough to play hockey anymore.  

I was a goalie, which might explain a lot about my life ;)

My community club has four levels for each age group.  

I hate the Leafs.  
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: DSJ™ on June 8, 2004, 02:41 AM
This PC at work is pissing me off. (http://www.jedidefender.com/yabbse/YaBBImages/angry.gif)

Congrat's to Tampa. Until next season, if there is one. (http://www.jedidefender.com/yabbse/YaBBImages/undecided.gif)
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Jesse James on June 8, 2004, 02:52 AM
Pittsburgh's a 2-way tie between Baseball and Hockey after Football which will always dominate the Steel City.

That said, News always devotes mroe to Baseball which always garners heat from the real sports press in the city (in the papers and such) because the news channels will pimp the loser pirates like they're the end-all and be-all.

They suck, but have a nice stadium.

The Pens will live on though, and when they rebound (they will, I feel sure), they'll be back in the saddle.

I hope we build the underground arena they've said is a rumor.  THAT would kick ass.
Title: Re: Playoffs for Lord Stanley's Cup NHL '04
Post by: Scott on June 10, 2004, 01:59 PM
WHA to begin play (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1819008)

One of the things I was thinking might happen...NHL might dissolve and a new league takes its place
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on June 10, 2004, 02:45 PM
Trio of NHL All-Star Defensemen named to Hall of Fame:

Bourque, Coffey, Murphy to the Hall of Fame in 2004 (http://www.nhl.com/intheslot/read/features/hhof2004inductees060904.html)

Three VERY talented defensemen.  All three won the Stanley Cup at one point and played for the teams that most of here root for (Edmonton, Pitsburgh, Detroit, LA and more).

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on June 10, 2004, 11:26 PM
Did anyone catch the awards ceremony today?  My bolts cleaned up this year...

2004 Stanley Cup
2004 Prince of Wales Trophy
Conn Smythe - Brad Richards
Jack Adams - John Tortorella
Lady Byng - Brad Richards
Lester B. Pearson - Martin St. Louis
Art Ross - Martin St. Louis
Hart - Martin St. Louis

It was nice to see the guys get so much recognition for their accomplishments this season.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on June 10, 2004, 11:35 PM
They deserved it.  St. Louis was the top player in the league no doubt.  I actually thought he was going to win the Lady Byng as well.  Being a fan of the Senators I was surprised that Alfredsson was also nominated.  Sure, his penalty minutes were low, but he's not really the cleanest player in the league.  A bit too much stickwork, IMO.  

Zod, what was regular season attendance like in TB?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on June 10, 2004, 11:48 PM
Well, I moved to Dallas about a year ago, so I haven't been to any games recently and couldn't tell you exact numbers without doing some googling...but it's safe to say that it's much lower than the 21,000 person capacity of the Ice Palace.  The ownership was saying earlier in the year that the team would probably have to make it to at least the finals just to be profitable for the season.

The hope is that this playoff run and championship will boost next year's attendance, they undoubtably made new fans this year - winning it all will do that...  The area needs to grow into a love of hockey...I myself have only been interested for 3 or 4 years now.  

We (Tampa) went through the same kinda thing with the Bucs, they were terrible for so long and you couldn't give tickets away...now the waiting list for season tickets has tens of thousands of names on it.

Here's to hoping there's hockey next year and that they can continue to expand their fan base.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on June 11, 2004, 12:39 AM
Pittsburgh News:

Mario Lemieux's holding his annual Mario Lemieux Invitational Golf Outing (always star-studded) in Pittsburgh this week, and was speaking publicly about the Penguin's status here in Pittsburgh.

He's disappointed, obviously, because our financially strapped city is dragging their feet in every way possible abut the Penguins (who sport the oldest arena in the NHL) receiving a new arena.

Headlines and reports say that the Penguins aren't for sale YET, but that Lemieux said that without help (and the Pennsylvania Slot Machine legislation going through to help fund it) the likelihood of sale is there.  Without a new arena he just can't make the team marketable or guarantee they will last here.

In a sense, this isn't anything new but people were in a panic on the news channels this evening.  

It's disappointing to hear it uttered publicly, but it's nto the first time either.  Our city is financially in the toilet right now, which sucks, but they are still improving.  New stuff's going up routinely.

I think a new Arena's a good idea, and if they'd finally get the slots going we'd have an arena/gambling establishment in the city as well, which would undoubtebly generate revenue.  That seems to have lots of opponents though itself.

The fact the city backed the new stadiums (plural) for the Steelers and Pirates who no longer wished to share, I think it's simply disrespectful of the city to neglect our most recently successful sports team, the Penguins.

The Steelers will always be #1, but the Penguins will always be #1 to me, and should be #2 to the city.  Pirates have a nice stadium, but that's ALL they have, and they're not even known for "giving back" to the community like the Pens have.

I hope the state/city help get us a new arena for the Pens and that my favorite team (and the only one I support till they're out of the running ANY year) doesn't get sold off and leave the city.

It seems like the city's not even willing to discuss it sometimes, and they're telling Lemieux he's 100% on his own t get this stadium built.   ::)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on June 22, 2004, 04:18 PM
Markus Naslund in EA SPORTS' NHL 2005 (http://www.nintendo.com/newsarticle?articleid=3d81a341-623e-4986-b194-e08243b9eb3b&page=newsmain)

As Wild fan, and therfore an anti-fan of the Canucks, I was happy to read that Naslund will be the cover boy for the NHL2005.  ;)

With Bertuzzi out indefinately on his suspension and the EA Curse hanging over Naslund's head, it should be a banner year for the Canucks!

Let's just hope that the curse hits NASLUND only and doesn't spill over into the passengers of his car like it did with Dany Heatley last year...  :(

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on June 24, 2004, 02:14 PM
Bertuzzi charged with Assault (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1827388)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on September 2, 2004, 02:34 PM
Just heard that the season tickets for my buyer group here at work are in, so we'll be dividing up the games this weekend (via a lotto system for picks).  I'll end up with 4 games this year (1 of 11 shares).  Now all we have to do is hope there is a season.  :-\

Jeff

ps.
I watched USA vs. Canada the other night on ESPN.  The Team USA played worse than some college teams I've seeen in my day.  Kinda reminded me of the "Dream Team" in that there are stars on the team, but they don't function well together for a whole list of reasons I guess.

So, the World Cup is alright, but I'd rather be watching the NHL or the WCHA!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on September 2, 2004, 02:35 PM
You Canuckians heard any rumors of how the talks have been going in Montreal?  All I've seen in the paper is that both sides refuse to comment ::)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 2, 2004, 02:58 PM
Much the same here.  Perhaps the only difference is that there are "reports" that if a deal occurs, it will happen in the last week of bargaining, probably the last two days. 

That said, both sides have apparently been told to prepare for a very long stoppage, as I'm sure you've heard.  NHLPA reps have told guys, as long as a year ago, to set aside what they need for minimum one year without salary. 

Canada will weep.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on September 2, 2004, 05:06 PM
Here's a good site for all you puck heads:

http://www.spectorshockey.net/

I still think that if a deal gets done, it will include a luxury tax and not a salary cap, much like the deal MLB struck w/ their player's union.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on September 3, 2004, 03:00 AM
You Canuckians heard any rumors of how the talks have been going in Montreal?  All I've seen in the paper is that both sides refuse to comment ::)

The Chief Legal Officer for the NHL, Bill Daly spoke during intermission of last evening's USA/Russia World Cup game and stated that neither side was close to coming to an agreement. It's going to be a sad to see the NHL have yet another season not start on time, just 10 years after it most recently happened. Oh well, at least that season the Devils won the Cup! :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 5, 2004, 10:05 PM
NHL needs US... (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Sports/2004/09/05/616408.html)

Probably fairly transient as a link, so...

Quote
A reality lost in the constant craze that is Canadian hockey culture: When the NHL shuts its doors in mid-September it will be making itself disappear from its largest market, the U.S. -- and hardly anyone there will care. That's because college football has begun.

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on September 6, 2004, 02:03 AM
If the NHL stops play, will that affect the IHL, OHL, QHL, etc.?  I don't know how the work stoppage will affect the junior clubs or the affiliates of the NHL clubs.   :-\

I doubt ppl will care much in Canada if they can still watch the local juniors teams... 

I'll miss the Wild, but I can still watch the Gophers and the rest of the WCHA games to get my hockey fx.  8)

Granted, the quality isn't that of the NHL, but it's still fun to watch none the less. 

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on September 6, 2004, 11:54 AM
I'll miss the Wild, but I can still watch the Gophers and the rest of the WCHA games to get my hockey fx.  8)

I care more about and watch more of the Gophers than I do the Wild, being an alumni, their recent success and being the only gig in town for 10 years has something to do with that
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on September 6, 2004, 12:26 PM
I saw those interviews during the intermission as well.  Bottom line is this: the rep. from the NHLPA was asked if they could get a deal done and his response was "If the league drops the cap, we'll get a deal done."  That's it in a nutshell.  The league wants a cap, the players don't.  That alone will cause the lockout.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 6, 2004, 12:32 PM
If the NHL stops play, will that affect the IHL, OHL, QHL, etc.?  I don't know how the work stoppage will affect the junior clubs or the affiliates of the NHL clubs.   :-\

I doubt ppl will care much in Canada if they can still watch the local juniors teams... 

I'll miss the Wild, but I can still watch the Gophers and the rest of the WCHA games to get my hockey fx.  8)

Granted, the quality isn't that of the NHL, but it's still fun to watch none the less. 

Jeff

Other leagues will not be affected, we have an IHL team and they are set to go regardless of a lockout or not.  We are the Canucks farm team. 

As far as Canadians caring, yes, people will attend IHL, junior and university hockey, but there is quite simply no replacing the NHL.  Hockey Night in Canada is almost universal for Saturday night entertainment.  We'll watch other hockey, no doubt, but there is no comparison.  Trust me, as someone who lives in a former NHL city, the difference is astounding. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on September 6, 2004, 12:43 PM
Hockey Night in Canada is almost universal for Saturday night entertainment.   
 
(http://www.galactichunter.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yay.gif)Hockey Night in Canada! (http://www.coolcanuckaward.ca/hockey_night_in_canada.htm) (http://www.galactichunter.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yay.gif)   ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 6, 2004, 01:28 PM
Amazing.  Heard that song and immediately put on a toque and got a beer from the fridge ;D
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on September 6, 2004, 01:37 PM
Amazing.  Heard that song and immediately put on a toque and got a beer from the fridge ;D

It is our 2nd national anthem!  :D   ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on September 7, 2004, 12:33 AM
Amazing.  Heard that song and immediately put on a toque and got a beer from the fridge ;D

It is our 2nd national anthem!  :D   ;)

ya know does sound better than O' Canada.  ;) I kid, I kid.....

well if the NHL goes down, most people here in Chicago won't notice the difference, I 'm sad to say. But at least we have a good alternative with the AHL's Wolves, unfortunately in other towns in the states it won't be the case and could damage the credibility of the teams in places like Atlanta or Miami, where there is already little interest in the game. Those "small-market" teams are already on the bubble and a lock out will only hurt them more and could cause a drop in the total number of teams in the NHL in the near future.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 14, 2004, 09:45 PM
Team Canada wins the world cup and the hockey world comes to a crashing halt.  Just watched the game and pleased to see the HNIC logo, probably the only time I'll see it this year. 

2nd intermission featured a head-head interview with representation from the players and the owners ::)  It is going to be a very long year without hockey.  The rep for the players said we're prepared to shut down this league for a very long time :o :-\  Not sure they're quite clear on who is shutting whom down, but the point is the same.  No need for a hockey draft anytime soon :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on September 14, 2004, 09:49 PM
Team Canada wins the world cup...

(http://www.galactichunter.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yay.gif)  (http://www.galactichunter.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yay.gif)

It is going to be a very long year without hockey.

 :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on September 14, 2004, 09:50 PM
Team Canada wins the world cup and the hockey world comes to a crashing halt.  Just watched the game and pleased to see the HNIC logo, probably the only time I'll see it this year. 

2nd intermission featured a head-head interview with representation from the players and the owners ::)  It is going to be a very long year without hockey.  The rep for the players said we're prepared to shut down this league for a very long time :o :-\  Not sure they're quite clear on who is shutting whom down, but the point is the same.  No need for a hockey draft anytime soon :'(

Congrats to Team Canada, Team USA just didn't have it this year which is a shame. A USA/Canada final woulda been sweet.

I don't think that the league owners realize how much a lockout will hurt the league, there's going to be several teams which will be on the edge of closing down permanently, which just shrinks potential revenue for the league in general. I'm beginning to think they're letting a guy like Bill Wirtz (Blackhawks owner) tell them what to do. He doesn't care if there is no NHL season, he makes more money in the liquor distribution business and real estate, so a small loss of money from the already fledgling Hawks doesn't matter to him.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Paul on September 15, 2004, 05:41 PM
Should we change the name of this thread to NHL:Lockout or NHL Extended Offseason????

I was hoping to have some hockey to watch this year.  If there is no season at all does that mean there will be a blank spot on the Cup?

But seriously...what are the chances of us getting a partial season? I've been out of the loop the last few weeks.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on September 15, 2004, 05:46 PM
Crappy.    >:(

At least the lightning get to stay champs for the time being...   :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on September 15, 2004, 07:10 PM
Just read it on the elevator at the office and confirmed it on ESPN.com, the NHL has officially announced that it will lockout players from the beginning of training camp on Thursday. Full details at: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1882150

Well there it goes, the owners have gone and ****** things up. Not that the players are innocent in all this, but damn the greatest sport on earth stopped for the 2nd time in a decade...
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on September 15, 2004, 09:54 PM
The last time the cup was not awarded in a given year was 1919.  Not sure of the cause, but no, no blank spot, just a missing year when you look close enough. 

Latest rumour floating around is that if the lockout lasts two years, the players union becomes decertified, giving the owners all kinds of leverage, having essentially broken the union.  Not sure how much truth there is to that, but it seems plausible. 

I don't have any great love for either side.  With spectacular spokesmen like Brett Hull, my loathing of the players is ever increasing.  The owners seem to take the risk at least, though for most I suspect it is a big tax break to them. 

I think a cap coupled with an incentive laden contract is the way for the league to go.  No more Alexei Yashin's dogging it after getting the contract and playing where they want.  Produce or get paid less.  Seems fair to me.  I think the cap is necessary for the small markets to survive.  Though buying a cup has seldom worked to this point, I disagree with the players' idea of a tax system for revenue sharing.  The revenue sharing part I agree with, needs to be there for the entire league to survive.  But I disagree with allowing the continuation with no cap.  The Rangers, for example, could then go out and get all the top talent they want, leaving a dog like Calgary, even though they're making money via the profit sharing, with no top talent and an ever weakening fan base.  There is no such thing as player loyalty to an organization any more.  Why would Kiprusoff want to stay in Calgary at 2 mill per when he could go east and get 5 mill per?  No brainer really. 

Oh well, IHL is just a 10 minute drive away....
Title: Re: NHL - Game On?
Post by: Jeff on September 24, 2004, 10:33 AM
Virtual Teams Overcome NHL Lockout (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&ncid=763&e=10&u=/nm/20040924/tv_nm/television_hockey_dc)

Looks like NGC or PS2 will get to determine next year's Stanley Cup Champion.

I can't believe that this channel is seriously going to broadcast a Video Game complete with commentary and stats and everything!  Virtual NHL!   ::)

Madness.

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on September 24, 2004, 05:58 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpbmdmam0wBF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0bQ--?slug=dw-nhllockout&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1887263

A couple of articles worth reading.

Also, no Cup awarded in 1919 because of a flu epidemic.
Title: Re: NHL - Game On?
Post by: CorranHorn on September 24, 2004, 09:42 PM
Virtual Teams Overcome NHL Lockout (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&ncid=763&e=10&u=/nm/20040924/tv_nm/television_hockey_dc)

Looks like NGC or PS2 will get to determine next year's Stanley Cup Champion.

I can't believe that this channel is seriously going to broadcast a Video Game complete with commentary and stats and everything!  Virtual NHL!   ::)

Madness.

Jeff


That's freakin hilarious, but they should have people play some of the games, would make it all the more funny to watch.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on September 30, 2004, 04:04 PM
178 NHL Players Now in Europe  (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=565&ncid=755&e=10&u=/ap/20040929/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_nhl_lockout_europe)

178 Players.  That's about 25% of the Roster spots in the NHL.

Add in other guys who are going to go coach/play for minor league teams in IHL/AHL/OHL/QHL, and you are up to about 30% of the players who have jobs elsewhere...

 :-\

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on September 30, 2004, 10:24 PM
http://www.detnews.com/2004/wings/0409/30/d04-286431.htm
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on October 1, 2004, 12:14 AM
I agree with most of what Lindsay says.  The only problem being this isn't the NBA/NFL/MLB.  There just aren't the revenues to support a league paying that kind of money.  The NHL doesn't get the merchandising dollars, the TV contracts and subsequently the advertising revenue that goes with that. 

Salaries need to come back into line and the owners are too stupid to do it on their own.  They need the cap moreso than the players.  Unfortunately for the players, the cap will affect them.  But realistically, with a choice of being on the farm or making 1.3 million per for chasing a frozen turd on the ice, what are they bitching about? 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on October 1, 2004, 08:52 PM
I agree with most of what Lindsay says.  The only problem being this isn't the NBA/NFL/MLB.  There just aren't the revenues to support a league paying that kind of money.  The NHL doesn't get the merchandising dollars, the TV contracts and subsequently the advertising revenue that goes with that. 

Salaries need to come back into line and the owners are too stupid to do it on their own.  They need the cap moreso than the players.  Unfortunately for the players, the cap will affect them.  But realistically, with a choice of being on the farm or making 1.3 million per for chasing a frozen turd on the ice, what are they bitching about? 

There's no question the NHL is not at the level financially as the other 3 major sports leagues.  It's an amazing game, but unfortunately, it's not TV friendly.  The deal that the league struck w/ NBC is a joke and doesn't help anyone.  There's no money in it for the league and that only hurts matters. 

As for salaries, the owners dug their own hole and now they are betting on Bettman bailing them out.  Bettman has run this league into the ground by over expanding and making other bad decisions such as rule changes that only hampered scoring and catered to trapping defenses.  The players won't go for a cap because that honestly won't make teams more competitive.  All it does is guarantee owners make money on their teams.  Players are still going to sign where they want to sign.  If the NHL truly wants to improve it's state of affairs, it needs to remove Bettman, dissolve some franchises and change the rules to promote scoring.  Could you imagine the NHL w/ only 20 teams?  The talent on the clubs would be insane and if you change the rules to open up scoring, you instantly gain fans.  No one wants to see soccer on ice. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on October 1, 2004, 11:00 PM
OK now.  What 20 teams and in what 20 cities? ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on October 1, 2004, 11:35 PM
OK now.  What 20 teams and in what 20 cities?

Here's what I'd do. 

Four 5 Team Divisions - bring back the Old School Names!

Prince of Wales Conference

Adams (Northeast) Division:
Buffalo
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa - (relaces the Whale)
NY Islanders - (replaces Le Nordique)

Patrick (Atlantic) Division:
Pittsburgh
NY Rangers
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Washington

Campbell Conference

Norris (Midwestern) Division:
Toronto
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Detroit

Smythe (Pacific) Division:
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Colorado - (sorry bug, no return for Winnipeg :()
Edmonton
Calgary


These Areas would be out of luck as their teams would be dissolved...
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay
Dallas
San Jose
Nashville
Anaheim
Columbus
Phoenix

Ditch the trap, shrink goalie pads (width, not thickness), and open up the ice.

Not to brag, but it would totally fix the NHL.  ;)

Just my $0.02,
Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on October 1, 2004, 11:40 PM
Detroit
Chicago
Pittsburgh
Boston
New York
Colorado
Minnesota
Buffalo
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Saint Louis
Eh...Dallas
Eh...LA

Montreal
Toronto
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Ottawa
Winnipeg :-*

And I could see Buffalo or Winnipeg (sorry Bug) not having a team and putting one more team in the South (Tampa or Nashville or Atlanta)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on October 1, 2004, 11:55 PM
WEll, I appreciate the sentiments, but it's going to depend on what the priority in the league is.  If it's $$$, then Winnipeg is out.  But Tampa/Nashville/Atlanta?  Where's that hurling icon I requested. 

I don't think Washington deserves a team.  I can't state what the support has been for the team in the past, but it's never impressed me as a hockey place. 

Ottawa sucks.  Realistically they draw more fans from Toronto than they do from their own area.  And those are people that can't get tickets to the Leafs.  Don't get me wrong, but with all the frickin' money in Ottawa, they should draw better.  The team should have folded and be gone, but bastard Bettman didn't want it to happen.  That is all said noting I cheer for the Senators. 

Edmonton and Calgary are not a whole lot different from us.  A bit more history, largely thanks to Gretzky, but they are now fringe teams, barely hanging on.  Going back to my earliest comment about what the direction is, then they stay or go depending on the answer. 

I do not believe Los Angeles should retain a team (sorry Matt).  But that place is *******, purely *******, empty 90% of the time.  Is the only reason to keep a team around deep pockets?  If so, I'm not so interested in a league any more.  Yeah, yeah, long history, Marcel Dionne, Gretzky played there, blah, blah, blah. 

I think Dallas retains its team.  Texas has tons of hockey going on, strange as it sounds, but if the stat is correct, Texas has more professional hockey teams (at varying levels) than Canada.  They also seem to support the team, my primary criteria for a place having a team.  **** LA and put us back in the Smythe. 

I do like the return of the original divisions. :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on October 2, 2004, 12:01 AM
LA was a toss up, I think the market size and money in the area means they'd keep a team.  Didn't know that about Ottawa...they could go...Quebec instead?

I don't think Washington needs a team either.  As was shown in recent playoff runs, the team wins, the fans come...no hockey though, would anyone really care?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on October 2, 2004, 02:08 PM
Personally, I don't think you can fold any of the Canadian teams.  Do that, and it just hurts the tradition even more. 

I whole heartedly agree that we need to go back to the old conference and division names.  I'm tired of the generic names. 

Teams I would fold for certain would be:

Buffalo
Carolina
Florida
Pittsburgh
Washington
Phoenix
Columbus
Atlanta
Nashville

One more team would have to go as well, but not sure who as I said previously I don't think we should fold any of the Canadian franchises.

Rule changes MUST happen and they must be made to promote scoring and open up the game. 

The hardest part of folding teams is the fact the NHLPA may never go for it because think how many jobs would be lost.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: jjks on October 2, 2004, 02:22 PM
I'm going against the grain of all you "purists" and maintain that Nashville deserves a franchise, and definitely has the potential fan base here to support it. Completely removing all Southern teams is not the answer to fixing the league, and if any of them deserve a shot I think it's the Preds.

I think this year's playoff push was exactly what the casual fans here needed to get exited about hockey again, and anyone here that was at any of the playoff games (or got a phone call from yours truly when your Wings got smacked here and the place was too loud to hear anything but screaming) recognized that with the right team on the ice the city stands 100% behind them.

Tennessee loves sports teams, Titans sell out entire seasons in mere minutes, the Vols cram 100,000 plus in every week, even our minor league baseball team (for the Pirates at the time no less), put up good numbers.

That said, this strike is the worst possible thing that could happen to a city that was on the verge of bringing in the crowds. I don't know what's going to happen now here, if the strike goes on as long as I think it will, I don't know how much energy will carry over from last season. And that's a shame for any hockey fan...
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on October 2, 2004, 05:18 PM
I live in Pittsburgh, I support the Pens, they still are drawing crowds even with the (arguably) worst team in the NHL last year, and the city's a big hockey town and has been since the team's inception.  Folding us isn't going to do anything but weaken an already crappy conference.

Financial woes for our team were business decisions gone sour, not a poor performance by the fans, so declaring a fold here isn't based on anything "current".  Lemieux just needs a new stadium and the Pens will be back...  Given that we just passed the gambling bill to help get a new arena, hopefully, things will turn around.  There's little talk of the team collapsing here at this point.

As for the other teams, I disagree with Buffalo as well, only because I think Buffalo's a good hockey town...  A good market, just again poor management (currently as well as in the past).  Phoenix is tough to say... 

Washington I agree with.  They usually have more Pens fans than Caps fans when we have games.  That's a telling sign that the sport's not viable there...  Columbus I also agree with.  It's not a team that had a strong showing last year as I recall, and I can't see it increasing.

Carolina had solid sales last year I thought...  I could be wrong.  They always seemed to have big crowds to me.

Florida should have one team, not two, I agree.

I saw so little of Atlanta and Nashville last year to even know what was up that I'd hate to judge, but those are pretty foreign lands for hockey.  Atlanta's had solid minor league performances though over the years, so....

To me you fold who doesn't help the game at all.  Folding a ton of U.S. teams at the cost of Canadian teams that are equally (or worse off) financially inept isn't the answer.  It's not good business...  Tradition or not.

I'm as old-school as the next hockey fan today, and I hate seeing Canadian teams fold, but they're not carrying the NHL to warrant the closure of TONS of U.S. markets in their favor.  It's not the CHL, it's the NHL.

Pittsburgh's been a huge advocate for NEW major rule changes and BIG enforcement of them...  So I agree with tweaking things for a more wide-open game.  Lemieux's always pushed for that, from the height of his playing on into his ownership years.

I think the rules changes and enforcement are the #1 problem of the NHL, and the next is salary...  Salary Cap's the greatest thing that happened to the NFL.  It'd be the greatest thing to happen to the NHL, even if it is pointless to argue about that...  It's still the biggest "issue" the NHL faces as a whole.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on October 2, 2004, 06:02 PM
Quote
I'm as old-school as the next hockey fan today, and I hate seeing Canadian teams fold, but they're not carrying the NHL to warrant the closure of TONS of U.S. markets in their favor.  It's not the CHL, it's the NHL.

All due respect, you're not as old school then.  Bluntly put, our dollar sucks, even now it's only closing in on $0.80 US.  Winnipeg religiously put 13,000 fans in an arena that while charming in it's own right, is a huge pile of crap.  Beyond the 9000 lower bowl seats, you had people paying good money for seats no one else in the league would sit in. 

I contrast that with regular season attendance (it's easy to get worked up for playoffs) at any of Nashville, Los Angeles, Carolina, Atlanta or any other southern team.  Don't feed me crap about getting behind the team come playoff time, that's a no brainer.  Sure, I'll allow for teams like Nashville to develop some interest, I just don't really expect it to happen in a regular season.  Winnipeg supported a team with 10,000+ fans at every game when they won only 8 games all year and set the record for ineptitude going 33 games without a win.  Any US city going to do that?  Sure, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New York, etc.  Not some new market where there is minimal fan interest in a winning regular season. 

Quote
It's not the CHL, it's the NHL

Let me rephrase that:  it's the NHL, not the NFL.  Go where you have a dependable fan base, not just where some jackass, no brain owner needs a tax write off.   >:(

Riddle me this Jesse: how pissed off would you and the fans of Pittsburgh be if the Pens left?  Imagine that and know how I feel.  Pittsburgh is a good hockey town that supports their team, has done so for a long time and understands hockey, even has fans that play it.  Winnipeg is a big hockey town, has a huge fan base relatively speaking and we all play or have played the game at some point in our life, regardless of gender. 

Winnipeg couldn't find a decent local owner, much as your comments state it had nothing to do with support for the team from the city.  Bettman desperately wanted a team in Phoenix and wanted out of Winnipeg.  That's business, not poor fan performance.  And nobody better go and pull up some bull**** attendance stats.  I don't give a flying **** about how many tickets were given away to fans that didn't show up, that's not a body in the seat, that's padding your numbers, something the NHL does on the whole.  I watch hockey on TV and get very angry watching games in the regular season broadcast from the southern US.  People aren't there, they don't give a ****, not in the regular season.  LA is abominable.  Carolina is an embarassment, watch a game and look into the stands.  How can they have decent numbers when half the seats are empty?

If it's just a business and there's no passion for the game, the US is welcome to it.  The league will fold eventually then and maybe we can have hockey where people give a crap about it instead of where it makes good business sense. 

Pissed off?  Yeah.  Bitter?  ******* right.  Sour grapes?  Did you understand the pun?   I thought not.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on October 2, 2004, 09:04 PM
Psst...none of the scenarios will work until there is a salary cap and revenue sharing.  Why Professional Sports teams/leagues don't copy the NFL is beyond unfathomable to me...seriously.  Its the stupidest thing in the world that the teams all share in the success of each other on an equal playing field with equal salaries etc

Every NFL teams makes millions of dollars a year.  Because the weak sisters are taken care of by the big boys and there is a chance every damn year for your team to go all the way

NBA is the next best, the have a luxury tax for owners that forces them to pay penalties for going over the cap to sign superstars...if Hockey wants another model, combine the two.  Have revenue sharing and a luxury tax instead of a cap...it will keep salaries down but also improve competitive balance and bring a little parity to the league

Parity is the whole key...teams and cities need to know they have a chance to win every year
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on October 2, 2004, 10:04 PM
Yes, absolutely Scott.  The cap is beneficial to the overall health of the league.  Pardon my rant above, but I have no understanding of why the Minnesota's and Pittsburgh's of the world are more deserving than Winnipeg is.  Aside from deeper pockets that is.  I'd suggest that we at the very least at least as much fan support and probably a better understanding of the game as a community than most US teams, excepting the original six and those communities that experience winter sufficiently. 

Look, Pittsburgh got it's team in 1967, Minnesota in 1967 as well.  So you're looking at nearly 40 years of history.  Winnipeg and the WHA started in 1972.  I doubt any of you are old enough to remember, but look up some of the history.  It was hardly a bush league.  Much of the talent was top notch and could compete with the NHL.  Bobby Hull was "stolen" from the Chicago Blackhawks and became the first million dollar player.  Where?  Winnipeg.  Winnipeg won the Avco cup several times during the league's short history (72-79) and had one of the most amazing teams with Anders Hedberg, Ulf Nillson, Bobby Hull and many more.  When the WHA and the NHL joined, the NHL did it's best to rape the WHA teams of their talent.  Winnipeg went from being Avco cup champion to near if not at the bottom of the NHL. 

During both the WHA and NHL years, Winnipeg fans supported the team well, with average crowds that would exceed most of the current attendance that southern US NHL teams experience.  The fan support was there. 

During the 1970's as well, the US and Canadian dollar fluctuated relative to each other.  At times the US dollar was above the Canadian dollar but at times the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US dollar.  That helped tremendously.  For most of my adult life the dollar has been worth less than $0.80 US.  On the bright side, from less than two years ago it has climbed nearly $0.20 in value, so lets hope Bush gets re-elected and the trend continues, hmm?  During the 1980's to present, the dollar has been low.  Without revenue sharing, it is difficult for Canadian teams to compete.  They are at an automatic disadvantage as their revenue is in Canadian dollars while they are paying players in US dollars, the worst exchange rate was two years ago when CAD - $0.61 USD.  40% disadvantage. 

Now, no one is suggesting closing a ton of markets to bring NHL back to Canada.  We lost two teams.  Only two.  I can see US teams sucking in revenue and attendance all in markets where kids DO NOT grow up playing hockey and fans are casual.  Why is it ok for NHL ----> AHL?

As a parting comment (for now) I always enjoy the comments regarding scoring.  It seems to impact the crowds in the US, but not in Canada.  I wonder why that is?  Not to say that a more wide open game as Jesse suggest is not desirable, clearly it is and everyone would benefit.  But gosh, ratings remain good in Canada.  But hey, we don't need teams up here, it's a business after all, not a charity event. 

Scott's right, the league and its players are idiots.  Greed baby, greed.  Think Brett Hull.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on October 3, 2004, 03:54 AM
I'm not arguing your points Morgbug, as I agree...  I don't like seeing Canuck teams falter, but the figures are against them.

My point is within Scott's entire point...  The real problem's profit sharing and a cap...  Copying the NFL to a tee so the NHL can prosper and competition is spread...  And then to Holographic Elvis's point about restructuring the rules and enforcing them as well, so the game itself is more to the fast-paced hockey that draws ALL fans in.

My post was in regards mostly only to Holographic Elvis's idea to close a ton of teams down.  You don't close off teams that are solid performers for the NHL and that will thrive in a competitive and economically friendly league.  My hometown being one of them... 

I think the expansion's out of control...  Not that I think Phoenix is doing that poorly as an expansion team but I don't agree with them taking a team from Canada for it.  Some of those teams I think are a bit much though, but not all of them.  Columbus and Florida (one of the FL teams) namely.

I think there's room for all these teams, but it's the league that's screwed up, not the small market teams which Pittsburgh turned into...  We weren't that way a little over 10 years ago though.  We were the dominant team in the league by far and away...  And fans still are supporting the Pens vehemently (though the arena thing's leaving a sour taste because we've got 2 stadiums we're paying on, and one's for a losing team that gives nothing back to the city *cough*pirates*cough*).

My post wasn't a shot at Canada, but rather a point that you don't close teams in the U.S. that have been here for ages, have a solid hockey foundation, have shown good performance, and have the ability to grow and expand, in favor of Canadian teams...  It's the same problem you've got in Winipeg, but in reverse...  I don't agree with closing shop and moving a team North or South of the border if they have a viable market, and Winipeg and Pitt both have that...

Columbus, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Atlanta...  I dunno.  Atlanta's minorleage team always did well, but on those others I'm not so sure.  I mean, Columbus isn't even really a "major" city in Ohio beyond being its capital.  That's like saying Harrisburg's a major city in PA...  It's just not the truth.  It's our capital but Philly and Pittsburgh are considered the 2 "big names" here.  I'm perplexed on the Columbus decision.

Washington was the ONLY older US team on HE's list I agreed with, and that's because they are just not behind that team and never have been.  The caps would have dominant teams in the playoffs back when the Pens were winning cups, and you'd still see MORE fans from out of town than Caps Fans...  You don't see that in Philly, Buffalo, or NY though, and I'd say each isn't but a hop, skip, & jump from Pittsburgh as well...  No offense to any Caps fans here though, I just am speaking for what I've seen over all the years of playing them.

Anyway, I'm not in disagreement iwth your points MOrgbug, but I do disagree with catering to Canada at the cost of established U.S. teams just as the Canucks feel the same but in reverse order.

I say lock the NHL (teamwise) at what it is, sort out a salary cap and profit sharing, and revise the rules in grand fashion...  Then you'll see a game ready for expansion on both sides of the border.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on October 3, 2004, 02:19 PM
Alright.  This is what I'm talkin about!  A hockey discussion w/ true hockey fans.

First off, to touch on Jamie's view about the Preds.  Honestly, if the Preds don't make the playoffs, no one cares.  The only way to sustain a fan base is to be competitive year in and year out.  Perfect example locally for me is the Ducks.  They don't draw, never have.  The year they went to the Finals, they had a figure in the LA Times that said the Ducks sold out 5 dates all season: the 2 times they play the Kings, the 2 times they play the Wings and the 1 time they face the NY Rangers.  As soon as they went into the postseason, everyone was on the bandwagon.  Once they went back to Duck-form this past season, no one cared.  No one around town was talking Ducks or wearing anything Ducks.  If the Nashville fans are die-hard and loyal, they'll come back after this lockout.  I personally have my doubts.  I just look at all the other teams in the NHL over the past few years that had a playoff run and then stunk the next season and the fans jumped off the bandwagon (Anaheim, Caroline, etc.) 

My reasoning for folding franchises ties directly into revenue and the issues of a salary cap.  Bottom line guys, a salary cap isn't a cure all and isn't the way to go.  Sure the NFL does well, but there are other reasons the NFL does well, namely their TV deal which generates over $80 million for each team.  That's right kids, $80 million.  The NHL deal gives no money to it's teams.  The only thing, the ONLY thing a salary cap does is ensure owners of franchises such as Edmonton, Calgary, Carolina, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, etc that put no money into their team in terms of payroll turn a profit.  That's the sole reason the owners want a cap.  If a cap gets put in place, does that really guarantee that Phoenix becomes a Cup contender?  Does that mean Atlanta wins the Eastern Conference?  No.  It doesn't.  The only reason some of the teams like Carolina and Anaheim have done what they've done is because of the rules that focus on decreasing scoring.  Teams w/ no talent obstruct the teams w/ talent and play ugly hockey all the way to the promise land.  It's a travesty. 

Eliminating some franchises eliminates a lot of the issues the NHL has.  We wouldn't even be talking about a cap if the league hadn't over expanded.  As long as Gary Bettman is in power, this league is in trouble.  He has no direction other than his cap-mindedness and no idea on how to improve this game. 

As a local LA guy, take the Kings out of contraction talk.  They draw, and draw well.  There are tons of die-hard Kings fans around here.  I don't know who mentioned them as being abysmal or whatever, but that's so far off.  If anything, the Ducks need to go, not the Kings.

As for not folding any Canadian franchises, I'll say it again: You can't.  Look at the sentiments Morgbug has conveyed.  Now what happens to the game and it's overall fan base if we fold the Flames, the Canucks, the Oilers and Senators?  Can you honestly tell me that hockey as a whole survives w/ only 2 franchises in the great white north?  Hell, most of the people watching hockey in June regardless of who is playing are Canadians.  What would have happened to the overall state of affairs had the Flames been folded say 2 years ago and it was a US team in the Finals this year?  I think you guys are missing the overall point I'm making for not contracting any Canadian franchises.  It goes well beyond tradition. 

Hey Jamie.  Who won that series again?   ;D
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: jjks on October 19, 2004, 02:22 AM
Meant to post about this Saturday night, but got slobbering drunk and forgot about it until just now. Our minor league team (which just happened to win the Calder Cup last season) came to town Saturday and gave the hockey starved fans on Middle Tennesse something to be happy about.

The Triumphant return of Jordin Tootoo! (http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/story/7801869/1)

I went with a few of my buddies not really knowing what type of crowd to expect, and was very happy to see nearly 11,000 fans show up for a MINOR LEAGUE game. I'm telling you guys, us getting into the playoffs last year was a great catalyst to start building a solid fan base, and with the Titans sucking complete ass (went to the Titans/Texans game Sunday, piss-poor effort all around), this would have been a great time to start getting people excited about the season early on.  I really hope some of the season gets salvaged...


one final thought

(http://www.milwaukeeadmirals.com/images/angels02.gif)

Why are our minor league goal girls much hotter than the Preds goal girls??

(http://www.nashvillepredators.com/library/photos/staff/ice/goalgirls.jpg)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on October 19, 2004, 11:38 AM
How in the hell did those Goal Girls make the squad?  Woof
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on October 19, 2004, 01:14 PM
I need to hit up a minor league game in TN.  Those chicks are smokin!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JediMAC on November 3, 2004, 06:44 PM
There goes the All-Star game (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/hockey/nhl/11/03/bc.hkn.all.starcancella.ap/index.html)!  As if there was ever any doubt...   ::)

These guys are all complete and total dumbasses.  Not even trying to make an effort to work it out.  What do they think?  They can just blow off a whole season, but when they go back to try to patch things up next year, things are going to be any different, or easier to work out?  I highly doubt it.

****, I say they start negotiating right now, just so they don't wind up missing TWO seasons.  Morons.

Not that I really give two ***** about hockey anymore, but man, this really cements it for me and my bandwagon fandom...
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on November 4, 2004, 12:05 AM
Well, both sides have really overestimated the desire of fans to return to watching.  Oh sure, Toronto will sell out no matter what and crowds will be alright elsewhere, but there was a poll today in the newspaper (sorry, online subscription only which I don't have) and only 33% of Canadians gave a crap.  That is seriously bad news.  Everyone hates millionaires fighting other millionaires for the biggest share of the pie, so both sides (though moreso the players) are in a pretty steady state of decline in terms of respect. 

Minor league hockey is drawing well up here, University games are getting bigger crowds and there's no shortage of any type of junior hockey where kids are playing as much for the love of the game.  Sure, the calibre isn't the same, but then again I don't have to watch some ****head like Tkachuk or Hull (Jr., not Sr.) whine about how much money they deserve for being an *******. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on November 4, 2004, 01:07 AM
All-star D-man Sergei Gonchar of the Bruins got laid the "f" out a week or so during a game overseas and was in pretty bad condition at one point and there was ZERO mention of it here.  The only time I hear hockey mentioned is when people joke about it and how they aren't playing.  No one cares and it sucks because the more time passes the less they will care.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on December 2, 2004, 10:17 AM
I realize its different probably up yonder but I can't remember the last time I even heard about whats going on with anything in the negotiations

When MLB was locked out it was almost the lead story for weeks upon weeks

When the NBA was locked out it still made the news and was still talked about

Not a peep anywhere...not ESPN.com, not on the news, not in the paper, nada

That is sad :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: jjks on December 2, 2004, 10:34 AM
All I've seen is an article in the Tennessean talking about what Barry Trotz is doing to stay busy, which is basically hanging out with Jeff Fisher at Titans games.

 >:(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on December 2, 2004, 10:43 AM
I realize its different probably up yonder but I can't remember the last time I even heard about whats going on with anything in the negotiations

Not a peep anywhere...not ESPN.com, not on the news, not in the paper, nada

That is sad :'(

That's because I don't think there have been ANY negotiations since September 9th.  Hard to say anything new when the two sides aren't even talking... and that is sad.  Bye-Bye NHL 2004-05.   :'(

I guess most Minnesotans haven't really thought about it because we've got Vikings still going.  Most people I know never really cared about the NHL until January anyway.   :(

So, for now, I just content myself with this:

INCH Power Rankings (http://insidecollegehockey.com/5Polls/0405/polls_0312.htm)

Hard to feel sorry for the NHL when the Gophers are playing so well...  ;)

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on December 2, 2004, 11:09 AM
Yup, up yonder it is entirely different.  We hear about it everyday, but as Jeff correctly indicates, lots of talk about nothing.  I suppose we get to hear a little more about the cracks in either side, as players (mostly) talk about crossing a picket line at some point, only to be squashed by the union promptly. 

If you're really curious, just click this link every so often:

clicky me please (http://www.nohockey.ca)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on December 2, 2004, 07:56 PM
Nightly news here seems to usually have a blurb about there being still no progress or efforts towards progress for the Pens to have any kind of season.

The big story the other day was that they were shutting all the heating off to the Arena to save $.  Makes sense since they don't usually use the place for anything but Hockey, especially at this time of year.  Once Ringling Bros. is in and out in November, they're all hockey for the most part.

Not this year...  But usually. 

Part of me cares, part of me doesnt'.  The Steelers awesome year is blanketing over a lot of the hockey issues I think here.  If they were playing like last year, I think the No NHL thing would be more talked about, but the news casters have all they can handle every week with the Steelers coverage it seems.

I miss them playing, but I'm so irked at pro sports in general, other than Football.  The NHL's become a rich man's game down here with tickets costing over $50 a piece.  Unlike the NFL, to me the NHL's best viewed live.  The NFL I'd rather watch from home (Personal preference).  Their tickets are even more, but then again they're a winner too.  I dunno.

I'm just discouraged I guess.  I do miss hockey though because College doesn't get much TV time around here, and lower leagues get zilch.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on December 2, 2004, 09:11 PM
The league has accepted an invitation from the NHLPA to meet next week sometime to negotiate.  The PA says they have a deal they are ready to present that will end the lockout.  Let's keep our fingers crossed. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on December 2, 2004, 11:19 PM
It's all just showing off...  The peacocks are strutting.

The league's doing its thing, the players are doing theirs.  And in the end, both of them are the downfall of the NHL as a lucrative, fair, and entertaining entity.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on December 3, 2004, 01:59 AM
It's all just showing off...  The peacocks are strutting.

The league's doing its thing, the players are doing theirs.  And in the end, both of them are the downfall of the NHL as a lucrative, fair, and entertaining entity.

Just one problem with that JJ, the league is not lucrative nor fair. Most of these teams are losing money due to the high salaries, I believe 75% of all revenue goes into salaries. Don't be surprised if a deal is not reached, that the owners will just say "screw it! we're opening the league up for the 2005-06 without the NHLPA. anyone who wants to play can do so on our terms, otherwise we'll be utilizing AHL and European players"
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on December 3, 2004, 02:16 AM
That's what I mean...  The players AND the league are what are making things unlucrative, and unfair, and generally uninteresting.  They both are to blame IMO.

I wish they'd open it up to kids who WANT to play.  I'd be amazed.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on December 3, 2004, 03:17 AM
It's all just showing off...  The peacocks are strutting.

The league's doing its thing, the players are doing theirs.  And in the end, both of them are the downfall of the NHL as a lucrative, fair, and entertaining entity.

Just one problem with that JJ, the league is not lucrative nor fair. Most of these teams are losing money due to the high salaries, I believe 75% of all revenue goes into salaries. Don't be surprised if a deal is not reached, that the owners will just say "screw it! we're opening the league up for the 2005-06 without the NHLPA. anyone who wants to play can do so on our terms, otherwise we'll be utilizing AHL and European players"

The league claims that they've lost so much money, but they haven't made those numbers nor their books public other than to have a person they hired (for over a quarter of a million dollars no less) crunch the numbers and shout them out to the world.  Let the PA see the books.  Forbes did a study and found the NHL lost far less.  So who's right and who's wrong?  The simple fact remains.  Gary Bettman has lead the NHL down a path of destruction with his misguided calculations and clouded visions.  The league overexpanded.  The on-ice product has gone to s--t.  Bettman simply wants a cap to save his job and to save the owners from themselves. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 4, 2005, 09:53 PM
OK, it ain't NHL, but the World Junior Championship final is on the tube right now.  Well, in Canada it is and I'd bet half the damn country is watching it, either at home or in a bar.  Is it on a US station?  Anyone know who won the bronze medal match?  Or who was even in the bronze medal match? 

The point being Bettman and the rest can try as hard as they like to make hockey important to the US, but it's not.  It is not baseball, it is not football and it is not basketball. 

Y'all don't grow up playing it.  Y'all don't have double header games on the tube on Saturday night.  You wouldn't have 50, 000+ people show up to an outdoor game in the ******* freezing weather. 

Y'all don't base your commercials on the tragedy that is the lockout (http://gprime.net/video.php/bringitback)

Don't get me wrong, those of you that love the game are more than welcome into the fold of hockey fans.  Just don't tell me there are cities in the US south that deserve hockey more than some half assed, hick town with a population of less than a million.  It's our game. 

I've been waiting to see if anyone posted on this all week, nada.  The US even made the semis.  Nothing. 

End of the second intermission:  Canada 6 Russia 1
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on January 4, 2005, 10:28 PM
It actually has gotten some decent press here locally but to be honest I have paid any attention.  I do catch the Golden Gophers and try and keep track of how the old High School does and that's about it right now.

Go Canada
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JesseVader08 on January 4, 2005, 10:35 PM
End of the second intermission:  Canada 6 Russia 1

Frick.  I wanted to watch this so bad and was too busy surfing here.  Thanks for the reminder Brent.  And I call myself a Canadian?   :(

Looks like we won!  Woo hoo!   :D   That ought to shut those cocky Russians up for a year.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 4, 2005, 10:38 PM
17" computer monitor beside a 13" TV.  Split the cable myself and ran it from the junction to this room.  Damn right I watched the game ;D

Oh Canada! :D
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 4, 2005, 11:40 PM
I'm with Scott...  It's here, as in it is in the paper...  It's getting coverage, but I have all of 3 sports channels I think (ESPN 1, 2, and Fox Sports Pittsburgh).

If I've learned anything about ESPN, it's terrible for sports...  :)

And Fox Sports Pittsburgh plays our local High School games, a few US College games, and of course the Pen's games and some Baby Pens games.

I will say that I doubt any city in the south even mentions hockey at the moment though.  Nashville probably doesn't even have 2 pages for a sports section I'd think.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Darth Paul on January 5, 2005, 01:17 AM
I think that sums up hockey in the US.  Not enough people care.
They have World Cup games in Minnesota, the hockey hotbed of the US (and honourary 11th province).  The games, featuring Team USA, DON'T EVEN SELL OUT.   No idea if it was on TV, but I doubt it.
Ditto for the World Juniors.  The best-attended games are Canada's, with the arena full of fans who travelled south.  No TV.
2 awesome tournaments, one with the best pros and one with the best prospects.   Zero interest or coverage.
I'll never understand how owners figure they can make more money in Arizona with an empty arena and no TV than they could in Winnipeg with a  packed building and TV coverage that I can guarantee would have more viewers on a local station than a nationally televised game on ESPN... ???
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on January 5, 2005, 02:23 AM
the US games were aired on ESPN2, which was great. some pretty good games especially against the Russians. congrats to Canada for beating those bums!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 5, 2005, 02:30 AM
I remember Fox Sports Pittsburgh (I think?) aired World Cup because I watched it. :)  It was on at every bar I went to also because my girlfriend kept asking why Hockey was on...
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Darth Paul on January 5, 2005, 02:41 AM
Well I'm glad to hear there is SOME TV coverage of the greatest game in the world down south.  I stand corrected on that point.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 5, 2005, 02:54 AM
The other night FSP was airing old Stanley Cup games...  I loved watching those.  Finals with Minne in '91.  Great games.  They aired the last one on the night before NYE when I went out...  That was a wonderous game.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on January 5, 2005, 09:54 AM
Sweet!   8)

(http://www.sportsnet.ca/images/sportsnet_story_images/hockey_action/getzlaf_carter_ladd240.jpg) 

(http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/edjn/20050105/35809-13393.jpg)

(http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/edjn/20050105/36583-13619.jpg)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on January 5, 2005, 10:10 AM
The other night FSP was airing old Stanley Cup games...  I loved watching those.  Finals with Minne in '91.  Great games.  They aired the last one on the night before NYE when I went out...  That was a wonderous game.
That 91 Cup was awesome.  The North Stars finished with a losing record in the regular season and then beat the Blackhawks, Blues and Oilers.  It was a magical run only to get crushed by the Pens in the finals. 

1991-1992 was a great year for MN sports in general...Stanley Cup, World Series, Hosted the Super Bowl, US Open
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 5, 2005, 10:20 AM
91 was about the time I was going to Minne regularly.  We saw a bunch of Twins games and some regular season North Star games as well.  Had a nice sweatshirt from that year, wonder where it went?

Trivia tidbit from the World Junior Championships (not sure how true it is ;)) - there was more beer sold during the Canada games (not including any games in which Canada did not play) than there is during an entire season of NDSU hockey.  Pretty cool.  Eh? :D
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 5, 2005, 11:06 AM
The Pens finished near dead last in playoff teams too, and won the cup.  I know in 92 anyway they were the worst team going into the playoffs and won it again quite handily that year (8 game sweep of the last two series with the Bru-ha-has and Hawks).

In 92 I remember the big post-cup scandal was the Hawks coach lamenting Lemieux's stick length being too long, blah blah... 

The 91 series with Minnesota was great because it went 7 games, lots of scoring...  I have a real nice painting of the Game 7 gamewinning goal that I still love.

The only plus to this year's season was that I got a Lemieux Jersey (modern home jersey) for super clearance cheap.  Penney's stocked hockey jerseys, and I really don't know why they did (or didn't wait to put the order in one more month anyway) because the lockout was inevitable to most people...

I really wanted that jersey though, and now I'm happy to have one. :)  No place to wear it really since no games, but I'm happy to have it.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on January 7, 2005, 10:10 AM
Damn, Brent...wanna move there?   ;D

(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/djustus/Canadian%20Back%20Yard%20Rink.jpg)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 7, 2005, 10:40 AM
That's from last year's hockey day in Canada contest, isn't it?  Nice rink, in Edmonton too, right? 

Though that is proof of why hockey is so popular in Canada.  It's cold.  Plain and simple.  You can build a rink, most not nearly so elaborate as that and play any time.  Your rink stays frozen for somewhere between 3-6 months too.  Awesome. 

When I was growing up, we lived in a house that backed on the river.  Once the river froze, we went out and shovelled a rink.  Every year.  We only lived about a quarter mile from the community club that had three rinks, but whatever.  Within a mile radius of our house we had access to 12 outdoor, full size rinks and one indoor rink.  Most places are like that, inside the cities.  Rural towns all have arenas and most have 4-5 outdoor rinks at the same complex. 

I also had a friend that had an outdoor rink in their backyard.  Only had endboards but they used snowbanks for the sides.  We played probably four nights a week and usually on the weekends.  When we got old enough to drink, that factored in too.  Another buddy who lived outside the city on an acreage built a rink about the size of the one in the picture.  He also built a heated shack, about 6 feet wide by 15 feet long to warm up in :o  Many a weekend was spent playing hockey all day and into the night (yes, he put up lights) while the beers cooled in the snowbanks.   ;D
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on January 7, 2005, 11:01 AM
That one was in Red Deer, the winner was in Fort McMurray.

HNIC Backyard Rink contest-10 Finalists (http://www.cbc.ca/hockeyday/rinkcontest/1.html)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 7, 2005, 11:30 AM
Thanks for the rink link.  It seems scoreboards are a big factor in winning.  The Winnipeg rink in there is tiny, though nice.  I've seen dozens that were bigger and both I mentioned playing on in my previous posts were bigger than the winner, though not so elaborately decorated. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on January 12, 2005, 11:24 AM
Here's a news quote that I found very interesting...

Quote
SportScanInfo, a Florida research firm that tracks retails sales of sporting goods and team merchandise, says this past December (2004) - when Christmas usually helps spike the numbers - saw the NHL sell $6.9 million of licensed gear in the U.S. - down 85 per cent from December 2003.

I found it very interesting that in 1995, the season was started again January 11th, 1995.

During those negotiations, the league claimed that after that date (January 11th), it would be impossible for the league to start up and still arrange the necessary scheduling for the 26 teams at the time. 

Well, here we are 10 years later with another lock-out.  This time, we're past the drop-dead date. 

If it was impossible to get things up and running after Jan 11th last time (1995), shouldn't the same hold true now, especially with players scattered all over the world and an additional 4 teams to worry about scheduling.  I would guess at this point it would be a logistical nightmare to get the season going. 

I always felt like there would be no NHL this year, but there was always that little hope, you know?  Well, I guess now that little fanboy hope that I had left that there would be hockey this year has been completely crushed.

Goodbye 2004-2005 Wild, I hardly new ye.    :'(

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 12, 2005, 04:32 PM
IIRC the scheduling is no problem at all, they simply start at a set date from where the currently existing schedule would have them play.  So if they had scheduled a Minnesota game on Feb. 15 against Philly at home and the season started that date, that would be the first game.  They do/did little in the way of actually adjusting the schedule.  Not sure what the real logistical nightmare is other than fans being severely pissed off with a three month season. 

The drop dead date was supposed to be tomorrow, I thought.  There was to be a board of governors meeting but as there has been no progress in "negotiations"  that meeting was cancelled. 

I'd say the season will be toasted in about a week or so.  The BoG is just trying to force the players hand, IMO.  The players association has suggested they have a substantial war chest and can sit out the season.  My guess is the owners are simply making sure that's true and seeing if they crack.  If not, fine, season done, talk to ya in June boys.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CHEWIE on January 12, 2005, 04:51 PM
Damn I miss hockey, I can't wait to see Brett Hull score a few more goals.

 :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on January 20, 2005, 03:18 PM
From Sportsnet.ca (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050120_130833_3916)

Quote
Sources tell Sportsnet the Phoenix Coyotes coaching staff has informed its players they need to be on standby, prepared to practice within the next seven days.

Bring it back!  :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 20, 2005, 04:43 PM
Nope, keep em out.  It'll be February before they play a game.  Unless it's the players caving, I hope they don't come back.  Yeah, I miss it and movie night in Canada is lame but the problems need to be fixed now.

Big meeting yesterday was apparently productive, but Bettman and Goodenow weren't there.  How far do you think it will go once they show up ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on January 20, 2005, 04:57 PM
Big meeting yesterday was apparently productive, but Bettman and Goodenow weren't there.  How far do you think it will go once they show up ;)

Not far.  Both have egos too large to let anything pass that they personally didn't work on.

I do admire Linden for working around the bosses at the top and trying to get something done (despite him being a hated Canuck... stupid Vancouver  >:().

I do feel though that this is too little too late and is just a last ditch attempt for both sides to be able to say "See, we tried to get them to cave" before they axe the whole thing.    :(

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 21, 2005, 01:05 AM
Pens are trying to pimp Wheeling Nailers (Don't ask me what the name means) games...  Wheeling, WV isn't too far really, if you live down near Pittsburgh, but I'm a good 2 hours or so from Wheeling... 

They are playing a game at the Pen's practice arena, however I can't get there that night...  :(  I'd go...  They were pretty good last year I thought.

If I want hockey, it'll be watching peewee or pick-up at the rink where my gym is I guess.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on January 21, 2005, 01:42 AM
I heard that following the meeting on Wednesday in Chicago, there was a follow up meeting and nothing good came of it and the likelihood is that the season will be scrapped. That's the right call, it's too late to start a season, because you wouldn't have much time before the playoffs would start and you'd get an unfair balance as to what teams make the playoffs. They should just push to get things resolved by the start of the 2005-06 season and make amends with the fans.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on January 21, 2005, 09:59 AM
I 'd like to propose a new idea for the "season" this year - A March Madness-esque Tournament of Champions. 

That's right, none of this regular season mumbo-jumbo since it's too late.  Let's take the 15 teams from each division and have them play tournament style, throwing in the 2 top college teams to get to a nice even 16 teams.  Everyone makes the playoffs!

16 matchups at best of 7
8 matchups at best of 7
4 matchups at best of 7
2 match-ups at best of 7
and then the Cup finals at best of 7

At the most a team could end up playing 35 games, at the least 4 games.  I'd use the rankings from last years standings/playoff finals as the seeding for this year's tourney.


Just think, you'd have Tampa Bay as the #1 Seed in the East facing off against #16 seed Boston College.

Eastern Conference Bracket:

#1 Tampa Bay vs. #16 Boston College
#8 NY. Islanders vs. #9 Buffalo

#4 Toronto vs. #13 NY Rangers
#5 Ottawa v.s #12 Florida

#3 Philly vs. #14 Washington
#6 New Jersey vs. #11 Carolina

#7 Montreal vs. #10 Atlanta
#2 Boston vs. #15 Pittsburgh
 

Then, over in the west you'd have #1 Seed Calgary facing off against #16 Colorado College!

Western Conference Bracket:

#1 Calgary vs. #16 Colorado College
#8 Nashville vs. #9 Edmonton

#4 Vancouver vs. #13 Phoenix
#5 Colorado vs. #12 Anaheim

#3 San Jose vs. #14 Columbus
#6 Dallas vs. #11 Los Angeles

#7 Saint Louis vs. #10 Minnesota
#2 Detroit vs. #15 Chicago


Just look at some of those brackets!  Like the bottom braket in the West - Detroit v Chicago, the winner to face the winner of St. Louis v. Minnesota!   

In fact, if the NHL does not want to do this, I think this is what I'll do this weekend with the Nintendo Game Cube.  I'll set up the "simulate game" feature and see what happens...  ;)

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 21, 2005, 10:51 AM
Reports we're hearing up here is that some "progress" was made, but again, Bettman and Goodenow not at these meetings.  The final note is to come on February 1st, apparently. At that point, in spite of progress, the season is to be cancelled. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 21, 2005, 03:08 PM
I like your idea Jeff...  That'd be neat to see, but pros would bitch about it, you know it.  :)

It'd be great though...  Pick a large, good arena and go with it...

If Lemieux's healthy, I think you'd have to bump Pittsburgh slightly. :P  At least better than the Crapitals.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on January 21, 2005, 04:43 PM
NHL season 'lost,' union rep says
Wild goalie Dwayne Roloson said the players union told him to spread the word: The 2004-05 season is likely over. Roloson, the team's players union representative, said failed negotiations led to the realization the season will be cancelled.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 21, 2005, 04:46 PM
NHL season 'lost,' union rep says
Wild goalie Dwayne Roloson said the players union told him to spread the word: The 2004-05 season is likely over. Roloson, the team's players union representative, said failed negotiations led to the realization the season will be cancelled.


Ha-ha. 

I'm not a particularly good person to have in this thread, I still harbor great bitterness over losing our team.  I still believe Bettman and skyrocketing player salaries are the reasons for that happening.  I do not wish ill will to hockey fans in general, but nothing makes misery happier than company.  Now the good folks in Toronto can relate to a season without hockey.  Neener neener neener. 

[/bitter] ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: jjks on January 21, 2005, 05:18 PM
I don't know how it's been for other cities that still have teams (sorry Brent!), but I've really been surprised at how quiet the Predators marketing department has been. It seems like it's in their best interests to keep the season ticket holders as interested in the team as possible, but it's almost as if the team doesn't exist anymore. I don't really know what I expected, I geuss it just seems like there should be more contact with us to keep up morale. I have a hunch a lot of people here are going to be asking for their refunds the second the season is cancelled  :-[
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Scott on January 21, 2005, 05:22 PM
Well, they aren't making money right now at all so I can't see how they would want to spend anything on promotional issues

RIP NHL

Go Gophers!

(http://www.alumni.umn.edu/vertical/Sites/%7BD6C96D80-F3A7-11D4-85D9-005004AD2AC8%7D/uploads/%7B9A55134C-9CA0-43FB-9949-FF8B656218FD%7D_WEB.jpg)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on January 21, 2005, 09:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1972119

Read the last paragraph.  If that happens, I'm out.  I don't want any of my favs getting sent out of HockeyTown because of a cap.  I told you guys this cap was bs. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 21, 2005, 10:18 PM
No, the cap is not BS.  It's only BS if you have an owner with absurdly deep pockets, something what, about 20 of the teams in the league do not have.  But who the **** cares right?  Kill Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Minnesota and Pittsburgh.  No great loss there, no real hockey fans in those towns, unlike Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina ::)  Should I go on?  C'mon, Tampa didn't sell out until they made the last rounds of the playoffs and I mean fans buying tickets, not bull**** promos of freebie tickets to get fans into the arena. 

Yeah, the NHL is perfectly healthy like it is.  Bettman's an American right? :P ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 22, 2005, 04:49 AM
I'm all for the cap and ousting Bettman too...

I'd dig some rule changes once the supreme butt pirate of the NHL takes his leave.

He should have to run a gauntlet in every NHL city that's had a team since the 60's or 70's (whether they have their team or not).  Every fan's allowed to bring one stick of specific dimensions and they get as many hits as they can as he runs past.

Dumb ass.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on January 22, 2005, 12:12 PM
No, the cap is not BS.  It's only BS if you have an owner with absurdly deep pockets, something what, about 20 of the teams in the league do not have.  But who the **** cares right?  Kill Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, Minnesota and Pittsburgh.  No great loss there, no real hockey fans in those towns, unlike Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina ::)  Should I go on?  C'mon, Tampa didn't sell out until they made the last rounds of the playoffs and I mean fans buying tickets, not ******** promos of freebie tickets to get fans into the arena. 

Yeah, the NHL is perfectly healthy like it is.  Bettman's an American right? :P ;)

The cap won't work in the NHL, sorry to say.  If your team was over the cap ceiling, would you want to see some of your fav players sent off to other clubs in order to get your team under the cap?  I know I sure as **** wouldn't.  All the cap does is allow this greedy owners to turn a profit whether there team competes or not.  It almost eliminates free agency as well.  If a guy wants to go play for say Tampa Bay (has family there, grew up there, etc, etc.) and they are over the cap, he basically has to settle on another destination.  Do you really think a cap is gonna make free agents swarm to cities like Atlanta and Buffalo and Carolina?  Give me a ****** break.  The NHL is messed up for many reason, much of them tied directly to Bettman, but also because the owners can't keep their check books in check.  Look at MLB.  They went to a luxury tax system, and with the exception of a few contracts since Giambi signed his ridiculous deal, you are seeing contracts and salaries stay in check.  The owners have obviously banded together and decided to not overpay for guys.  The NHL could do the same thing, but oh no, we gotta have a cap.  Maybe they should just realize that they need to get rid of about 6-10 franchises, completely and totally eliminate obstruction and boost scoring.  Do that and people watch the game.  Why?  Cause people are attracted to goals the same way they are to TDs, slam dunks and home runs.  No one wants soccer on ice.   
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 22, 2005, 01:26 PM

The cap won't work in the NHL, sorry to say.  If your team was over the cap ceiling, would you want to see some of your fav players sent off to other clubs in order to get your team under the cap?  I know I sure as **** wouldn't. 

You mean just like the NFL does?  Hell yes, I'd much prefer that rather than having seen teams leave markets (Winnipeg, Quebec, Minnesota) becuase of those self same greedy owners. 

I'd rather see the players move like that instead of having some Steinbrenner-esque ******* buying up all the good players because there is no cap and he has deeper pockets than the rest. 

The cap is going to do nothing to make players go anywhere, that's not the point.  I don't give a flying **** if Sidney Crosby doesn't want to play in Atlanta or Calgary, one cuz it's too cold, one cuz it's not a hockey city.  He should play where he's drafted and sign where the deal, salary and location, meet his satisfaction.  I'm sick and tired of athletes saying I don't want to live in Canada, the taxes are too high.  **** off you prima donna, you make millions of dollars a year to play a game millions of Canadians pay to play, yet you don't want to lose a couple of extra bucks.  Screw you dumbass, you'd at best be selling insurance and probably be selling used cars or be in prison if you couldn't skate so ******* well. 

And your point about family is ridiculous, to put it bluntly.  If someone wants to play that badly near family and a team wants him, they'll make room for a talented player.  If he's not that good and as in your example, Tampa doesn't want him, well, I'll cough up a quarter so the momma's boy can phone home to whine and bitch about it. 

This is not about playing where you want, it's about the survival of the league.  If you think that letting players play where they want and make as much as they can is the best system for the league to survive in the US, well, nothing I can say will make you change your mind.  But I've got to think your view has some pretty rosy glasses involved.  Small market teams are folding, hockey in Canada is being pulled away (yeah, you don't give a ****, I know) and so a sport with a lower popularity rating than pro bowling is going to survive for the long term in the US?  Nuh, don't think so.

As far as contraction goes, I can imagine which teams you'd like to see go - Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Minnesota and one more?   Hey, it would save on travel dollars for the league, players wouldn't bitch about having to live where it's cold and under an oppressive tax system and it would eliminate almost all of the disparity of a lower Canadian dollar.  Who the **** cares if that leaves only one team in Canada, screw them, their communists anyway.  The US is number one and we love this game, well, almost as much as bowling and darts.  Contraction would work, but I'd suggest pulling it from markets that don't draw unless the teams perform in the later rounds of the playoffs - Nashville, Anaheim, Florida, Tampa, Carolina to name only a few.  No fans at the regular season games, why the hell should they have a team there?  It's more than winning championships.  Pittsburgh is in rough shape, relatively speaking, but I wouldn't suggest the team should leave a true hockey market. 

AS far as scoring goes, if you can't get enjoyment out of a 0-0 tie, you and the rest of the fans simply don't understand hockey anyway.  Yeah, high scoring games are more entertaining, but my guess is you've never played the game much.  Not trying to be rude, even if it sounds that way.  But I am rather tired of a bunch of (bluntly) Americans strutting around bitching about scoring.  Gawrsh, the league was ok back in the early 70's with lots of scores of 1-0, 2-1 but now that it's suddenly become "popular" ::) in the US, scoring's become more critical. 

I don't at all disagree with the ridding of the clutch and grab or the trap defense.  I'd also suggest that goalie equipment be revised back to about the scale of the mid-80's.  Take a look at a Cheevers sportspick and then at any current goalie, wanna see more scoring? 

The cap isn't a cure all, but it seems to have worked reasonably well in the NBA, NFL.  I don't see a lot of contraction or team losses there (Vancouver never should have had a team, too fickle are the fans there).  Yeah, I see marquee players moving, but I have precisely zero sympathy for any player that bitches or whines about anything.  They make in a year at least what I'll make in a lifetime and NOT doing anything remarkably important.  Entertaining and admirable from an athletic standpoint, but really, who gives a ****?  I'm doing just fine without NHL hockey.  Not happy about it, but woo-woo, I'm not jumping off bridges or anything else.  I could easily do without NFL, MLB or NBA (much prefer college).  Would I miss them?  Sure, but it ain't life and death.  Anyone that thinks it is has some issues, I'd dare to suggest. 

The players say the need for a cap is the result of the owners lack of self control, and I agree 100%.  There are dumbasses whereever you go that will ruin it.  Why should Iginla stay in Calgary when he can go to the Rangers for $4 million more a year?  He won't when that time comes.  The number of professional athletes that have actually turned down money to move can probably be counted on your fingers.  How is that a good solution.  Unless of course you live in a city that has one of those dumbass owners.  There's no pride in playing for a team anymore, no one retires after playing an entire career in one place.  There's no loyalty.  It's all about $$$$$$$$$.  That's sad. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: jjks on January 22, 2005, 02:32 PM

  Yeah, high scoring games are more entertaining, but my guess is you've never played the game much.  Not trying to be rude, even if it sounds that way.  But I am rather tired of a bunch of (bluntly) Americans strutting around bitching about scoring. 

Oh boy, I think you just opened up a can of worms with Jason...I'll let him speak for himself though. As amazing as it may sound coming from a silly head up his ass American, I actually played hockey growing up.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 22, 2005, 02:51 PM
I'm trying to open a can of worms.  Clearly he understands the game, that's not the point.  All the things he's indicating are that the game surviving in the US is just fine and dandy.  NHL rankings = bowling rankings in the US.  How is that a survival plan for one of the "four major leagues"?

And I don't hate Americans, hockey playing or not.  I also live close enough to some pretty damn serious hockey states, curiously those are located close to Canada.  Wonder if there's a connection.  They know hockey as well or better than I do, no doubt. 

If Jason plays/played hockey, great, good for him.  If all he sees about the talent involved in the game is putting the puck in the net, then it must have been some bastardized US head up the ass version :-* :P ;) (if the smilies don't convey it, that was sarcasm). 

I understand that hockey exists in the US and in many places it is popular, but on the whole, it is not popular in the US.  In Canada, any kid that DOESN'T play hockey growing up is pretty much an oddball.  It's like baseball or football in the US.  We're frozen, depending on where you are, for up to six months a year, probably averaging four months outside of BC or southern Ontario.  Rinks are everywhere. 

My point is there is more to enjoying a hockey game than watching the red light turn on.  That is not appreciated by the majority of American fans that show up in arenas in non-traditional hockey areas.  I don't think a fan in Detroit or New York or Pittsburgh or Chicago goes to the game to only see a 7-6 final score.  Sure, it's great when it happens, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO for the game to be enjoyable. 

I like dunks in the NBA as much as anyone, but I seriously have a hard time having appreciation for a bunch of thugs that think they are as good as Dr. J. because they can dunk from the free throw line.  He did it without traveling.  What's that got to do with hockey?  I like basketball and hockey both for the skill involved, not the final score or the enhanced play that is achieved only by messing with the rules.  Jason's point on clamping down on the interference is excellent and would go a long way to making boring games less boring, but I remain unconvinced scoring will automatically rise.  It might, but it might not.  Goalies, large equipment or not, are one hell of a lot better now than they were 30 years ago, even with the league dilution.  It's a combination of fitness, skill, training, equipment and the fact this is now the only thing they have to do.  No going to work after the season to sell furniture.  No worrying about making enough money.  It's just different. 

And I don't think a salary cap is the only way to achieve this, but I do think it's necessary, because of the inherent stupidity and dishonesty of the owners.  I'd rather see profit-sharing (ain't gonna happen), a luxury tax (ain't gonna happen) AND a salary cap in place.  But that combination AIN'T gonna happen either. 

Anyway, time for Jason to tear me a new one, so I'll wait for that to happen.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on January 22, 2005, 07:30 PM
Don't worry Morgbug.  I won't rip you a new one.  I don't take anything you said to heart because I know you are a disgruntled hockey fan, like myself, and I enjoy the debate.

The reason a cap works in the NFL is in large part due to the tv deal.  The NFL really stands alone when it comes to the major pro sports leagues.  Perfect example is the Super Bowl.  It's a sports anamoly in a way because no matter who is playing in it, the ratings and interest is through the roof.  If there is a cap instituted in hockey, it can't be at a ridiculously low amount like the $30 million the owners are proposing.  A team like the Rangers may not even have enough money to put a full roster out there.  If you're going to put a cap in place, it has to be realistic and $30 million is far from realistic.  I just don't see a cap working in hockey.  Don't bother comparing the NBA cap to anything because anyone who's knows will tell you it's not even a cap.  It's a farce.  How is it that all these teams are able to sign guys to 7-year, $120 million dollar contracts?  The only sport w/ a cap is the NFL and personally, I don't think any sport should have a cap.  They are a joke and just because it works in the NFL doesn't mean it'll work elsewhere.  The owners only want a cap so they can turn a profit on a crappy, non-contending team.  Do you really think that owners will run out and fill up their cap space?  Do you think it guarantees anything?  The players have offered to hand back MILLIONS out of their own pockets and want to put revenue sharing in place (like MLB) and the owners want no part of it.  It's ridiculous. 

Hockey is in such bad financial shape because of Gary Bettman and the owners, not the players.  No player held a gun to any owners head.  Just because a high priced free agent signed somewhere didn't guarantee that team anything.  The NHL over estimated it's popularity and over expanded.  The on ice product is what has suffered, and let me dive into that:  as a huge hockey fan and someone who knows a hell of a lot about TV (having worked in that industry) I know that goals and excitement are what the NHL needs to draw in new fans.  Despite what you may believe, the NHL DOES need 7-6 contests.  We die hard fans can watch a game and be fine w/ nothing happening for 45 mins of the game.  We understand the game, we see that it's played tight defensively nowadays but tell me how that is appealing in any way to casual fans.  Do people really want to see soccer on ice?  No, they don't and the popularity of hockey and it's tv ratings prove that.  The way to attract new fans is to boost scoring.  Make the game exciting.  Let the skilled players do their thing.  Make the game fun.  2-1 playoff-style hockey games are not going to generate new fans.  I'm sorry man, but the obstruction-style hockey has to go.  They need to change rules, make the goalie pads smaller, add a shoot-out in regular season OT, etc, etc in order to boost scoring and boost interest.  They also need to do a far better job of marketing the game and it's players. 

The league has done nothing to help this by instituting ridiculous rules like eliminating the "touch up" offside rule (which makes all 5 attacking players sit back in the neutral zone) and adding room behind the net (the one place you can't score on the ice.)  The league has too many teams in too many markets that just aren't going to support the game.  If you folded 10 teams, could you imagine how competitive the league would be?  It would be amazing hockey.  All these 4th line no-talent obstruction artists would be out of a job. 

I do play hockey and do appreciate everything about the game, but I fully realize what it's going to take to make this game popular.  You may think 1-0 games are fine and you and I both know no Canadian fans are going to turn the games off, but people in the US (whom despite your feelings matter most) are going to turn it off.  I'm sure Canada's ratings are great but they are down right pathetic here and that's why the NHL signed the worst possible TV deal out there. 

Now what I was saying about free agents is true.  True players sometimes just take the highest offer, but a lot of times guys go to teams that have a great chance of winning, have great fans and great tradition.  Brett Hull took less money to come to Detroit because of their chances and tradition.  If a team like Toronto is capped out and a player wants to go there because he grew up there or he has family there, that eliminates his free agent right to go where he most desires.  How exactly does a team make room to get him?  Would they cut 3 players to get under the cap for 1 guy?  Come on man.  Think about it.

For the sake of typing it all, read this article:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/wings/0501/22/e01-65488.htm
He couldn't be more right that the NHL's problems go far beyond labor. 

You've assumed far too much about me, so I hope you read this all the way through.  The teams that I would contract are:  Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Buffalo, Florida, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Nashville (sorry Jamie) and maybe 2 others but I WOULD NOT contract any Canadian franchises.  They are vital to the game.

What you seem to be saying is that hockey works in Canada, who cares if it works in the US.  Well, whether or not you want to admit it, it's the US's game now and if it doesn't work here, it's gone.  It will always be "Canada's sport" but it's going to have to work in the US if it's going to survive, bottom line. 

OK, I'm sure this discussion will continue and I welcome it.  I just don't want to keep typing and losing my thought.   :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on January 22, 2005, 10:00 PM
Speaking as an American, I like 1-0 or 0-0 scores.  Of course, I also like 1-0 Maddux/Johnson-esque pitchers duels in baseball too, so I may not be the average fan.  On the other hand, I do HATE 3-0 football games. 

It probably has something to do with the fact that I watch football to see TDs, not defense.  Baseball/Hockey though, those I appreciate enough to know the sublities of taking a no-hitter into the 8th or taking a shut-out into the third.  I guess that I find (in my experiences) that the games I REALLY love and REALLY enjoy and REALLY know, in and out, are the games where I can tolerate a lack of scoring. 

That's why I love 1-0 scores in hockey and baseball, but hate them in NBA/MLS/NFL.  I don't know those games as well.  I kow the ins and outs of working a count with a man on in baseball, but I don't appreciate the finer points of a 4-5/nickel defense.  Since I don't know that much, I don't care - I just wanna see the flashy touchdowns.

I think (like Brent kinda said) that is why most Americans don't like low scoring hockey games or call it soccer on ice, because they DON'T get it.  They don't have a fine appreciate for the finer point of the game.  They just don't.  It must be incredible frustrating for Canucks to see that.  Living as close as I do to Canada, I can understand as well.

I do think that there are some things that need to be done that will end up opening up offense (goalie pads, wider ice, and yes obstruction/the trap - even though our coach basically invented the current version of the trap  :P).

With changes to the game, I think it will open it up a bit so that we can get back to some Gretzky/Hull era 60/70/80 goal scores (maybe 4-2 type games instead of 7-6 games).  I remember the scoring of the 80s... when was the last time we had a 60-goal scorer in the NHL?

I agree with HE in that more scoring = more interest from the non-hard core NHL fan.  I am in total agreement that more scoring = more popularity, but I understand the frustration of the longtime fan.  The trick is to get just enough "more scoring" to catch new fans, but not too much "more scoring" to turn off the Canucks.   ;)


So, not to derail your "fun" Salaray Cap debate, what do you guys think about the Shootout?  How does that fit into the "more scoring" debate?

Would seeing your teams 5 best snipers duke it out be more exciting than a tie?  Or, would a shoot-out pander even more towards Americans for you Canucks?   :-\

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on January 22, 2005, 11:05 PM
Lots to think about here and some great comments from Jeff and Jason.  I see there isn't that much difference between us now, much to my dismay :P  For those of you not into this, fair warning, this is going to be a long post. 

First key point, H.E. is right and I've admitted as much, I am a disgruntled fan.  Supremely bitter in point of fact, so factor that in, if you haven't already.

I agree entirely a cap at $30 million will do nothing, it's absurd.   It would need to be indexed and probably somewhere between $50-60 million at current salaries.  I do believe that owners will fill their cap space, providing they can afford to do it.  And that to me is a huge difference between the NFL and NHL.  As you pointed out, TV revenue for NHL sucks ****, the opposite of the NFL.  That's where my comment on profit sharing came from.  The league has to survive as a league first, individual teams in individual markets second.  That's part of my rationale for a cap, because people are inherently selfish and stupid.  Hello, Colorado?  I see your point regarding the players, but it's only hypothetical money they are giving back.  Yes, the contracts are signed, but honestly, making 7 million versus 8.5 million, where's the great suffering?   Gesture duly noted however.   

I agree about the NBA cap, it is a farce but that is really up to that league to manage.  Our little football league up here has a cap too and it is equally a joke. 

I completely agree that hockey is in bad shape because of Bettman and the owners.  Owners signed the contracts and nobody held a gun to their head, but at the same time, I view a cap as self control being forced upon them.  You can't have an agent for a guy like Forsberg leveraging against Colorado an offer from New York for 8 mill versus the Avs 5.5 if there's no room under the cap.  Essentially the players own the owners right now and it goes back to that loyalty thing.  Forsberg has been a Nord/Av his whole career, why didn't he take less to stay?  Greed, a normal human reaction.  As far as Bettman goes, well, he's only about money and loves the game about as much as I like chopped liver. 
Quote
The NHL over estimated it's popularity and over expanded.
Could not agree with you more.  Sadly a portion of that has come at the expense of Canadian franchises.  Bettman openly stated he doesn't like Winnipeg as a market.  But ask some guy like Don Cherry or Wayne Gretzky about Winnipeg as a hockey market.  Our biggest problem was a crappy arena compounded by the lack of a deep pockets owner and a piss poor Canadian dollar.  Well, we built a new arena too late, we still don't have anyone that could rightly own a team worth that much (hey, we're a small town popn. 700,000) and Bettman says he's never allowing back here. 

Quote
I know that goals and excitement are what the NHL needs to draw in new fans.  Despite what you may believe, the NHL DOES need 7-6 contests.
I know what you mean, but I have to disagree and I'll use the basketball analogy again.  I don't really care about some player in the NBA that averages 25 a game, half of which are dunks if they're all travel balls.  I admit readily, I'm a dinosaur, I like rules to be applied as they were invented.  Sports should be entertaining for the skill in the game and if you have to cheat to get the fans, well, then I guess I want no part of it.  Now, the cheating part does not apply to what you suggest as rule changes and contraction of the league would help no doubt.  But the players and the owners won't accept contraction, so fuggedaboutit.

Quote
If a team like Toronto is capped out and a player wants to go there because he grew up there or he has family there, that eliminates his free agent right to go where he most desires.  How exactly does a team make room to get him?  Would they cut 3 players to get under the cap for 1 guy?
I'm going to disagree here.  If the caliber of the player is high enough, you bet they'll dump players.  Heard of Eric Lindros ;)  And I'd contend the number of star quality players that take lower salaries do it more so to win a cup, than anything else: Hull, Bourque, Selanne.  Worked for one of them.  But those are guys towards the end of their careers, still talented, but it's almost always a last gasp effort.  I've yet to see a guy at the peak of his career state that granny lives in Edmonton and I'd like to play there, so I'll take a $5 mill cut in pay ::)

As far as rule changes you suggest, I completely agree.  I'm just not convinced that's going to take the game to the 7-6 level, perhaps more along the lines of what Jeff suggests at 4-2.  It would be a more open, faster game, but will the scoring go up?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Part of the contraction + rule changes means you're going to the top 20 goalies in the league too, with better backups for all teams.  Plus better defensemen and all around players.  You're definitely getting rid of the dogs, but there will be a concurrent rise in the defensive abilities in general too.  I'm even a fan of shoot-outs.  As a traditionalist I'm not overly keen, but I've seen them in the WHL and it doesn't change the game dramatically and it does keep fans in the stands even longer. 

I guess my dogmatic approach is still bitter about the fact FOX put a ******* blue streak on the puck.  Gimicks suck ****, plain and simple.  Hockey should be played in places where fans understand and appreciate the game.  Places like Texas, for example.  I expect you knew, but Texas has more professional (at all levels) hockey teams than all of CAnada.  Go figure.  But dragging it kicking and screaming into NASCAR country?  Who the hell was that stupid?

At this point I will openly apologize for presuming to know who you'd contract, I was dead wrong.  And I agree with all the teams you suggest, save Pittsburgh and not to kiss Jesse's ass.  It's because I think Pennsylvania is a decent hockey market with a long history and good fans.  They have fans out when the team sucks horribly, that's the litmus test as far as I'm concerned. 

Quote
What you seem to be saying is that hockey works in Canada, who cares if it works in the US.  Well, whether or not you want to admit it, it's the US's game now and if it doesn't work here, it's gone.  It will always be "Canada's sport" but it's going to have to work in the US if it's going to survive, bottom line.

Well, yes and no, but I understand how you could see my viewpoint that way.  I do care if it works in the US, but I don't think the game should be changed dramatically to make it work in the US.  I think it has worked for a considerable period of time in the US in hockey markets.  I don't think it works in the non-hockey markets which we addressed in the contraction areas.  I'm not keen on the thought that it's the US' game now, I think that's Bettman speak (not to insult you).  It's been dragged there and made into a US major sport, but with piss poor success.  I also think it can survive at a satisfactory level without players needing to have 8 million dollar salaries.  That's the biggest illusion they suffer from.  Again, bowling = hockey at the professional level in the US in terms of TV ratings.  Players (and owners!) really, really need to grasp that this is not a major league sport.  Salaries should not be remotely comparable to the NBA/NFL/MLB, nor should owners incomes. 

This is where teams should be, IMO:

New Jersey
Boston
New York (I could live with one there, but two I understand)
Montreal
Philadelphia
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
Toronto
Hamilton
Chicago
Calgary
Colorado
Dallas
Detroit
Edmonton
Los Angeles (I'm real marginal on this one, it's a market size issue)
Minnesota
St. Louis
Vancouver
Winnipeg
Quebec City - maybe, given the Habs are there.

That's 20-22 teams.  Is it over represented in Canada?  Maybe, depends on the goal: to get rich?  Yup, overrepresented.  To play a fantastic game at a professional level where it's appreciated, understood and supported?  Nope, about right. 

I'm marginal on Washington, Buffalo, San Jose partly because of ignorance about the market strength, partly because of non-traditional hockey market (SJ).

That's by no means all I have, but it's pointless to blather to one's self.  On to Jeff's comments.

First off, an apology to Americans in general.  For the hockey fans out there, I appreciate your knowledge and appreciation of the game and my comments are not directed at you.  More so at the general public and with the realization that hockey is a wee bit complicated if you never grew up with it.  It's frustration at the fact that OUR game is becoming American and needs the US to survive, even if I disagree.  And that's what Jeff's point is so well put, Americans simply as a rule for the non familiar fan, don't understand it.  So it's boring.  It's essentially the same if I start whining about baseball no-hitters, a fantastic analogy.  That is an accomplishment.  The difference in hockey is that a 0-0 game now is not necessarily a matter of skill and team work so much as it is clutch, grab and dump.  Yawn. 

The shoot out as I mentioned above will drive a proportion of the traditionalists nuts, but I think the AHL handles it well.  It's fun and while it changes the standings, it does so only to a minor degree.  Where you'd see a real outcry is if it was instituted in the playoffs.  Canuckleheads live and die with 5 overtime periods, that's the greatest part of spring.  Messing with that would get some serious feedback.  But for the regular season?  Go for it. 

Anyhoo, little over a week and the discussion can go into hibernation for quite a while. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on January 26, 2005, 08:37 AM
EEK!   :o   :'(

Oilers Issue Warning to NHL
Josh Pringle
Wednesday, January 26, 2005

The chairman of the Edmonton Oilers says he'll recommend the NHL suspend the franchise if the lockout ends without a salary cap.

Cal Nichols' comments come as the NHL and the Players' Association gathers in Toronto to resume contract talks.

The league has been demanding players agree to what it calls "cost certainty" and Nichols says if it backs down, that will be the death of the N-H-L in Edmonton.

Nichols says if there's no salary cap he'd recommend the franchise be suspended, or moved.

The league says it will have no new proposal to make today, as some had expected.

The two sides meet in Chicago and Toronto last week.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on January 26, 2005, 05:34 PM
Biloxi Mississippi, I think we've finally found you a team.   ::)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 2, 2005, 01:36 PM
Another secret, hush-hush meeting today?

 ::)

When are they finally going to just give in and cancel the dang season?  The idea of a 24-game regular season does not excite me.  The idea that you could end up playing more games in the playoffs (28) than the reg season is just stupid.

Jeff

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 2, 2005, 01:42 PM
Apparently it excites many of the US owners though, Nashville for example.  Those owners (apparently) feel it is worthwhile to have the shortened season to maintain/rebuild the profile of the league, especially in less popular markets.  The appeal of playoffs also looms for those owners, because they tend to get much better attendance (I think that says something all by itself) for playoff games than for regular season games. 

There is still a cap (apparently) in the latest owners offer, so don't expect much. 

I have to admit, I'm getting quite a kick out of guys willing to displace other players and play for less money, yet they are supposedly a unified union (really, what union do you know that scabs at other jobs?) and steadfastly refuse a cap.  You refuse a cap that would lower your pay to $5 million a year, but you'll play for minor hockey in Detroit for less than $200 grand??  Explain that logic to me again, please. 

Sorry, I'm stubborn.  I hope the owners stick to it and break the union.  Lots of players mentioned that they'd go to the WHA to play for less (that league, had it flown would have had a $10 million cap per team).  So again, if you're willing to take that cap, why not an NHL cap? 

So if it's a two year lockout, how many of the upper-echelon players will actually have a career left starting in 2006?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 2, 2005, 01:54 PM
Well at least something of Hockey is going on around here. There making a movie here called Waking Up Walter, the Walter Gretzky Story (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=cf71569a-22ce-421e-a07c-b333553ba002)

(http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/edjn/20050202/3848-1320.jpg)

DEKING OUT THE ROLE OF THE GREAT ONE: Kris Holden-Ried, left, portrays Wayne Gretzky in a TV movie about the the hockey legend's father.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 2, 2005, 01:55 PM
So if it's a two year lockout, how many of the upper-echelon players will actually have a career left starting in 2006?

I have to imagine that a 2-year lockout would cause a few guys to lose a step, especially some of those who aren't what they used to be physically (Lindros, Roenick, Yzerman, Hull, etc).

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on February 2, 2005, 10:42 PM
So if it's a two year lockout, how many of the upper-echelon players will actually have a career left starting in 2006?

I have to imagine that a 2-year lockout would cause a few guys to lose a step, especially some of those who aren't what they used to be physically (Lindros, Roenick, Yzerman, Hull, etc).

Jeff


Lose a step?  Try retired.  Yzerman, Messier and many others will be gone period.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 3, 2005, 12:17 AM
Exactly my point, good sir.   Belfour, Hasek, who can name some others?  Roenick should, but too many knocks in the head have made him really silly.

Now I don't know how many of those names are part of the PA stubborness but the rumours are that a relatively minor proportion of the players are being this steadfast.  That happens to be the upper echelon players, both in talent and in income.  While I admire their stubborness and loyalty, I still think their foolish.  If they don't, perhaps they'd care to join me at work for a while and live on my salary. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on February 3, 2005, 12:28 AM
Quote
Lindros

What?  Did he turn into Jello at this point?  :)  (I can't stand him, sorry)

I dunno...  High School Hockey's taking some steam here now that the Steelers are done...  Pitt Basketball's all we got till Spring Training, and I hate baseball so that nixes much for sports for me till Steelers kick in again...

They've been playing Pens highlight games.  I was heading out and caught that they were airing Lemieux's first game the other night, I think...  That or it was just a highlight for part of some show, but it was a long-ass highlight.

Oh well.  :-\
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 3, 2005, 12:38 PM
Heatley may be deported (http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/4154631/detail.html)?  Picked up the link from the spawn.com board and noticed my opinion is more than a little different from the majority there.  I don't think Heatley should be treated any different than I would if I were to go down to Minnesota, rent a car, get Scott or Jim or Jeff in the passenger seat and slam into a concrete wall killing them because I lost control due to a dumbass decision to go super fast.  What do you think?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 3, 2005, 12:48 PM
I don't think Heatley should be treated any different than I would if I were to go down to Minnesota, rent a car, get Scott or Jim or Jeff in the passenger seat and slam into a concrete wall killing them because I lost control due to a dumbass decision to go super fast. What do you think?

Geez, that's a tought one.  I don't think that he should get any special treatment just because he is an NHL All-Star, but aren't there more important criminals they can track down and deport?

It'll be awful tough for him to lose his whole NHL career over one bad decision... but then again the other guy lost his life because of one bad decision.    :-\


As for lock-out update, the NHLPA had this to say:

Quote
NEWARK, NJ (February 2, 2005): At the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting in Newark, National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) Senior Director Ted Saskin released the following statement:
"The League today presented a written proposal with minor variations of concepts that were presented orally by the NHL last Thursday. We told the League last week and again today that their multi-layered salary cap proposals were not the basis for an agreement.

Given the status of negotiations, the NHLPA suggested that the parties meet again tomorrow with Bob Goodenow and Gary Bettman joining the meeting."


Here's I'll translate for you...


Quote
"The League today presented a written proposal with minor variations of concepts that were presented orally by the NHL last Thursday an offer that was basically the same old crap.  We told the League last week and again today that their multi-layered salary cap proposals were not the basis for an agreement they can stick their salary cap where the sun don't shine.

Given the status of negotiationsTo finally end this pain for the year, the NHLPA suggested that the parties meet again tomorrow with Bob Goodenow and Gary Bettman joining the meeting."

 :P

Yeah, it's looking real good now with Bettman and Goodenow being brought back in.   ::)

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CHEWIE on February 3, 2005, 01:00 PM
I've got faith that Brett Hull will keep playing a while... he's got one hell of a shot still.  If nothing else, keep the guy on the power play.  One timer!  Goal!

(http://www.cnnsi.com/hockey/news/2003/02/10/hull_700_ap/t1_hull_story_ap.jpg)

 :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 3, 2005, 01:06 PM
True dat about Hull, he can put the puck in the net.  I think he was born in Winnipeg. 

Jeff, yup, so long as that cap word remains in there, there will be no discussions of any relevance.  The cynic in me says this is just public relations to give the appearance of trying to work it out before they cancel the season.  I think some US owners may want to go on, but traditional hockey markets are just looking at it as damage control before going golfing.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on February 3, 2005, 09:36 PM
It's so lame how the players are getting blasted completely when they've actually attempted to negotiate, they've made offers AND big concessions.  The league has taken each 1 and wiped their ass with it and said, "Cap."  Now the league waits til FEBRUARY ****** 2nd to make an offer (and clearly that offer was only to save face) and the players are blasted for not accepting it.  The offer was a joke. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 3, 2005, 11:57 PM
NO argument about the joke side of things, I agree.  It has nothing to do with the owners really wanting a season.  Just making pretty for the media. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 4, 2005, 03:45 PM
Is anyone surprised? (http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113764) ::)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JesseVader08 on February 4, 2005, 03:58 PM
Sigh.  No, not surprised.  Disappointed?  Yes.  Not that I expected they would actually try to salvage this season, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that next season will be lost too.

But it's to the point for me where frustration is so high that I don't even want to hear about it anymore.  **** the owners and the players - can't they just swallow their freakin' pride and work together?  I guess I'm too naive to believe this could happen.

If these guys don't get their **** together they are going to kill the game.  If none of the fans care anymore and stop coming to games (if and when they start again), neither the players or the owners are going to make and money.  Just play the bloody game.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 4, 2005, 04:13 PM
I agreed with what you had to say, Brent.  I think Linden's move last week was a good faith effort to re-start the talks, but I think that after those meetings failed, I was pretty sure that the NHL's meetings this week were just windo dressing for a final "well, we tried" PR move.  Taking pretty much the same offer back to the players (after they already rejected it once the week before) pretty much proved that point.


Sigh.  No, not surprised.  Disappointed?  Yes.  Not that I expected they would actually try to salvage this season, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that next season will be lost too.


As for another lost season, well I still kinda doubt they will blow 2 seasons. 

I fully expect the NHL next year... with or without the NHLPA is the only thing left to decide.  If the players don't cave in to the owners demands (or the owners don't cave and give up on the cap), I fully expect there to be an NHL but with replacement players next year.

There are plenty of Hockey Players out there who'd love to pull on the Big Boys sweater and go a few games... hmmm, maybe it's time to break out the old skates and get in some training between now and next fall?   :P

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 4, 2005, 04:50 PM
I think scab players are a distinct possibility.  Not sure how much IHL/AHL/ECHL etc you guys follow, but lots of the players in the minors have openly stated they'd cross the line pretty darn quick. 

Have any leagues ever been shut out/on strike for more than a year?  I don't recall any full seasons being lost, though I confess to not remembering what happened in the NFL.  I know they had scab players (I think) but not for a whole season, did they? 

Not that I want to get Elvis riled up again, but this statement from the TSN article caught my eye:

Quote
The league wants a salary cap system that links player costs with revenues.

I still don't see that as completely unreasonable.  In theory, if the league is doing well, then revenues should rise.  By corollary, so too should the players salaries.  I don't see that as wrong.  Granted the league needs to pare down the number of teams to make the games more competetive and enjoyable but isn't this at least a bit of a more flexible cap (duly noting that the reporter may be a little generous in the description of the way the cap will function). 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on February 5, 2005, 02:11 AM
We have an AHL franchise here in Chicago, the Wolves. They're a far better organization than the Blackhawks, and I'd love to see a bunch of the guys on the team get their chance at the NHL. Yes the players need to realize the owners aren't budging, but if the owners open up shop next year with the NHLPA sitting out still, well **** em, lets get guys like Steve Maltais and Karl Stewart up to the big time. The Atlanta Thrashers would kick ass then! :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 9, 2005, 03:11 PM
Drop dead day is "around" February 15 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1987595)  So the story goes, we'll see if the follow through. 

Question: If the players union voted on the league's proposal, would the deal with the cap be accepted? 

Does the union vote have to be unanimous or just majority?  If majority, in spite of what Bill Guerin says, would he really stay in Europe playing for $300K per season or would he come back and play for $4 mill per season?  Would any of the big guns that were directly affected hold out?  Would that be a violation of their contract?  If so, would it then be null and void forcing them to renegotiate a new deal? 

Hmmm. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Darth Paul on February 9, 2005, 03:24 PM
I bet a vote by the NHLPA would accept the owner's deal in a second.
If they wait, they'll just miss out on a season or two's pay and then end up with a cap anyway.
If it goes long enough it will be the players to break, guaranteed. 
So, the question is, "Is a futile gesture worth 2 years of my career?"
The answer from the rank and file would be no.   IMO this is just a pissing contest now between Bettman and Goodenow.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 9, 2005, 03:31 PM
Indeed, it has always been a pissing contest.  The players did not deserve to be locked out, but should have realized that for the most part, they were battling billionaires who depend on hockey for very little money.  There are exceptions of course, such as the Edmonton owners group that is a little less desiring of a tax write off and in much more imminent danger than the majority of owners. 

The players, on the other hand, are a much more diverse group, almost singly dependent on hockey for their income.  They all talk that they have limited careers (which garners little sympathy from me, they can find 9-5 jobs down the road, particularly if they manage their money well) but fail to realize that at the particular moment in time, they are ill qualified to do anything else.  Most of the common folk are bright enough to not slam their boss publicly if they have nowhere else to go, not true for athletes I suppose.  And that's not to say the players are entirely wrong, it's just simple logic.  Hey boss, I wrote a letter to the paper and they printed it on the front page - see, I called you an *******.  Where's the surprise in facing retaliation?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 10, 2005, 03:15 PM
It would seem everyone else has given up, but I'm still watching.  buh-bye, almost (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Sports/2005/02/10/926278-sun.html)

Goodenow just doesn't get it.  I respect them for fighting for what they believe they are due, but they don't have the leverage in this situation.  Even in Canada, polls are showing that people are seriously PO'd and rightly or wrongly, that it is the fault of greedy players.

Interesting read actually.  While it clearly and obviously favours the league rather than the players, the numbers are not horrible. 

Quote
- If the league pays out more than 55% of its revenues in salaries.

- If any three teams have a payroll of more than $42 million US.

- If the average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33% higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.

- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million.

I completely agree with Goodenow that the cap would immediately be triggered.  But I'm not opposed to it and it doesn't look horribly low based on those numbers.  Average compensation of 36 million a team is ok?  Can that, roughly speaking, be translated to having a cap of 36 million?  If so, it's fair.  The league is not MLB/NBA/NFL in terms of finances so why should they expect to have similar salaries?  That works out to an average league salary of 1.63 million dollars a year based on a 22 player roster.  I don't see a huge problem with that.  Granted, the high end guys are bound to suffer. 

I also like the provision "protecting" the smaller market teams in terms of a percentage comparison between highest and lowest.  It'll likely fail and won't act as much of a solution, but it's a step in the right direction. 

I still think the league is going to end up contracting, probaby down to around 20-23 teams at best.  Who will go is open to speculation, but I think there'll be some surprises as well. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 10, 2005, 04:24 PM
I still think the league is going to end up contracting, probaby down to around 20-23 teams at best.  Who will go is open to speculation, but I think there'll be some surprises as well. 

I still can't believe in all the negotiating that this hasn't really come up.  Do the owners think they can slip it by the players once things get rolling again and the players won't object to losing jobs?

Even if they get this CBA deal done, the Contraction will be the next big issue, because like you Brent, I think they REALLY need to contract a few teams, at least 4 need to go, but probably more like 6 should go...

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 11, 2005, 11:16 AM
From the NHL:

"After rejecting our Compromise Proposal yesterday [Wednesday] afternoon -- a proposal that envisioned opening the season utilizing the NHLPA's own proposed economic framework -- the Union asked that we remain in Toronto for further discussions. This morning [Thursday], we convened at 11:00 a.m., joined by our respective outside counsel Bob Batterman and John McCambridge. We met with the Union for a total of four hours, two-and-a-half of which was spent in caucus. The Union brought nothing new to the table, and they simply covered ground we had covered numerous times before. No new meetings are scheduled and, as far as we are concerned, none are expected. If there are no further developments, the League will make a formal announcement on the status of the season in the near future."

Yet again, the owners are blaming the players, basically saying they (the owners) agreed to start the season using the players CBA pitch, but reserving the right to switch the CBA to the cap at the drop of a hat if economics dictate it as Brent indicated.  ::)

I get the feeling this talk will be done for the year (one way or another) by mid-next week...

Jeff

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Famine on February 11, 2005, 11:44 AM
I'm not sure I understand how they can get away without having an NHL for two seasons. People are friggin greedy.

Kevin
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 11, 2005, 12:32 PM
I'm not sure I understand how they can get away without having an NHL for two seasons. People are friggin greedy.

Kevin

It's pretty easy actually.  You have two groups: 1. The owners, for the most part wealthy businessmen that made their money outside the hockey world, continue to make money outside the hockey world and treat the hockey world as either a hobby, toy or tax write off.  2. The players, a bunch of tremendously talented, if not too bright, individuals that are singularly dependent on hockey as a source of income that far exceeds what the average person earns putting in longer (or at the very least more consistent) more mundane hours. 

One group has leverage and still nets some benefit (tax write off) from a lockout.  The other group can survive ($6000 a month in strike pay, opportunity to play elsewhere) but only in the short term. 

With respect to my comment regarding the average person understand that I realize that professional athletes in some way have compromised life styles.  They spend tremendous amounts of time in the public spotlight, have bizarre schedules for the duration of the season (including preseason) and are often away from their families and they work very hard and are very talented at what they do.  Just like my doctor who makes maybe $100,000 a year.  Well, probably more than that but he ain't making the league minimum, I'll guarantee you that.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: John C on February 15, 2005, 02:24 PM
It looks like we may have a shot at a season after all.  ESPN is reporting that the players have agreed to a salary cap, although a higher one that the owners want, and the owners dropped one of their revenue issues.  They are closer than they've been.  Hopefully they work something out in a day or two.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 15, 2005, 03:02 PM
We shall see, time will tell.  :-\

Counter-offer in the works? (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050215_102404_5036)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Mikey D on February 15, 2005, 03:23 PM
Not NHL, but there was a damn good hockey game on last night:  The finals of the Beanpot Classic - Boston University vs. Northeastern.  Really great game - BU went up 2-0 in the 1st and NU tied the game with 2 minutes left in regulation.  Both teams had a shot to win it in OT.  Chris Borque (son of Ray) scored the winning goal for BU about 6 minutes in.

Great seeing kids play for the love of the game and not money.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 15, 2005, 03:26 PM


I agree entirely a cap at $30 million will do nothing, it's absurd.   It would need to be indexed and probably somewhere between $50-60 million at current salaries.  I do believe that owners will fill their cap space, providing they can afford to do it. 

Ooh, I'm generous.  Let's throw a number out there: 47 million, hard cap. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on February 15, 2005, 04:46 PM
Apathy is beginning to settle with me. While I hate the idea of their being no Stanley Cup Playoffs, the most exciting 2 months in ALL of sports, the stupidity of the owners, players, and Bettman has made me not care that the season will be cancelled. In fact I've be waiting for the official word for almost two months now, they've all made complete asses of themselves and are ruining what's left of the popularity of the game in the US where it's financial support determines the productivity of the league. In fact I read an article the other day where Ken Dryden was mentioning that he wouldn't be surprised if Canadian fans started walking away from at least the NHL game. Finding that after all these years they were watching out of habit but now are finding other things to do or other leagues to watch. Is that true JD's Canadian peeps?

NHL & NHLPA Fear Reason!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 15, 2005, 05:00 PM
Yeah, there was a poll not that long ago and about 60+% of respondents said they didn't care anymore :o  That's a huge number and even worse (on both sides of the border) the financial impacts have been pretty minimal, or so it is reported. 

Canadians found other hockey to watch.  Only the good folks in Toronto seem lost, but as much with the lack of a status symbol as anything else.  Sorry if that seems harsh.  The rest of us will be just fine.  Except I feel very bad for Edmonton and probably Calgary (and Vancouver?) since a cap around $48 mill will likely kill those franchises.  Not that anyone cares ::) ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CHEWIE on February 15, 2005, 05:25 PM
I love hockey... it was my favorite sport for 15 years, but now football might be.  Still though, I want to watch this guy get to 802 goals...

(http://www.phoenixcoyotes.com/albums/album55/Brett_Hull_Day_022.jpg)

 :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 15, 2005, 05:37 PM
Still though, I want to watch this guy get to 802 goals...
 :P

Hmmm... Age 41 at the start of next season, with 61 goals to go to 802.  Even if he gets a few goals in during a strike shortened season, that's still about another 2 seasons he'd have to last.  :-\
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CHEWIE on February 15, 2005, 05:49 PM
I think he can do it.  Love the Golden Brett.  Pure goal scorer with a chip on his shoulder.

 :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 16, 2005, 12:39 PM
Deadline passes, Season iced (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=EHKGOMAGIFKH?content=20050216_113559_2816)

Ona a different note, theres a team of amateurs attempting the longest record hockey game just outside the city.

Alberta amateurs attempting record hockey game (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108438011054_56?hub=Canada)

As of this morning, there still going strong raising money for pediatric cancer research. Best of luck to them.  :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 01:14 PM
Hee hee.  I may be the only one, but I'm happy.  Surprised too, I thought they'd come to some kind of accord on the cap, around $45-48 mill.  I'm amazed they stuck to their guns though with that much last minute progress.  Although I must confess that I wonder if Bettman would have cancelled the season anyway, even with a deal?  Guess not. 

My joy comes from not having to endure a 28 game "season" followed by an equally long playoff run.  I can't see any way for the playoffs to have been meaningful.  While I see the full season being too long with prolonged periods of boredom and dogged effort, 28 is too short and it's not really fair to teams to incorporate last year's standings into determining this year's playoff teams. 

I sold my McFarlane stuff at the right time :o
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 16, 2005, 01:15 PM
Deadline passes, Season iced (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=EHKGOMAGIFKH?content=20050216_113559_2816)

Yep...  :'(

NHL ANNOUNCES CANCELLATION OF 2004-05 SEASON  (http://nhlcbanews.com/news/season_cancelled021605.html)

Ah well, I'll always find something else to do...

(http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/images/news/spring_training/y2005/countdown/min.gif)
3 days and counting...

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JesseVader08 on February 16, 2005, 01:18 PM
Apathy is beginning to settle with me. While I hate the idea of their being no Stanley Cup Playoffs, the most exciting 2 months in ALL of sports, the stupidity of the owners, players, and Bettman has made me not care that the season will be cancelled.

...Finding that after all these years they were watching out of habit but now are finding other things to do or other leagues to watch. Is that true JD's Canadian peeps?


Well said.  Disappointment -> Disgust -> Apathy. 

I'm certainly not nearly a die-hard fan like a lot of guys, but if they want to piss away the season, I'm simply going to find other things to do.  I will still miss the playoffs though.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 01:32 PM
The NHL/NHLPA overestimates it's importance in the grand scheme of things. 

End of January - Superbowl
Mid-February - NBA Allstar Game
Mid-February - Spring training
Late March - March Madness NCAA basketball
April - June - NBA playoffs

At the same time, television is broadcasting PGA Golf and NASCAR. 

The void is there, but only for hockey fans.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 16, 2005, 01:33 PM
I sold my McFarlane stuff at the right time :o

Indeed!  ;D


I will still miss the playoffs though.

Ditto.  :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 16, 2005, 01:34 PM
Did anyone else's franchise give them a mushy apology?

(http://assets.sportvision.com/wild/assets/images/36879.gif)

I'll miss the Cup Playoffs too...
 :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on February 16, 2005, 01:54 PM
I almost shat myself when I read this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/hockey/nhl/02/16/nhl.lockout.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
Quote
The league and players' union traded a flurry of proposals and letters Tuesday night, but could never agree on a cap. The players proposed $49 million per team; the owners said $42.5 million.

These schmoes got to within 6.5 mil of each other and couldn't just split the f'n' difference?

What a bunch of jerks - the lot of them.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 02:02 PM
I disagree.  I'm not sure if it's splitting hairs or not, but I think a $40+ mill cap is going to kill a number of teams.  Edmonton being one of them.  Calgary, Ottawa and Vancouver being a couple of others.  I don't know enough about the financial status of the US teams to say who, if any will be affected. 

The NHL is not a major league sport.  Players should not expect to be paid on par with the other Major League sports - NFL,MLB, NBA.  There is no fantastic merchandising program, there is no great TV contract - it's just not that popular outside of fans.  They are asking for more than the revenues can generate.  It's not reasonable to expect what Barry Bonds is getting paid - there's lots of other income sources to generate his salary, one way or the other.  Not so for hockey.  Bowling has similar if not higher ratings to the NHL in the US.  Shouldn't players be paid similar salaries?  Oh, and bowlers have to win to get their salary. 

That there is any discussion of a cap has led me to a single conclusion - it is high enough that Winnipeg will never again have a hockey team in the NHL.  That's sad, for me and in general.  I don't get an apology from a team, my community was deemed unsuitable for an NHL franchise in spite of fan support, decent attendance and a love and understanding of the game.  Apparently the deep south has that ::)  Or maybe it's all about something else. 

I'm just happy that people who are hockey fans can now relate to losing a team, even if only for a season (Minnesota, Quebec fans are excused from that comment).  Hey Toronto, now maybe you understand our pain.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 16, 2005, 02:06 PM
I disagree.  I'm not sure if it's splitting hairs or not, but I think a $40+ mill cap is going to kill a number of teams.  Edmonton being one of them. 

 :'(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 16, 2005, 02:12 PM
These schmoes got to within 6.5 mil of each other and couldn't just split the f'n' difference?

The best part about the whole thing is Bettman's statement in the QnA part where he said:


From Canadian Press (http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html?id=13970849-de6c-4a2f-a8fa-0f73c1a254f8):

Quote
The NHL is planning for the 2005-06 season, and will pursue more labour talks but Bettman warned the league is going to have to look at a "completely different economic model and it is going to have to have linkage (between revenue and player salary costs)."

"The best deal that was on the table is now gone," he added.


So, now the NHL would like to explore an entirely different model...  meaning ALL the negotiating will start over from square 1.   ::)

It just re-inforces my belief that this latest round of talks was merely for "show".  I think that's the reason they didn't split the difference because the NHL never intended to move forward on this latest offer...

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 02:16 PM
I agree Jeff, there was no real intent. 

I would have to think the owners and Bettman are sitting back, sucking on stogies and feeling pretty smug.  They got the cap concession out of the NHLPA and still declined to have a season.  Big cojones on that.  The no-season, no-deal is probably a way of further reprimanding the NHLPA/Goodenow.  I would suggest that is not a real healthy way of bargaining.  They may have saved face with the fans (to some extent) by appearing to try and deal, but were I a player, I'd be even more pissed off than prior to the last couple of days. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CHEWIE on February 16, 2005, 03:31 PM
6.5 million difference X 30 teams = 195 million difference.  Still way too far apart.  Damnit.

I'm glad they didn't try and play a false season with 28 games - I will miss the playoffs so much, but it serves both sides right.

They never should have expanded and diluted the talent in the league.  Remember the early 90s with how awesome it was seeing Hull, Gretzky, Sakic, Lemiux, etc. tear it up?  We'll probably never see hockey that fun again, unless some huge changes are made.

 :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on February 16, 2005, 04:03 PM
I think the concession was, at the least, a hopeful sign...  Though now this bitchslap to the NHLPA of getting concessions they asked for then cancelling the season anyway may bite them in the ass in future negotiations.

How this'll effect teams, I don't know, but I think even in the $40 millions was SOMETHING good to think about.  Without knowing the rest of the contract's stipulations, it is tough to say how "good" that would've/could've been for "small market" teams.  I dunno.  It was something though...

I'm not surprised at any of this.  I bitched up a storm to my gf on the phone about it.  It was completely asinine, and even if they'd come to an agreement I think Bettman and Goodenow both need taken to a field and beat about the head severely with hockey sticks by fans.  They're both the incredible jerkoffs they've made themselves out to be throughout this.

Pittsburgh fans (being interviewed on the street) seemed unanymous in that the NHL needs an overhaul beyond a cap...  Most compared it directly to Baseball, and how that can't seem to get its **** together either.  I agree...  Short of the television coverage, but I agree.

I think a completely straightened around NHL could really take off.  That won't happen till Bettman's forced out though, and even then his replacement's gonna have to be someone OTHER than one of his cronies.

Oh well, I sit and wait now for the NFL to come back in season I guess.  I hate Baseball with a passion...  NASCAR's ok, but not something I'm intense about like Hockey or Football.  Minor league games may be on TV more though so I'll watch for those I guess...   :-\  Otherwise I just hope for warmer weather and to survive the year.

Oh yeah, there's always Star Wars to entertain me I suppose....  *sigh*
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 04:21 PM
They never should have expanded and diluted the talent in the league.  Remember the early 90s with how awesome it was seeing Hull, Gretzky, Sakic, Lemiux, etc. tear it up?  We'll probably never see hockey that fun again, unless some huge changes are made.

 :P


It's funny, I couldn't remember how many teams there were then, so I googled to find out.  It's amazing what you can find on the subject :o  Lots of individual web pages for sure.  One guy did a ratio of number of players to number of citizens in Canada, concluding because there were more people in Canada for every NHL player from Canada, the calibre had increased.  While on the surface, I can see that, it completley ignores that most of Canada's population increase is from immigration and not from hockey playing nations.  With all due respect to those of African or Asian descent, they are not hockey hotbeds so I don't think his measure is entirely accurate.  This is not to say that these nationalities cannot play hockey at a high level, just to say that it isn't as dominant culturally as it is in their adopted country. 

Anyway, stolen from here  clicky (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlhistory.html) we have the following:

78/79 - 17 teams
79-91 - 21 teams - 79/80 was the year that Winnipeg, Edmonton, Quebec and Hartford joined the NHL
91/92 - 22 teams
92/93 - 24 teams
93-98 - 26 teams
98/99 - 27 teams
99/00 - 28 teams
2000-current 30 teams

So if we take Chewie's estimate, the right number of teams is about 21.  Nine have to go.  Who are they?

And oh yeah, agree with Jesse on Bettman, no love for that man here.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 16, 2005, 05:09 PM
So if we take Chewie's estimate, the right number of teams is about 21.  Nine have to go.  Who are they?


From waaaaaaay earlier in this mess, here's what I said and it still looks good to me:

Here's what I'd do. 

Four 5 Team Divisions - bring back the Old School Names!

Prince of Wales Conference

Adams (Northeast) Division:
Buffalo
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa - (relaces the Whale)
NY Islanders - (replaces Le Nordique)

Patrick (Atlantic) Division:
Pittsburgh
NY Rangers
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Washington

Campbell Conference

Norris (Midwestern) Division:
Toronto
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Detroit

Smythe (Pacific) Division:
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Colorado - (sorry bug, no return for Winnipeg :()
Edmonton
Calgary


These Areas would be out of luck as their teams would be dissolved...
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay
Dallas
San Jose
Nashville
Anaheim
Columbus
Phoenix

Ditch the trap, shrink goalie pads (width, not thickness), and open up the ice.

Not to brag, but it would totally fix the NHL.  ;)

Of course, listening to some of the $$$ stuff the NHL says they are facing, I can see how there would be room for some swap-outs based on TV markets and $$$. 

For example, I could see the NHL making the following changes to my plan:
- dropping Edmonton for Dallas (sorry Dale :()
- dropping Ottawa for NJ in the Adams and then putting 1 of Carolina/Columbus/Nashville in NJ's place in the Patrick
- dropping another Canadian Team (Vancouver/Calgary) in favor of 1 of Phoenix/San Jose/Anaheim

The NHL likes the $$$ that is out there in the SW USA, so I'd bet if they have to contract teams the majority of contracted teams would all come from the NASCAR belt (south-eastern USA) or, sadly, western Canada.
Jeff
 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 16, 2005, 05:37 PM
Well, I still hate you for that and will continue to do so.  As for the list, I probably said it earlier, but I'll make some changes without looking to see how consistent I am. 

I'd say Dallas needs a team.  I don't think the support ever wavered after moving from Minnesota and they've been managed well and seem to have a good fan base. 

Adams - I'd axe the Islanders.  Given the relative popularity of hockey overall, I don't think any city merits two teams, regardless of how large they are.  Given that my impression of the east coast is one of a large megalopolis, I think Jersey is close enough to cover that off.  I realize fully the history there but Winnipeg won a Cup long before the Islanders ever did.  Ottawa I'm wishy-washy on as well, they seem to draw as many people from Toronto and don't sell out usually unless the Leafs are playing.  It's a good hockey city but I don't think they've been any better in terms of fan support than Winnipeg ever was. 

Patrick - I'd probably dump the Capitals.  I've said this before and it is spoken out of ignorance, I just don't get why they have a team?  It's not really a hockey hotbed, I see lots of empty seats and limited fan support.  So why have a team?

Norris - I'd keep all the teams, but probably move St. Louis out of there to allow for Winnipeg.  I'd rather not make the same mistake as the league did by moving Winnipeg to the Smythe division, two time zones over for the most part. 

Smythe - I like what Jeff has. 

So big differences are dumping Washington and the Islanders, bringing in Winnipeg (yeah, it's sentimental and selfish, but explain the Capitals to me) and a team in the east.  I guess Dallas doesn't fit that bill. 

Here's who I'd drop:

Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay
Islanders
San Jose
Nashville
Anaheim
Columbus
Phoenix
Washington

That's 11 but I brought in Winnipeg and Dallas, so it's only nine. If you leave in Ottawa it has that makes 8 Canadian teams (with Winnipeg). 

That said, they really need some restructuring beyond a cap to function anyway - profit sharing a la NFL style.  Without it any discussion of the NHL in Winnipeg (and Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver) is pretty much doomed from the start.  Learn to market yourself and realize that just because a guy is rich and wants a team in butthole, Louisiana, it probably isn't a good idea. 

I think New Orleans needs a hockey team, after all, isn't Cajun blood a mix of French Canadian and a few others? ::)

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: John C on February 16, 2005, 06:00 PM
The glimmer of hope has dimmed.  The greediness of the owners and NHLPA have just about killed the NHL as we know it.  I won't be surprised if several teams fold now.  The Florida teams are in trouble, Ottawa and Buffalo are in trouble and there are at least five or six more that aren't making money.  Dallas was making money the last I heard.  They can stay.  Atlanta and Columbus are new, so I think they deserve a few years at least.  It's harsh to kill teams off, but necessary if pro hockey wants to survive.   A smaller league with less teams would help the quality of play as well.  The talent will not be spread as thin as it is now.  Rule changes should be made to increase scoring.  The smaller pads and wider arena sound good to me.  Why can't the league see that they will never be a true major sport?  Stick with the regional roots and maybe a few exceptions for the good of the league.  The NHL can work.  It has for a long time until idiots got involved.  It can work again.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on February 17, 2005, 04:25 PM
I think I'd have 6 teams per division instead...  Keep some of the southern teams because Florida's been a pretty big place for hockey it seems.  That's mostly due to the northerner's migrating there I believe, but nonetheless...  Same for Dallas, and Cali's a big enough state that 2 teams wouldn't hurt.  All 3 have made pretty big strides I believe.

I agree with you Brent on dropping the Capitals.  Why they have a team is beyond me, but every year the Pens played them in the playoffs, there were equal numbers of Pens fans in the stands.  Their crowd doesn't give 2 craps.  You don't see that between Cleveland and Pittsburgh in the NFL...  Washington's even further away but we still pack their seats.

The Islanders I agree with as well, partly because I agree that (given the NHL's status) no city needs two teams, not to mention that even Ranger's fans tend to be fair weather fans, much less the Islanders who, when they suck, have one hell of an empty arena it seems.

NJ I think's a solid team, with solid fans.  I'm not wild about admitting that, and maybe it's that I'm just too used to their good years they've had for the past while, but they do tend to be pretty reliable to support their team so I am not sure I agree with dumping them entirely.

Part of me says keeping Carolina too (if it went to a 6 team division like I mentioned), given that they too seem to be supportive of the Hurricanes, even in some bad times they've experienced early.

Beyond that, a multi-station deal for TV would be nice...  A constant season-long deal with ESPN, local deals for local teams, a FOX TV deal like once a month, and then ABC gets rights to the playoffs but SHARES them with local stations carrying local teams (Fox Sports Pittsburgh carries the Pens for instance, and you can choose who to watch if you're living in that city but outside it you have to watch the national channel).

I think that'd be an awesome, and not too over-the-top TV idea as far as what they need for publicity but not over-saturating television with Hockey.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 18, 2005, 12:17 AM
Interesting read (http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/articles/2005/02/17/ice_breakers/)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on February 18, 2005, 12:44 AM
It's tough to argue with that...  The players would retort with "We play the game...  That's our risk!", and to that extent I agree they do take risk, but who the hell CAN'T live even on the crunched salary?  Paris ******* Hilton? 

News was talking tonight about the Joint Lemieux/Gretzky (rumored entirely, and denied by Gretzky) attempts to "save the season" (I'm not sure everyone at the old news-office got the memo that the season is done).  I think the city here is really missing hockey more than they anticipated.  We're not an NBA town, Spring Training doesn't do us a ton of good, and the NFL's over.  Pittsburgh's hurting for sports right now short of Pitt basketball and what the kiddies are accomplishing.  It's pretty sad really.

Never seen so many Wheeling Nailers commercials in all my life.   ::)

EDIT:

BTW, a part of that story I enjoyed was pointing out the NHLers who've bumped out minor league players on various levels.  Solidarity my hairy white ass!   >:(

It reminds me of a story about my mother...  Oddly enough.

My mother, for 18 or 20 (or more, I forget) years of my existance worked for the town's local Steel Worker's Union Hall in town.  It's a large hall upstairs and downstairs...  The kind rented for weddings, parties, etc. 

My mother cleaned was their janitor...  Not really contracted or anything, she just did this work under a set list of duties for a set pay...  There was no vacation, there was rarely ever any pay increase (she got two raises throughout her years there). 

The union workers who were her "boss" were the Trustee Committee members of the union.  She always did the job to their satisfaction though, and never once did she get a complaint.  If anything she went above and beyond her job, and the only person to ever gripe was the secretary at the hall who was nothing short of a snotty bitch who thought she was better than anyone who actually had to "work", including the Union members.

Well, a couple years ago...  I forget how long really, it was just a few maybe ago, the Union Trustees started changing my mother's "duty list" without her knowing.  She knew they were doing it though because her job description (usually tacked to her door for the upstairs closet was gone).  Little did THEY know she took it and had made copies so her job description was always there, "just in case".

So they come back with all these new duties for her...  She asks why the revised list, and she also tells them "you give me that much more work and I'm going to be needing a pay increase".  They expected her to do it for free...  She was going to be dealing with "routine rentals" now because the Union was going broke...  The leaders had spent the coffers dry and they were going to actively push rentals, and they wanted her to do clean-up for free now instead of her set salary.  It was going to just be absorbed into her monthly pay's work which she did every night.

She told them no...  Actually, my father told them "no" with some explitives and got into a fistfight with a man who's still afraid to go to the local bars here because he thinks my brothers and I go there...  So he's suddenly disappeared from any local hangouts, haha.  Puss...

Anyway, they fired my mother then...  She wouldn't take on what would've ammounted to 200% more of a workload for absolutely no increase in pay (a pittance anyway), so they up and fired her...

What's my point?

Well, I dunno, just a "bad experience" with how Unions tend to treat OTHER people working FOR them...  It's no better than the company treats them, sadly. 

The irony?  I'm far from anti-union, just disappointed to see that the NHLPA is so uncaring about anything but themselves, just like my father's union was (Though I'm not the slightest bit surprised either).  It supported my dad when he was sick, but it treated my mother who slaved for them and all their BS, like nothing but the dirt she cleaned.  They are, and forever will remain scumbags to me.

Anyway, just a related annecdote there from my point of view anyway.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: John C on February 18, 2005, 11:40 PM
Things may not be over yet.  ESPN is reporting that the owners and players have agreed on a $45 million cap.  They are having more meetings tomorrow.  The regular season will be shorter than the playoffs, but some NHL hockey will be better than nothing.  Maybe they should have free games for a week to get the fans back.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on February 19, 2005, 02:26 AM
This is just downright stupid. Both sides wait until AFTER they've cancelled the season to finally break down and come to terms. What kind of bull**** is this? It just makes the NHL look more and more like the rinky-dink league most people feel it is. Either they should have come to terms prior to this, or they should have worked on a deal and just started the 05-06 season. They've made the asses out of themselves and have done nothing yet to make my apathy go away.

Word also is that the players went into the meetings without union rep Bob Goodenow, so there may be a struggle within the union, which perhaps could mean some disgruntled players?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: John C on February 19, 2005, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I think there should be a change in union reps. It seemed to me like the players were unhappy with the way things were handled.  It does look bad that they cancelled and then they say "Just Kidding"  Bettman should also go away.  He should have extended the deadline until this weekend.  You know the owners wanted the playoffs.  That's where they make the most money.  I guess we'll see if the fans decide they care or not. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 19, 2005, 07:31 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand..................................



it's off again ::)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on February 19, 2005, 07:35 PM
I really didn't expect anything to go through.

See ya next season!  :-\
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on February 20, 2005, 04:02 AM
I second what Dale said.  Gretzky and Lemieux can bend over backwards on this but there's no saving the NHL season, I'm sorry. 

It was a pipedream I think.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Dressel Rebel on February 20, 2005, 07:45 PM


See ya next season!  :-\

Perhaps.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on February 24, 2005, 04:44 PM
www.freestanley.com

I guess there are some crazies out there who want to award the Stanley Cup to SOMEONE, even if there is no season or playoffs.  Their plan is to try to get the trustees to award the cup to the best team in Canada, sort of a winner take all between the OHL/IHL/QHL etc.

Pretty funny read if you are interested in reading about Stanley Cup obsessed, beer-swilling, hockey loving Canadians.   :P

Jeff

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 24, 2005, 05:02 PM
Quote
The Cup stays in Florida with the Champs! If you want the Cup back, have your weak ass teams win the NHL title and you can have it back. Most of your teams have moved to the US because you can't support them. So grow a sack and take the Cup back the way a man would, by earning it!

Kenneth Shier, Tampa Bay Lightning fan, Stanley Cup Champions 2004

Dumbass ::)  Gee, I wonder what Kenneth is going to say after the league contracts and takes Tampa out.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Mikey D on February 24, 2005, 05:06 PM
I can guarantee Kenneth wasn't a Tampa Bay Lightning fan before 2004.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Darth Kenobi on February 25, 2005, 08:15 PM
Hopefully for the new owners of the Mighty Ducks the team doesn't fold up.  I glad that Disney has finally giving up on all of my sports teams, ANgels and Duck, and now hopefully the teams will be managed better.  The only thing I hope is they don't rename them as the Los Angles Mighty Ducks of Anahiem like the owner of the Angels did. ::) I guess I should take my rant on that to the baseball thread.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JediMAC on February 25, 2005, 08:18 PM
I guess I should take my rant on that to the baseball thread.

Been there, done that.   ;)

Yeah, interesting to see Disney selling our guys off again.  Sounds like a Billionaire actually bought the team, so hopefully that's a good sign.  He better not be moving them anywhere though...   >:(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Darth Kenobi on February 25, 2005, 08:22 PM
I guess I should take my rant on that to the baseball thread.

Been there, done that.   ;)

Yeah, interesting to see Disney selling our guys off again.  Sounds like a Billionaire actually bought the team, so hopefully that's a good sign.  He better not be moving them anywhere though...   >:(
Dam Right about them not moving them.  I doubt it since its the owners of the actual Pond Arena.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on February 27, 2005, 01:15 AM
www.freestanley.com

I guess there are some crazies out there who want to award the Stanley Cup to SOMEONE, even if there is no season or playoffs.  Their plan is to try to get the trustees to award the cup to the best team in Canada, sort of a winner take all between the OHL/IHL/QHL etc.

Pretty funny read if you are interested in reading about Stanley Cup obsessed, beer-swilling, hockey loving Canadians.   :P

Jeff



A tournament between the various "major" minor leagues would be cool to award the cup. however, I don't think the juniors should be involved, they're not officially professionals, so no OHL or QHL. But a tourney between the champions of the AHL, UHL, ECHL, and whatever other pro leagues there are could work. Be a pity to not award someone the cup, would be more of a pity to let the lightning have it for a 2nd year.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Paul on February 27, 2005, 09:32 AM

Quote

 Sounds like a Billionaire actually bought the team, so hopefully that's a good sign.  He better not be moving them anywhere though...   >:(
Quote


While on the surface that may seem like a good deal, be warned, you could end up with a Tom Hicks (owner of the Stars).  He seemed good for the team, but when he decided to sell he got CHEAP on the purse strings.  I just hope YOUR Billionaire owner is a Hockey guy, ours is not a hockey guy and we the fans are paying for that.  Don't get me wrong, I love the new stadium, I love the fact they won the Cup, but I think if he had more interest or knowledge of the game, the Stars could have been more competitive in the recent years.

On a side note, I went to the Fort Worth Brahmas Minor League game the last week, and I know this will annoy the Hockey Purists, but a good minor league fight is a really fun thing to watch.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on February 27, 2005, 11:46 PM

On a side note, I went to the Fort Worth Brahmas Minor League game the last week, and I know this will annoy the Hockey Purists, but a good minor league fight is a really fun thing to watch.

You mean non-Canadian hockey purists?  Us r rednecks when it comes to fightin'.  It is part of the game. 

Skating up behind someone and driving their face into the ice, regardless of how much was intentional, how much accident, is clearly not. >:(
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on March 9, 2005, 10:40 AM
I don't have a link for it (yet) but apparently Gretzky has been quoted as saying even though he won't like doing it, he'll put scabs on the ice next season (not his exact words). 

Anyone else think maybe the players really ought to wake up now from their little fantasy world?  Rightly or wrongly the owners are the one holding the ball, so jumping up and down and shouting about how it's your ball isn't going to accomplish much. 

I'll go out on a limb and suggest the owners are going to be absolutely huge ******** here and the next SIGNED CBA will have a salary cap and it will be lower than one they offered last time.  I'd expect around 44 mill this time, just to spite the players.  The players played their hand and to me their best card was the playoffs.  Once the owners resigned themselves to losing that revenue, the players were ******. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on March 9, 2005, 11:24 AM
I don't have a link for it (yet) but apparently Gretzky has been quoted as saying even though he won't like doing it, he'll put scabs on the ice next season (not his exact words). 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2008108

"My honest opinion is I don't like it," Gretzky said. "They're not the Sundins or the Leetches of the world. This is replacement players, and it is what it is. The commissioner has to do what he thinks is best to get the game back on the map and get it going. We're only one of 30 teams, we'll follow suit."


Anyone else think maybe the players really ought to wake up now from their little fantasy world? 

Yes.  Right or wrongs aside, at this point I agree with you Brent - the players lost. 

If they don't cave at this point, they are going to lose their jobs to scabs next year.  Hockey will be a visibly shakier game, but fans don't tend to support "greedy players" any more than they like supporting "greedy owners", it's just that "greedy owners" can get the game going again with scabs and the game is what the fans really want. 

The players at this point can't give the fans anything... unless you get European League games on satellite TV.   :P

Back to my regularily scheduled NHL nap...

(http://www.jedidefender.com/images/newsicons/icon23.gif)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on March 10, 2005, 04:14 AM
Ya know technically they wont be replaced by "scabs", they will be replaced by guys who likely would have been called up to the big time eventually. Case in point, the AHL's Chicago Wolves are the Atlanta Thrashers top farm club. The Wolves' #1 Goaltender is Kari Lehtonen whom if the NHL had a season would have made his major league debut this year. As the Thrashers top farmclub, they have several guys who played with the parent team in the past, Ben Simon, JP Vigier, Kip Brennan, etc. These guys are NHL players who were re-assigned to the AHL level prior to the lockout. The same situation goes on I'm sure for all of the AHL teams, so it's not a situation where all the NHL teams will have is inexperienced players, they will have guys who have either logged NHL time already or were going to be called up anyway.

A true "scabs" situation would have been the 1987 NFL strike, where NFL teams played with guys who for the most part did not play in the NFL or were with the practice squads. A situation where there was no minor league system so guys were coming in from all over like the CFL, semi-pro teams, Europe, etc...
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on March 10, 2005, 10:45 AM
Ya know technically they wont be replaced by "scabs", they will be replaced by guys who likely would have been called up to the big time eventually.

Yeah, but I've seen the Houston Aeros play, and they are nowhere near the talent level of the NHL Wild.  Sure, there are some young guys with talent, but they are still raw.  They mave have potential, but they don't have "it".

Anyway you look at it, the quality won't be the same.   :(

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on March 10, 2005, 12:20 PM
Exactly.  Our Manitoba Moose team is the AHL affiliate of the Vancouver Canucks.  We've got some decent players and a number of NHL regulars are playing in the "A" this year and have come through town.  I don't know how many of those guys that are playing in the AHL now that had a regular slot in the NHL will play though.  They may opt to sit out or pay a fairly hefty price down the road. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on March 10, 2005, 01:33 PM
With minor leaguers maybe the Pens will be cup contenders this year. :)

Now...  I wonder...  What will Lemieux do as a player/owner?  Hmmmmm
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: CorranHorn on March 11, 2005, 12:42 AM
Ya know technically they wont be replaced by "scabs", they will be replaced by guys who likely would have been called up to the big time eventually.

Yeah, but I've seen the Houston Aeros play, and they are nowhere near the talent level of the NHL Wild.  Sure, there are some young guys with talent, but they are still raw.  They mave have potential, but they don't have "it".

Anyway you look at it, the quality won't be the same.   :(

Jeff

Yes the Aeros do suck, but they are one of the many hated enemies of the Wolves. We downed them last nite 3-1 :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on March 28, 2005, 05:01 PM
Poor Sidney Crosby -

No CBA = No 2005 Entry Draft (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2020439)

From potential #1 pick worth millions to another year in the Juniors...  :'(

Too bad for him, the fans, AND the... um, what was it called again?  Oh yeah, NHL.  (I hardly remember it anymore...)

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on March 28, 2005, 07:45 PM
Not so sure about poor Sidney.  Depending on what the CBA final comes out as, he may well be an unrestricted free agent due to never being drafted :o  I think that will ultimately entitle him to more money than he otherwise could have signed for. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on March 30, 2005, 01:04 PM
Saw yesterday that the NHL is considering using bigger nets.  How bout we get the players back on the ice first huh?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on March 30, 2005, 01:10 PM
Saw yesterday that the NHL is considering using bigger nets.  How bout we get the players back on the ice first huh?

Sorry, but that made me laugh. :D


Was also hit by a thought that they are running a lot like government does (I work for a government agency, so I can bash em all I want :P) - logic flies out the window so they can come up with a new idea.  Hey guys, restrict the goalies equipment back to what it used to be.  Not Jacques Plante-esque, but something pre-Patrick Roy. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on March 31, 2005, 05:14 PM
LA Times said this morning they're gonna meet again Monday, as if that meant a thing at this point.  I don't want to see anymore articles about them meeting. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on April 12, 2005, 04:36 PM
In honor of the NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs, which would have started tomorrow, I've decided that the tradition should live on through my NGC.  I've got NHL 2005 all set, the machine played out the 2004-2005 season last night and here were the results:

Eastern Conference:

1.  Tampa Bay  vs.  8.  Montreal

2.  Boston  vs.  7.  Atlanta

3.  Philiadelphia  vs.  6.  Toronto

4.  Ottawa  vs.  5.  New Jersey

Western Conference:

1.  San Jose  vs.  8.  Edmonton

2.  Detroit  vs.  7.  St. Louis

3.  Colorado  vs.  6.  Minnesota

4.  Vancouver  vs.  5.  Dallas

As my Nintendo GameCube simulates the games each night, I'll post the results here... it's just like the NHL, only it's fake!   :P

Stay tuned to find out who will win The 2005 JediDefender Nintendo GameCube Stanley Cup!

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on April 14, 2005, 10:13 AM
The 2005 JediDefender Nintendo GameCube Stanley Cup Playoffs are here!

Last night's scores...

Eastern Conference:

Tampa Bay 3, Montreal 1
A great PK squad help the Defending Champs beat the Habs who go 0 for 7 on the Power Play...

Philiadelphia 2, Toronto 0
The Flyers take a 1-0 lead into the final minute and get a junk empty-netter with 28seconds left to seal game 1...


Western Conference:

St. Louis 1, Detroit 0 - 3OT
Of course, it's the playoffs so somebody had to go into OT.  The Blues pull out a late goal in the 3rd OT to ice game 1...

Colorado 3, Minnesota 2
The beloved Wild fell behind quickly thanks to a pair of Avalance goals from Sakic and Forsberg in the first 3 minutes of the first period, but they stayed with the big-bad Avalanche the rest of the way...

Dallas 4, Vancouver 1
Dallas goes 3 for 4 on the Power Play in the first period and coasts from there as Vancouver was never really in it

Woot!   :P

Jeff
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on April 14, 2005, 10:46 AM
The 2005 JediDefender Nintendo GameCube Stanley Cup Playoffs are here!



Philiadelphia 2, Toronto 0
The Flyers take a 1-0 lead into the final minute and get a junk empty-netter with 28seconds left to seal game 1...



Good.  I hate the Leafs.  Sweep!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on April 14, 2005, 08:26 PM
St. Louis beating my Wings in the playoffs?  Yup, definitely not realistic. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jeff on April 14, 2005, 10:56 PM
St. Louis beating my Wings in the playoffs?  Yup, definitely not realistic. 

Now, now, don't worry.  It was only game one and it was in 3OT.  I seem to remember the Ducks doing the same thing to the Wings a few years ago...  ;)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on April 15, 2005, 01:22 AM
St. Louis beating my Wings in the playoffs?  Yup, definitely not realistic. 

Now, now, don't worry.  It was only game one and it was in 3OT.  I seem to remember the Ducks doing the same thing to the Wings a few years ago...  ;)

Well what I meant was the Wings absolutely own the Blues come playoff time.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on April 15, 2005, 08:00 PM
Anyone else see the story about those beer leaguers suing for the right to play for the Cup this season?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JediMAC on April 25, 2005, 03:29 PM
What's the deal with this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/hockey/nhl/04/25/flubbed.anthem.ap/index.html?cnn=yes), eh?

Canadians...  ::)

 :-*
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on April 25, 2005, 03:43 PM
What's the deal with this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/hockey/nhl/04/25/flubbed.anthem.ap/index.html?cnn=yes), eh?

Canadians...  ::)

 :-*

I'm not sure how to respond to this...

a) she's from Quebec which doesn't want to be part of Canada and much of Canada is sick of its bleating, whining and moaning, so it can go on its delusional little way

or

b) it's payback for the US Marine Corps flying the Canadian flag upside down during the world series.  She's a nobody, the Marine Corps is not. :-*
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Ryan on May 1, 2005, 06:54 PM
What's the deal with this (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/hockey/nhl/04/25/flubbed.anthem.ap/index.html?cnn=yes), eh?

Canadians...  ::)

 :-*

I'm not sure how to respond to this...


I know exactly how to respond, with the video of the whole thing ;) ;D :-*

Video (http://www.yoururl.comhttp://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/anthem.html)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on May 14, 2005, 01:09 AM
Just remember, Winnipeg doesn't deserve an NHL team. 


This even though we sold 15,000 + seats tonight for a second round playoff game where the Manitoba Moose won. 

AHL.

15,000. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: JesseVader08 on May 15, 2005, 02:39 PM
Oooh.  Canada beats Russia to get the gold medal game for the world championship.    8)

But we're down 0-1 to the Czech Republic in the first period, as we speak.

Come on boys!
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Famine on May 15, 2005, 03:21 PM
I gotta cheer for the Czechs. They are my people. :-*

Kevin
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on May 15, 2005, 03:30 PM
Go Oilers Canada.  :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: DSJ™ on May 15, 2005, 08:49 PM
Czechs 3.
Canada 0.

Congrats.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on May 16, 2005, 12:15 AM
Jagr looking like he actually was still an NHLer...  I'm amazed.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Famine on May 16, 2005, 12:20 AM
Czechs 3.
Canada 0.

Congrats.

Woot! :o

Kevin
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on June 8, 2005, 06:13 PM
This sounds like pretty big news...

Salary Cap Agreement (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2080348)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on June 8, 2005, 08:38 PM
No doubt it is, but it can still fall apart.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on June 9, 2005, 12:42 AM
Not sure if it's being reported down south, but apparently a couple of rather major sponsors have told the NHL that they have until July 15th to get a deal done or they are gone for good (which probably means a year or two).  Molson is one, not sure who the other is. 

As for this deal, I'm surprised (and maybe a little pleased) to see the NHL has stuck to it's guns and the cap is indeed lower than the last ditch effort early in the new year.  Let's hope they fix some things on the owners side as well. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on June 10, 2005, 05:58 PM
Penguins have had some big news, though it didn't really say anything concrete.

Just strong rumors that a buy-out of the Pens major ownership share is in the works by a San Jose businessman/friend of Lemieux.  Still claiming to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh if revenues from slots can be used to build a new arena (i wish they'd just do the goddamn thing and be done with it but our state's such a bunch of pansies about the slots issue).  Lemieux is said to be keeping some ownership and control over the team if this deal goes through...

Prospective cities the team could move to if a new arena deal isn't worked out by 2007 include Kansas city and Oklahoma City...   ::)  The KC hog-sloppers and the OC Inbreads...  Those names have a nice ring to them. (no offense to anyone from KC or OC, just a joke made under irritation)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on June 23, 2005, 10:27 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_lemieux_labor_1

Man, this guy just gets me pumped for hockey in this town again, even in 80+ degree weather. :)
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on July 5, 2005, 11:42 AM
Having only been paying attention for modest amounts of my minds time, I've completely neglected hockey.  It turns out that we may indeed see a deal come to fruition this week. 

The deal, it seems, is darn near everything I "hoped" for.  Now that it's come about, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of it, but I guess a change of heart doesn't really matter.  It seems that the NHL owners have stuck to their guns and come back with an offer lower than the previous offer to save the last season. 

I can't find the print article I read yesterday online, so I'll paraphrase some of the details for ya:
* cap in the range of $35-40 million, or possibly lower. 
* maximum salary of $850,000 for first three years in league plus a cap of 10% of said salary as bonuses
*revenue sharing and luxury taxes on higher paying teams (eg Rangers) to help out lower paying teams (Calgary)
*expectation of teams buying out high end players for 2/3 of salary so they fit under cap/dump highly paid, low production guys
*resultant glut of free agents that will be getting considerably less money than received previously

There were lots of other speculative details, but it all left me saying "wow".  The players are apparently somewhat unaware of what is headed their way and Goodenow is likely to be axed following this agreement.  The players may opt to not sign the agreement, but I don't think it will get better for them if they opt out for another year.  Replacement players would likely be brought in and I'd guess you'd see a good chunk (10% maybe) crossing any lines. 

It appears all the pieces are in place to suggest a return to Winnipeg is not unreasonable.  I don't think that will happen, but a significant proportion of what had to happen to make it reality seems like it will.  Bettman hates Winnipeg; the league needs to contract yet (something not at all discussed in the agreement) and which team do you move here anyway?  None, I guess.   :-\

Now, let's see if the media prognostication is accurate, either detail or timewise. 
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on July 5, 2005, 05:14 PM
Detroit News said something about that buy-out clause also and suggest Derian Hatcher could be one of the guys that the Wings would buy out.  They said it won't count against a team's cap number, allowing teams like Detroit to get under the ceiling.

They also said expect an announcement around the MLB All-Star game to maximize media coverage.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Morgbug on July 5, 2005, 05:29 PM

They also said expect an announcement around the MLB All-Star game to maximize media coverage.

Heh, they're finally getting smarter.  Not sure baseball has fully recovered, but you have to know they get way more of an audience than the NHL (ever will?). 

I also read about the buyout not counting against the cap room.  In some respects I feel bad for some of the players, but there's lots of guys out there making way more than they are worth (Tie Domi for example) and it will realign what they should be making.  For a lot of guys like that they're going to see substantial pay cuts.  Mind you they'll get the 2/3 buyout which, depending on their contract, could be one hell of a sign-out bonus.  Sure they'll probably face a 50% or more pay cut when they resign, but they'll just have been handed several million for their trouble. 

The article also suggested that the top 4-5 guys per team will still make really nice salaries (5 million range) but the rest of the guys will make a lot less.  Not fair really in some senses but guys like Alexei Yashin will actually have to show up season after season to get the salary they want.  No more dogging it and I don't expect we're going to see many contracts beyond three years just for that reason.  A money-in-the-bank guy like Forsberg (presuming he even comes back) in his prime might get a couple of years more, but not much.  No one will want to tie up limited funds for that long. 

Now if they throw some rule changes out there (whatever they may be to increase offense), contract selectively and intelligently they can start all over again with a potentially bright future.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: John C on July 6, 2005, 06:37 AM
Let's hope the announcement is soon.  I don't think the NHL will be able to get by with another lost season.  The players and owners need to strike a deal now.  The NBA agreement didn't take long.  Why did the NHL's have to be so hard?  I'd rather be without the NBA and their thugs than the NHL.  I would like to see Bettman go as a part of the deal.  He's made the NHL into the mess it is.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on July 6, 2005, 03:29 PM
If a new deal is announced soon, there better be some serious rule changes along with it. 
Title: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Holographic Elvis on July 13, 2005, 03:31 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2106442
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Morgbug on July 13, 2005, 03:42 PM
Beat me to it. 

It figures though, the NHL has an opportunity to make an annoucement during a venue that has very high visibility in the US, the MLB allstar game and instead this comes out the next day ::)  They may have a deal, but they still can't market their product worth a ****. 
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: CHEWIE on July 13, 2005, 04:00 PM
BRETT HULL!!!!

 :)
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Paul on July 13, 2005, 09:26 PM
Ok it may have been the medication, but did I either read or hear that there are 150+ Free Agents right now?

And Dallas stuck with a tightwad for an Owner.  Mike Modano even said he'd come back to Dallas for LESS money, but that the number he had in mind was not near as low as Tom Hicks and Co....
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Morgbug on July 13, 2005, 10:30 PM
Yeah, 150 and it will go up.  My understanding was that teams could cut loose players for 2/3 of their remaining salary and the payments won't count against the cap.  That way teams can dump overpriced talent (or lack thereof) and not be penalized on their cap room.  A lot of guys will be looking for work and working for a lot less.
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: John C on July 14, 2005, 09:44 AM
Great day for the NHL and the fans.  It's finally over.  A year too late IMO, but at least another season will not be lost.  The high priced talent will be forced to take pay cuts if they want to play.  Most teams are going to look a lot different than they did the last time they played.  The Wild should look pretty much the same because they don't have any high buck players, so I'm happy with that.  I look forward to watching some NHL games this winter.
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Morgbug on July 22, 2005, 05:07 PM
Jesse ought to be happy.  Penguins get first pick in the draft for this year (as in today) and presumably select (if they haven't already) Crosby, The Next (next) One.  Now, we just need the Pens to fold down there and move the team to Winnipeg :P
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on July 23, 2005, 06:32 AM
Yay us, we got the #1 draft...  Uh, yay.

No huge word on picks in the city yet other than that Crosby kid.  Pittsburgh's still reeling from no hockey for a year.  It hurt here, but the buzz is coming back around.

Doesn't hurt that the Pirates are back to licking fermunda cheese either...  It gives every PIttsburgher that, "When are the REAL sports coming back?" feeling...

It's hysterical when the countdown to spring training overtakes the importance of baseball news.  I mean, they flash that Steelers graphic every few seconds.  ;D  Gotta love this town.
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Rob on July 23, 2005, 09:42 PM
How the hell did the Lightning end up with the bottom ******* pick!?

And to top it all off I hear it's a draft where the end of the first round picks at the top of the second - but the Lightning are without a second round pick this year for whatever reason... So they won't pick again until the end of the third and top of the fourth...

Blah.

Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Jesse James on July 25, 2005, 01:02 AM
Trades and stuff?  I'm not sure Rob, actually.  I didn't keep up with picks and stuff that franchises perhaps pushed away, but that maybe is the reason?   :-\
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Jesse James on July 25, 2005, 01:07 AM
How do I post a middle-finger?  Ah **** it...

ANyway, yeah we were pretty giddy...  Hockey's been a buzz anyway, but the ball bouncing "our way" for once helped tremendously. :)

The "next one" with the truly "great one" together?  Fuggetaboutit!   :P

Now all Pittsburgh needs is for a new Arena...  We're not folding anytime soon, especially considering that, the day of the NHL/NHLPA deal, the prices of Pens tickets dropped by about $20-$30 :)

I think you better take alook at the Caps folding.  They seem more likely to me at this point.  ;D 

I hope we get a new areana, not just for the pens, but because our downtown/uptown area NEEDS something new.  PNC Park (even with the PIrates blowing goats) did a LOT for the North Shore.  A new arena/slots area would do a lot for uptown too.  Hard to explain without knowing Pittsburgh's geography, but suffice it to say that it'd make about 100% difference for the entire city.
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Morgbug on July 25, 2005, 11:34 AM
It's funny.  Our old arena was more on the west side of town and when they finally decided to build a new arena (after 30 years of debate and losing the Jets) for our AHL franchise (Moose), there was still a ton of debate.  Most commentary was entirely negative - not enough parking, downtown is dangerous, this will put women at risk of rape because of the testosterone fueled males leaving the venue (I kid you not, this was a "legitimate" argument).  But in the end it is a pretty positive thing, putting a ton of people downtown in the dead of winter.  I won't go so far as to say it revitalized the area, but it certainly injected a lot of life and seems to be a good starting point.  Hope you get yours in Pittsburgh.

Besides, I was just funning you.  New agreement or not + a team folding does not mean it's coming back here.  The arena is suitable, though small (16K), the interest is there and I'd contend the fanbase but we still have one problem.  Deep pockets.  No one around here is really capable/competent to be an owner.  We could do the Edmonton thing with a group of owners but that's unlikely too.  No, I don't think we'll be seeing the NHL back here. 

It will be interesting to see which buildings are full early in the season.  Pittsburgh should be one, Toronto will be another.  After that?
Title: Re: NHL Offseason
Post by: Holographic Elvis on July 25, 2005, 07:28 PM
How the hell did the Lightning end up with the bottom ******* pick!?

And to top it all off I hear it's a draft where the end of the first round picks at the top of the second - but the Lightning are without a second round pick this year for whatever reason... So they won't pick again until the end of the third and top of the fourth...

Blah.



Simple, they had one of the worst chances statistically and they just won the Cup.  The Cup winner always gets the last pick so don't be too surprised.  You have no 2nd round pick due to the Vaclav Prospal trade. 
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Dressel Rebel on July 25, 2005, 09:00 PM
Is this that silly game with the frozen water spilled all over the field and a bunch of Canadians smacking that year old hamburger all over the place?

I didn't know people still played that.
Title: Re: NHL and NHLPA reach a deal, hockey returns!
Post by: Jesse James on July 25, 2005, 09:43 PM
The downtown area for Pittsburgh isn't in terrible shape, it could just use a new arena on its uptown end...  The PNC Park/Heinz Field projects did some good for that part of the city (which is just the opposite side of the river from downtown...  Technically they really are all one thing).

They talk about just building the new arena basically beside where the old one is.  There's an old hospital and church they would knock down, and where the Igloo is there'd be parking then I guess. 

I'd like it to happen myself...  It's the oldest arena in the league, and it is showing that age, so it'd be nice.  I like new stuff when I drive down tot he city. :)

We need a nice transit system too though.  That'd help Pittsburgh just as much at this point.