Sanford is out 5-6 months for the Blues. Tough break. No one has benefited yet from that cursed Shattenkirk trade.
Even Copley didn't benefit the way he was supposed to. With Grubauer still around, Copley is still going to be stuck in the AHL.
I guess you could say Shattenkirk is the real winner of this trade. Played 30 games for us and then he was off to his favourite team.
Sucks for the fans I guess but nothing gets under my skin more than millionaire and billionaire owners trying to con taxpayers out of money to build arenas for their toys.
Yep.
John Oliver did a brilliant take on the fake way they try to sell this crap. And the way they threaten to leave, and how if they do leave studies show it has ZERO impact on anything in terms of civic pride or city finances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
What the hell is "civic pride" in this case and how do you measure that?
On the other hand there are studies of the brain that show elevated dopamine levels and markers of self-esteem following a team win. Of course you take the bad with the good and people may be more depressed the day after a loss.
So these things do affect people, their moods/biology, and possibly how they interact and make decisions...maybe with long term consequences. But it does seem like a scam the way the owners always try to get the fans to pay for stadiums.
Study was based on how participants in St. Louis handled losing the Rams. People just really didn't care. It didn't make them any more or less proud to be from, or live, in the city, etc. Kids apparently took it the hardest.
I think in today's world where the team is located is really irrelevant. Too easy to watch the games or to get on a message board and chat with like minded fans from all over the world.
Bondra seems to have mended fences with the Caps. He's been around the team quite a bit, IIRC. But IMHO his number should not be retired. No more numbers until they win something dammit.
Well, I imagine winning teams are rarely moved, so you're left with the bottom dwellers relocating. I imagine this would result in polls showing similar results overall.Ok so a survey after the fact. Of course they're going to say they don't care. They've lost teams too many times, so part of it is their natural response and part of it is probably the apathy of the market...even more so given the suckitude of the Rams for the last decade or whatever it's been.
Also, self-reported surveys are notoriously inaccurate. It's very easy to say one thing based on a high-minded concept and then behave quite differently. If the Rams won the SB last year they'd sing a different tune.
I think people definitely experience a sense of community and pride surrounding their sports team. IMO that's not even up for debate. Some areas may just get fed up with losing, or else the market isn't primed for a certain sport and winning doesn't resonate. But humans in general are very tribal and sports teams provide tribal identity.
Well, I imagine winning teams are rarely moved, so you're left with the bottom dwellers relocating. I imagine this would result in polls showing similar results overall.
If you had polled St. Louis fans during the Greatest Show on Turf era, you'd definitely get a different result, so I don't know if particular areas are primed for certain sports, per se. I bet the years of losing and attitude of the owners had a much bigger impact.
Also, St. Louis hadn't lost a major league team in nearly 30 years and lost their NBA team nearly 50 years ago. I imagine that aspect had little/no impact on respondents.
30 years means just about everyone under the age of about 40 had no real connection to the team. Those would probably be the fans with the strongest connection to Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Dick Vermeil.
Maybe they have a bunch of angsty baby boomers angry about losing a mediocre football team 30 years ago that dominated respondents, or perhaps people just didn't care about losing a team that was blackmailing the city and had had one foot out the door for a while.
Study was based on how participants in St. Louis handled losing the Rams. People just really didn't care..
Does cutting it back a couple years make a difference? The apathy usually starts before the team leaves town anyway. I can't imagine many 10-year-old and under St. Louis kids are die-hard Rams fans at this point.You're being overly generous with your estimate. Kids under 10 like football. I did. I was around that age when the Colts left and I remember not only the team but the betrayal. Plus attitudes, memorabilia and stories are passed down.
During the Cardinals' 28-year stay in St. Louis, they advanced to the playoffs just three times (1974, 1975 & 1982), never hosting or winning in any appearance.
Does cutting it back a couple years make a difference? The apathy usually starts before the team leaves town anyway. I can't imagine many 10-year-old and under St. Louis kids are die-hard Rams fans at this point.
I think this line sums up how much nostalgia was likely attached to the football Cardinals.
Oh the stories they must have passed down....
Agreed.Well we won't know for sure, but this is all beside the point which was that as a city it's not the first time they've lost a team. Beyond that we're whittling away at that fact, which was just one small factor in the overall interpretation of their attitude.
In my highly unscientific study of fellow bar patrons in San Diego, nobody gave a **** about the Chargers leaving. They all saw the writing on the wall and didn't really care.
In my highly unscientific study of fellow bar patrons in San Diego, nobody gave a **** about the Chargers leaving. They all saw the writing on the wall and didn't really care.