Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

[Master Shake*]

LOL!!

Numbers on TV were better years ago than in the last 10 or so....what "marketing power" of larger profile teams are YOU talking about?

Every team in Canada draws better TV ratings than the US market on a National level.

What a bizarre post.

You really could argue that the NHL would be more successful and stable today if it didnt have some of the big market clubs.

 

[Timmy]

And where is your source on this wonderful bit of psychic insight on Bettman's part?

It's a self-evident truth, otherwise he would not have needed it.

There is just a little bit of knowledge that the owners in 95 forced Bettman to make the deal.

There is also the knowledge that, since that occured but before this CBA expired, Bettman asked for and received the 8-vote veto.

Tell me you don't think he just did this because he was bored one day?

 

[Kritter471]

LOL!!

Numbers on TV were better years ago than in the last 10 or so....what "marketing power" of larger profile teams are YOU talking about?

Every team in Canada draws better TV ratings than the US market on a National level.

What a bizarre post.

Thank you for your oh-so-constructive commentary on one line and then blanket statement on the rest of what I presented.

And I think we're confusing national here. When I meant national, I meant the US national, where the Sens-Habs matchup really isn't a huge deal, but a Wings-Avs or Wings-Stars or Avs-Leafs matchup will get the ESPN slot (vs ESPN2) and will get in-studio anchors on SportsCenter for analysis. And it's in those games that the league garners a lot of it's US national advertising revenue, which I would guess (because of the exchange rate and general economic strength of companies) is significantly higher than the Canadian national advertising revenue.

 

[Kritter471]

It's a self-evident truth, otherwise he would not have needed it.

There is just a little bit of knowledge that the owners in 95 forced Bettman to make the deal.

There is also the knowledge that, since that occured but before this CBA expired, Bettman asked for and received the 8-vote veto.

Tell me you don't think he just did this because he was bored one day?

As the CBA progressed I can see him being less and less happy, not right after the deal (as has been stated over and over and over again, the general consensus after the 1995 CBA was signed was that the owners screwed the players over by taking concessions on every issue sans salary cap). And as he saw that it grew more and more out of control, he put in the 8-veto rule.

The whole thing begs the question again, why extend the previous deal (and I'm sure some of you have presented your answers before, but I haven't seen them) if this was his goal all along? From my point of view, it would be so much easier to re-set the economic system before the system admittedly got out of control in the past 3-4 years. Didn't it come up in 99/00? Because I know the 1999 Stars were among the highest payrolls in the league in the low-$40 millions. Why not stall the league then or the second time it was renewed with a much less spread economic system?

 

[Master Shake*]

As the CBA progressed I can see him being less and less happy, not right after the deal (as has been stated over and over and over again, the general consensus after the 1995 CBA was signed was that the owners screwed the players over by taking concessions on every issue sans salary cap). And as he saw that it grew more and more out of control, he put in the 8-veto rule.

The whole thing begs the question again, why extend the previous deal (and I'm sure some of you have presented your answers before, but I haven't seen them) if this was his goal all along? From my point of view, it would be so much easier to re-set the economic system before the system admittedly got out of control in the past 3-4 years. Didn't it come up in 99/00? Because I know the 1999 Stars were among the highest payrolls in the league in the low-$40 millions. Why not stall the league then or the second time it was renewed with a much less spread economic system?

Bettman wanted it to be so obvious of how bad the 94 deal was, so that he could secure the future of the sport. Every year it just got worse for the owners. It made his job of controlling them this past year alot easier.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Thank you for your oh-so-constructive commentary on one line and then blanket statement on the rest of what I presented.

And I think we're confusing national here. When I meant national, I meant the US national, where the Sens-Habs matchup really isn't a huge deal, but a Wings-Avs or Wings-Stars or Avs-Leafs matchup will get the ESPN slot (vs ESPN2) and will get in-studio anchors on SportsCenter for analysis. And it's in those games that the league garners a lot of it's US national advertising revenue, which I would guess (because of the exchange rate and general economic strength of companies) is significantly higher than the Canadian national advertising revenue.

I don't have the exact figures to back this up but, ESPN's broadcasts were a joke and drew flies. CBC's HNIC is the Rolls Royce of hockey broadcasting and it shows in the ratings, not only out drawing anything done in the States, but generating international numbers than make ESPN look dodgy as well. I'm so sick of all of this BS about how important the American broadcast market is, and how much money comes in from these broadcasts. Its a load and doesn't hold water. The NHL is being forced to give away their broadcasts because of the half assed job ESPN has done with them (Barry Melrose and Darren Pang are freaking embarassments) and a big part of why people can't get into hockey and the popularity spread. ESPN has been bleeding money for years on NHL broadcasts because no one wants to advertise on them, because no one watches them. Christ, ESPN has 10 times the population to draw from and doesn't match the numbers of the Canadian broadcasters for ratings or revenues. If the NHL wants to garner a bigger and better audience then need to junk ESPN, turn over the reigns to CBC/Sportsnet, and develop their own cable channel offered world wide. A better product with good pricing will garner better numbers, more revenues and a stringer base than the clownshow that has been ESPN and broadcasting in America.

 

[Fire]

With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

Moron alert!

 

[AM]

this is.....

And where is your source on this wonderful bit of psychic insight on Bettman's part?

common knowledge.

For your own confirmation, just check out the video of Bettman signing the last CBA.

He dosnt look very happy. Now ypu know why.

 

[victor]

And it's in those games that the league garners a lot of it's US national advertising revenue, which I would guess (because of the exchange rate and general economic strength of companies) is significantly higher than the Canadian national advertising revenue.

You would generally guess wrong.

Unlike the US, with NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc. eating up the advertising dollar - in most of the Canadian Markets - Hockey Night in Canada is it. For example, you might want to google the canadian television ratings for hockey day in Canada (Canadian triple header.) the percentages are staggering.

 

[AM]

yup

Big market clubs don't get anything under what's being floated with the new CBA. Big market owners reap the benefits. Pretty big distinction there. So Tom Hicks may be happy here in Dallas, but I don't imagine Doug Armstrong (GM) or Jim Lites (president) or Dave Tippett (coach) are thrilled on a personal level about having to shed contracts.

And big market clubs didn't force anything in 1994. The loopholes were put in by Goodenow and the PA lawyers, not by the non-existant Avs or on-the-rise Wings or finally peaking Rangers.

And don't give me that b.s. about affording to lose big-market clubs. From purely a market standpoint, the league could stand to lose small media markets like Calgary and Carolina and Columbus that don't sell merchandise or tickets well on anything other than a local level. Those three from a hockey standpoint are welcome additions to the league, but in terms of the revenue numbers that have been bandied about are the weak links. Will some of this be addressed with the new CBA? Ideally, yes. But will there always be weak links in the chain (witness: Arizona Cardinals)? Of course. And the larger markets/bigger draws (which, admittedly, change over time) will always be "more important" in terms of league revenues than the smaller teams.

And HockeyCritter - the revenge mark wasn't necessarily directed at your comment. It's just this whole attitude of "we don't owe the big markets anything but a kick in the teeth cause it's all their fault. My precious little Oilers/Flames/Caps/Bruins/Pens/Isles/whoever were hurt by their high-spending ways, dangit, and I'm happy that they have to suffer. They deserve it" attitude that drives me bonkers.

The NHL wouldn't have gained the tenous foothold it has in the US nationally without the marketing power of the larger profile teams, and frankly, those are the teams that are going to get the national attention when this is settled even as new power emerged (I predict a SportsCenter special on "how the new CBA effects hockey teams - case study of the Avs, Wings, Rangers and some small market that will get very little attention in the story").

big market owners get alot.....

And guess what, its up to the big market owners to keep the big market fans happy.

IS anything becoming clear now?

 

[Kritter471]

I don't have the exact figures to back this up but, ESPN's broadcasts were a joke and drew flies. CBC's HNIC is the Rolls Royce of hockey broadcasting and it shows in the ratings, not only out drawing anything done in the States, but generating international numbers than make ESPN look dodgy as well. I'm so sick of all of this BS about how important the American broadcast market is, and how much money comes in from these broadcasts. Its a load and doesn't hold water. The NHL is being forced to give away their broadcasts because of the half assed job ESPN has done with them (Barry Melrose and Darren Pang are freaking embarassments) and a big part of why people can't get into hockey and the popularity spread. ESPN has been bleeding money for years on NHL broadcasts because no one wants to advertise on them, because no one watches them. Christ, ESPN has 10 times the population to draw from and doesn't match the numbers of the Canadian broadcasters for ratings or revenues. If the NHL wants to garner a bigger and better audience then need to junk ESPN, turn over the reigns to CBC/Sportsnet, and develop their own cable channel offered world wide. A better product with good pricing will garner better numbers, more revenues and a stringer base than the clownshow that has been ESPN and broadcasting in America.

You may be very right on the numbers comparison, and I'd be 100 percent behind a NHL-only cable channel (provided it's not a joke like the NFL or NBA networks. I hate those).

Let me make this point then. As a fan of soccer, I can say being a tier-2 sport in the US is a fate I don't think the NHL wants to suffer. The lack of media coverage on a local basis, the lack of major advertising dollars for any and all events (up to and including the All-Star game and playoffs), the circular inability to draw new fans because no one wants to go because it's considered a tier 2 sport because it can't attract new fans... It's not pretty.

The NHL needs its big market teams to keep the league visable on a national level, if not through games being aired then through highlights. The same way Red Sox-Yankees highlights draw right now (the way Jays-Pirates matchups once did) is what the NHL recieves when the Avs-Wings matchups are on, or Leafs-Rangers or whatever (or Oil-Islanders, back in the day). Those teams keep the sport in the US national consciousness the way the Hurricanes, Coyotes, Panthers and Wild don't at this point in time.

Trust me, the last thing the NHL needs when it comes back is less visibility. As the new-CBA takes hold, other teams may step up to become "big-market" in terms of marketing ablilty (Calgary and Tampa both have shots at this, San Jose has been trying for years and may finally take hold) but for now, what's going to keep the league in the US sports' fans eye are the Avs, the Wings and the Rangers.

AM - uh, no, not really. I still fail to see how an extra $40 million in Hicks pockets benefits the Stars (assuming he put the maximum investments into the non-player aspects of the organization).

 

[Resolute]

Yea, stupid fans. Who cares about them anyway.

Bottom line is you can say whatever you want about competative balance...but if Dolan can spend $70M on payroll, if he doesn't care about losing money annually, and IF NYR TICKETS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CHEAPER...than what's in it for me as a Rangers fan in NYC?

Nashville is now more competative because they don't have to make anymore money than they were making, but now teams that can afford $60M payrolls have to spend down to Nashville's level? It's great for Nashville, it's great for Dolan's wallet if he cares about making an annual profit from the Rangers, but what's in it for me? I can see both sides of the argument, but you can't ever blame a big market fan for not being happy he had to miss a season.

Whats in it for you as a Rangers fan? How about the cap will force your team to actually consider building a supporting cast, rather than spend a ton of money on a bunch of individuals who dont work well together?

If there is one large market team that will benefit on the ice from this CBA, it is the Rangers - once they dump Sather at least. There is no way the Rangers could possibly be more inept than they were the last seven years, but the new structure will more than likely force the Rangers to be better, even if it is just via dumb luck.

As for what's in it for you? Honestly, who cares whats in it for you? It is doubtful that you cared whether the last system worked for me, so I'm not going to waste my time worrying about your feelings. If you (large market fans in general) cannot handle having your team stuck on an equal footing with everyone else, then that is your (again, in general) problem, not mine.

If large market teams are worried that their management teams cannot succeed in the new framework, that is not the fault or concern of the small market teams. Hire better management, and you will do alright.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

...but for now, what's going to keep the league in the US sports' fans eye are the Avs, the Wings and the Rangers...

And there is the problem. That is why ESPN sucks ass and always will. To the casual fan the NHL is a three or four team league, because that's all they get to see. When you tell people that there are 30 teams in the NHL they are amazed. There are other teams out there that are just as good and deserve just as much exposure as the teams you mentioned. Hell, I think there are teams out there that deserve MORE attention. The Lightning, the Thrashers, the Sharks, The Preds, etc. are all good young teams that play exciting hockey. Add in ANY of the teams from north of the border and you have a bunch of teams that could immediately show the best the game has to offer.

IMO, the first thing the American broadcasters have to figure out is that the Canadian border doesn't exist when it comes to hockey. Stop with this stoneage mentality that only American teams draw in America. The only reason that attitude still exists is because of the propaganda spewed by the networks trying to garner ad revenues. Its BS and it doesn't sell. If the NHL wants to be a serious league they have to start showing ALL teams, especially the ones that play smash-mouth-in-your-face hockey that draws the fans in. Show the games that have some emotion in them. Calgary/Nashville. Toronto/Philadelphia. Vancouver/Colorado. Edmonton/Dallas. Etc. etc. etc. There are some good cross-pollination opportunities. Once that mental barrier is broken down, the better.

 

[se7en*]

As for what's in it for you? Honestly, who cares whats in it for you? It is doubtful that you cared whether the last system worked for me, so I'm not going to waste my time worrying about your feelings. If you (large market fans in general) cannot handle having your team stuck on an equal footing with everyone else, then that is your (again, in general) problem, not mine.

If large market teams are worried that their management teams cannot succeed in the new framework, that is not the fault or concern of the small market teams. Hire better management, and you will do alright.

Bingo.

 

[Kritter471]

And there is the problem. That is why ESPN sucks ass and always will. To the casual fan the NHL is a three or four team league, because that's all they get to see. When you tell people that there are 30 teams in the NHL they are amazed. There are other teams out there that are just as good and deserve just as much exposure as the teams you mentioned. Hell, I think there are teams out there that deserve MORE attention. The Lightning, the Thrashers, the Sharks, The Preds, etc. are all good young teams that play exciting hockey. Add in ANY of the teams from north of the border and you have a bunch of teams that could immediately show the best the game has to offer.

IMO, the first thing the American broadcasters have to figure out is that the Canadian border doesn't exist when it comes to hockey. Stop with this stoneage mentality that only American teams draw in America. The only reason that attitude still exists is because of the propaganda spewed by the networks trying to garner ad revenues. Its BS and it doesn't sell. If the NHL wants to be a serious league they have to start showing ALL teams, especially the ones that play smash-mouth-in-your-face hockey that draws the fans in. Show the games that have some emotion in them. Calgary/Nashville. Toronto/Philadelphia. Vancouver/Colorado. Edmonton/Dallas. Etc. etc. etc. There are some good cross-pollination opportunities. Once that mental barrier is broken down, the better.

Once again, we agree.

But again, it's the chicken and the egg theory. Show Calgary-Nashville (relatively smaller-market teams) and see how many people tune in. Then show Vancouver-Colorado (bigger-market teams) and see how many people you get. Advertise both games equally on a major US and Canadian network. Then compare numbers. In Canada, I'd guess they'd draw fairly equally, with a slight advantage to the Colorado-Vancouver game (divisional rivals, The Incident), but in the US I'd think the Colorado game would draw more, if with fairly anemic numbers to begin with.

It's a huge uphill struggle, one that's best addressed at the local level (i.e., get fans involved with a local team then broaden their scope to the entire league). But for people who are in markets without hockey, how do you draw them in? It takes a lot more money, time and effort to promote relative unknowns. If the league is willing to undertake this, it would do wonders for the overall health of the league, but up and to this point, there's been very little evidence of that.

But as of now, hockey is dangerously close to slipping to soccer in terms of US national relevence. So it becomes a "when do you pick your battles question." From my point of view, I'd spend a year or two re-establishing the sport as a whole with an emphasis on who casual fans know in terms of players and teams, and then move into phase-two of opening up the rest of the NHL to national attention.

 

[NYIsles1*]

You really could argue that the NHL would be more successful and stable today if it didnt have some of the big market clubs.

Without a doubt. Especially when the only thing big market about these teams are the payroll. The Rangers, Islanders were so much more popular in the seventies and eighties compared to the 21st century. Back then any Islander or Ranger game could get the back page in the city papers against any team in the regular season, payroll advantages were no factor in the league, in fact the Isles led the league in payroll for a few years.

Now, that's virtually impossible in the regular season and likely so during the playoffs.

These teams used to play and the hype started three days in advance, today it get's one article per team per paper with no hype. Today neither team can post a real sellout unless they play one another and opposing fans help fill each building.

The Rangers lost 40.9 million, could not fill the seats despite Dolan's padded attendance figures and could only get 60,000 home to tune into games and could not buy a headline to save themselves with an 80m dollar team. This lockout is for Dolan and Ranger fans just as much as it's for Nashville because New York City is not a big hockey market and Dolan could not get people interested no matter who they signed nor did the media care to be bothered with hockey win or lose. It's a big baseball market and the Rangers cannot compete with the other teams here for attention against a 200m dollar team or seven million fans interested in baseball and that's not going to change regardless of what the Rangers do on the ice.

Toronto profited, so did Vancouver and Minnesota. They are the big market fans who should be frustrated by a lockout.

Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, Dallas, St Louis, these teams claimed losses and are not entitled to anything but a reality check on how to do business.

 

[NYIsles1*]

But as of now, hockey is dangerously close to slipping to soccer in terms of US national relevence. So it becomes a "when do you pick your battles question." From my point of view, I'd spend a year or two re-establishing the sport as a whole with an emphasis on who casual fans know in terms of players and teams, and then move into phase-two of opening up the rest of the NHL to national attention.

David Beckham drew 50,000 people to Giants Stadium on a Tuesday afternoon with almost no media at all for a soccer game. Hockey is well below soccer in terms of US ratings and demographics. The television stations (Fox/Espn/ABC) gave us a decade of Philadelphia-Detroit-New York-Colorado-Boston. It failed to draw ratings on cable or free television.

If your going to get a 0.5 in New York and a 0.3 in Nashville, better to show the best players and not worry about markets. Casual fans in this market do not seem to notice a niche sport like hockey.

 

[Kritter471]

David Beckham drew 50,000 people to Giants Stadium on a Tuesday afternoon with almost no media at all for a soccer game. Hockey is well below soccer in terms of US ratings and demographics. The television stations (Fox/Espn/ABC) gave us a decade of Philadelphia-Detroit-New York-Colorado-Boston. It failed to draw ratings on cable or free television.

If your going to get a 0.5 in New York and a 0.3 in Nashville, better to show the best players and not worry about markets. Casual fans in this market do not seem to notice a niche sport like hockey.

To be fair (and I love soccer - it was the sport I grew up on in suburban Nashville and Dallas), the Beckham game was a one-time thing, an event that can almost be compared to the Edmonton outdoor game last year (or what it would have been like if that ourdoor game toured through all the major Canadian cities, one game in each town).

But men's national team friendlies can draw under 20,000 if the weather goes south and the MLS teams averaged 14,677 fans a game in 2003 (most recent season I could find full stats for). And as someone who volunteered for the Boston Breakers (WUSA) and New England Revolution (MLS), I can guarantee you those are somewhat inflated by free give-aways and other manners. I'd still say hockey takes up more of the average US sports' fan consciousness than soccer, worldwide, international or MLS, does.

 

[kdb209]

Without a doubt. Especially when the only thing big market about these teams are the payroll. The Rangers, Islanders were so much more popular in the seventies and eighties compared to the 21st century. Back then any Islander or Ranger game could get the back page in the city papers against any team in the regular season, payroll advantages were no factor in the league, in fact the Isles led the league in payroll for a few years.

Payroll advantages were not a factor in the league because salaries were so much lower that even small market teams could afford to keep players, develop a team over time, and affort to pay the payroll of a top team.

This is no longer true and things have fundamentally changed in the league over the last deacde.

From a previous post of mine in another thread:

Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

Nice theory. And it may have actually been true at one point in time, but not any more. Your theory only works if a winning team can afford to keep all their better players.

You would expect that if high payroll were caused by winning, rather than innate market differences, you would see a turnover in which teams were in the top 5 or top 10 in payroll, as teams develop, build, and rebuild over time.

Things have fundamentally changed over the last decade.

During the 5 years from 1989-90 to 1993-94:

13 different teams out of 21 (ignoring new expansion teams) or 62% of the league were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Buffalo Sabres
Hartford Whalers
Quebec Nordiques
Minnesota North Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los-Angeles Kings
Montreal Canadiens
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Winnipeg Jets
Pittsburgh Penguins
St. Louis Blues

The majority of these teams are not what you would describe as big market / big revenue teams. Teams in Buffalo, Hartford, Quebec, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh could actually afford to be competitive.

During the 5 years from 1999-00 to 2003-04:

Only 7 different teams out of 26 (ignoring new expansion teams) or only 27% were in the top 5 in payroll for at least one year:

Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
New-York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

All of these teams are big market / big revenue teams.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I don't have the exact figures to back this up but, ESPN's broadcasts were a joke and drew flies. CBC's HNIC is the Rolls Royce of hockey broadcasting and it shows in the ratings, not only out drawing anything done in the States, but generating international numbers than make ESPN look dodgy as well. I'm so sick of all of this BS about how important the American broadcast market is, and how much money comes in from these broadcasts. Its a load and doesn't hold water. The NHL is being forced to give away their broadcasts because of the half assed job ESPN has done with them (Barry Melrose and Darren Pang are freaking embarassments) and a big part of why people can't get into hockey and the popularity spread. ESPN has been bleeding money for years on NHL broadcasts because no one wants to advertise on them, because no one watches them. Christ, ESPN has 10 times the population to draw from and doesn't match the numbers of the Canadian broadcasters for ratings or revenues. If the NHL wants to garner a bigger and better audience then need to junk ESPN, turn over the reigns to CBC/Sportsnet, and develop their own cable channel offered world wide. A better product with good pricing will garner better numbers, more revenues and a stringer base than the clownshow that has been ESPN and broadcasting in America.

Yeah. Blame ESPN for the ****** product. You people think that Americans who see the sport as a bunch of toothless canadians running around with sticks hitting each other is going to be the #1 sport in the US because of Harry Neale and Bob Cole. I'm sure millions of NBA fans don't tune into the game to see the actual sport but some gimmick music video. Face it. Hockey is an exclusive sport for rich white people and you'll never see a black kid in Detroit or a hispanic kid in LA giving a damn about it. Every other sport crosses all racial lines. Hockey doesn't and never will.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Hockey is an exclusive sport for rich white people and you'll never see a black kid in Detroit or a hispanic kid in LA giving a damn about it. Every other sport crosses all racial lines. Hockey doesn't and never will.

Come to a game in Tampa -- you'll see whites, Hispanics and blacks. And a few others, as well.

 

[ej_pens]

You do know the Kings don't make a profit right?

Neither did the Rangers. Does that mean they aren't a big market?

7th in revenue does not make them a big market team.

7th in revenue combined with their market (both media and metro pop) and a brand new arena = big market in any book

You might want do a little homework and learn a little about the business.

Please enlighten me on what is a big market then!

 

[HockeyCritter]

Yea, stupid fans. Who cares about them anyway.

Bottom line is you can say whatever you want about competative balance...but if Dolan can spend $70M on payroll, if he doesn't care about losing money annually, and IF NYR TICKETS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CHEAPER...than what's in it for me as a Rangers fan in NYC?

Nashville is now more competative because they don't have to make anymore money than they were making, but now teams that can afford $60M payrolls have to spend down to Nashville's level? It's great for Nashville, it's great for Dolan's wallet if he cares about making an annual profit from the Rangers, but what's in it for me? I can see both sides of the argument, but you can't ever blame a big market fan for not being happy he had to miss a season.

It might force Dolan to actually field a real team --- a team that has chemistry, that is build through the draft and careful trades, and a team that can eventually win.

(I only hope so --- I think Dolan has done a hell of a lot more harm than good when it comes to the Rangers)

 

[HockeyCritter]

<< snipped>>>

And HockeyCritter - the revenge mark wasn't necessarily directed at your comment. It's just this whole attitude of "we don't owe the big markets anything but a kick in the teeth cause it's all their fault. My precious little Oilers/Flames/Caps/Bruins/Pens/Isles/whoever were hurt by their high-spending ways, dangit, and I'm happy that they have to suffer. They deserve it" attitude that drives me bonkers.

Erm, what the heck are you talking about ------ I never posted in this thread (prior to the response above) nor have I ever responded directly to you. The "comment" that you attribute to me is must assuredly not mine. I have never stated such a thing nor do I believe such a position is warranted. If you had any knowledge of who I am, where I’m from, and whom I support you would realize your claim is not only erroneous but also rather comical.

I suggest that you reread the thread and correct your error.

 

[Kritter471]

Erm, what the heck are you talking about ------ I never posted in this thread (prior to the response above) nor have I ever responded directly to you. The "comment" that you attribute to me is must assuredly not mine. I have never stated such a thing nor do I believe such a position is warranted. If you had any knowledge of who I am, where I’m from, and whom I support you would realize your claim is not only erroneous but also rather comical.

I suggest that you reread the thread and correct your error.

Sorry sorry! Someone else with the same initials. That's what I get for trying to respond from memory.

Bad Kritter. *slaps self on hand*