- Status
:lol Winnipeg doesn't "deserve" anything. Winnipeg failed as a franchise. Thats why they were moved. If they were to move back, they would need to pay 300+ million dollars for a new Arena. That isn't going t happen anytime soon.
Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.
I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.
Theres room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Franchises in Edmonton or Calgary (or Winnipeg or Hamilton) aren't going to get any better. Same for Buffalo and the Isles.
first of all I don't wish for anyone to be contracted so I will try not to offend anyone, but why is there room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix and Nashville but not Calgary?DownFromNJ said:
I would imagine Calgary had a better year in terms of profit in 03-04 than they did in 02-03 (the year you gave data for , which happened to be Calgary's 7th straight year out of the playoffs). wouldn't on ice product have something to do with it? I'm not understanding why Calgary needs to go right now
nomorekids
The original, baby
looooob said:first of all I don't wish for anyone to be contracted so I will try not to offend anyone, but why is there room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix and Nashville but not Calgary?
I would imagine Calgary had a better year in terms of profit in 03-04 than they did in 02-03 (the year you gave data for , which happened to be Calgary's 7th straight year out of the playoffs). wouldn't on ice product have something to do with it? I'm not understanding why Calgary needs to go right now
i agree with you, and personally don't think ANY teams should be contracted. It's just a few clowns who think all of hockey's problems coincide with expansion. shrug.
McDeepika
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2004
- 9,346
- 1,153
i find it funny how ppl are going by revenues when they should be going by attendence and how popular the sport is in that city which rules out all canadian teams being contracted. If a team gets 5-10 thousand ppl to their games i am sry they deserve to be contracted. I don't care if they make a profit the city doesn't deserve a hockey team. U guys want a valid arguement it would make for more entertaining hockey. U guys are just mad cuz we are mentioning ur teams that get about 10 thosand ppl so u come up with dumb remarks like i would contract every person who wants a team to be contracted
Cawz
Registered User
DownFromNJ said:
Until Canadas economy improves? I think you need to get a little more informed about the world before you post.
nomorekids said:
Exactly. Its such a small minded approach to the problems.
nomorekids
The original, baby
oilerlova said:
okay, how about this:
I believe everyone who can't be bothered to type out monosyllabic, three letter words should be contracted.
Better?
nomorekids
The original, baby
oilerlova said:
I don't need to, because any rational person knows that contraction would be a step backwards. And where are you getting your information? Revenues "shouldn't matter?" Only attendance should? That's called "cut to fit," in relation to your objectives. Hockey is a business...so not only do revenues "matter," they're EVERYTHING. If an owner is making money off of 14,000 a night...it doesn't matter to him how he gets it. Similarly, if a team sells out every night and is losing millions of dollars(as in the case of a couple of the Canadian teams,) then there's a problem. At the bottom of this, though, is the fact that neither the owners nor the players would support contraction. It would do nothing to improve the game, and wouldn only stunt the growth. You're quick to judge some of these teams as "failures," by the way. How can you gauge the success or failure of a team in such a short period of time? A period of time in which the on-ice product was mostly bad? Of course teams in new, non-traditional markets will struggle with attendance..when they're LOSING...but...as I mentioned earlier..so did the Red Wings. So did the Canucks. So did the Flames. When teams like Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta are putting out perennial contenders(which, through excellent drafting, all three likely will, eventually) THEN you can judge...if the attendance still isn't good. Give these markets a chance before you want them whisked back to a city that had poor attendance to start with(Winnipeg). Besides, the whole face of the situation will change if and WHEN this lockout is over and a more favorable CBA is in place.
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
oilerlova said:
I find it funny how you think a city with a team that makes a profit shouldnt have a hockey team. I'm taking a guess here that you would like me saying the Oilers should be contracted because they are at the bottom in terms of revenue as much as I like someone like you saying the Lightning should be contracted because Florida shouldnt have two hockey teams. Some people think contraction is the solution to the league, but in reality it isnt.
McDeepika
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2004
- 9,346
- 1,153
Hockeyfan02 said:
it has nothing to do with revenue in my mind as that will all change after the cba but the fact is y shouldn't we contract some teams i haven't given any names as i don't want to waste my time doing research but since u brought edmonton into this i will bring tampa into it. I remember during the finals they went on the streets before the game o it was madness there wasn't one tampa jersey where as in calgary ppl were going crazy that is the difference. Now Tampa might make more money becasue of tv contracts etc but u can't tell me that things like that don't matter. I mean a city that deserves a hockey team should be more excited then that when their team is a cup contender
McDeepika
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2004
- 9,346
- 1,153
nomorekids said:
yes such a bad idea i mean what was i thinking obviously i would rather see talent spread out all over the place and teams trapping like there is no tommorow. Why would i want to watch entertaining hockey with that being said i am sure there are 2 teams that could be contracted
me2
Go ahead foot
nomorekids said:
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).
The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.
Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help
).A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries. Most of them don't trap.
Last edited:
McDeepika
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2004
- 9,346
- 1,153
me2 said:A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).
The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.
Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries.
very true and i haven't given names of what teams to contract but i do think lets say CBJ is contracted if nash goes to a trapping team they might become a bit more offensive minded. I am not picking on them i just used them as an example
nomorekids
The original, baby
me2 said:A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).
The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.
Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries. Most of them don't trap.
I think the "talent dilution" is one of the biggest myths in hockey, though. There are fourth liners today who would have DOMINATED the NHL of the seventies. You have to realize that there was a necessary increase in teams do the huge influx of European players. 20 years ago, it wasn't an issue, because 95 percent of the players were all from Canada...but slowly, Russians were allowed in...more and more Finns surfaced, and Swedes followed. Now, you're seeing Latvians, Belarussians, Norwegians, Austrians and even Germans. There's more teams but there's also more deserving players. The question is: was the talent level higher back then...or did it just seem that way because there were less "superstars," making those that WERE super-talented stand out more?
nomorekids
The original, baby
oilerlova said:
The trap predates expansion, buddy. Jacques Lemaire would have been a coach regardless of whether there was 20 or 30 teams. The only difference would have been that he would have had even more skilled trappers, making his teams even more annoying to play against. Don't blame the trap on the amount of teams...blame it on its effectiveness.
Sotnos
Registered User
Huh? So money doesn't matter, what the streets looks like in some news clip matters? OKoilerlova said:
Do I need to find pictures for you of the 10,000+ people sitting outside the St. Pete Times Forum watching the game on the side of a fricken' parking garage in 90F temperatures because they couldn't get tickets, or is your memory not quite that short? You do know that Tampa set attendance records for the Finals, right? But forget all that money coming in, the streets weren't full of Lightning jerseys when they shot this footage for a news show! Contract them!
What is this "deserves" business all about anyway, I've never gotten a good answer on that one.
nomorekids
The original, baby
Sotnos said:
Maybe he thinks there's too many teams because the Oilers can't mediocre their way into the playoffs, anymore?
:lol
LadyJet26
LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
DownFromNJ said:
AGAIN, you know nothing.
THERE IS A NEW ARENA! MTS Centre The reason they never built that one 10 years ago when it only cost half of what it does now is because the flipping city of Winnipeg offices are so flipping anal and the fact that there wasn't anywhere to put a new one. You have no flipping clue about what happened when the Jets left. NOTHING.and the fact that Canadians live and breathe hockey means what to you? Population doesn't mean squat when it comes to the Canadian winter national sport.
apparently you didn't hear Bettman when he said that I forgot how much he said, but a certain amount of their decrease in debt came from the rising Canadian dollar alone. Last year it was suffering around 67 cents US, now it's at roughly 77 cents US. Oh and I think the idiots that closed the US border to live Canadian cattle because of ONE case of BSE (That's Mad Cow Disease), when in fact the case found here, the cow was from your country have something to do with the lousy economy. You do realize that has affected more then one business in this lovely country? Large animal vets, vet techs, vet assistants, farmers. And the little fact that our Prime Minister is more concerned about our health care not going americanized then about the economy.
Edmonton and Calgary both have fan bases, oh and look at that? Calgary made the finals last year
Again I say, you know nothing about the Canadian economy and you know nothing about the city I live in. Learn your flipping facts before you jump.
AVE MAN
Registered User
Eliminate all the american teams except for Detroit (hockey USA) and Boston (because Bobby Orr played there). Nobody cares about hockey in the U.S.
Bring the game back to where it was born, and where people actually know what icing means. Bring it back to the Country that doesn't need a glowing puck to follow the play.
For future NHL expansions there should be a rule,
No Tim Hortons Franchise...No Hockey Franchise
Bring the game back to where it was born, and where people actually know what icing means. Bring it back to the Country that doesn't need a glowing puck to follow the play.
For future NHL expansions there should be a rule,
No Tim Hortons Franchise...No Hockey Franchise
LadyJet26
LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
No American teams are good, just don't get why people keep saying that the NHL wouldn't work in Winnipeg.
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
oilerlova said:
Maybe it was your feed because what I saw during the finals and the conference finals for that matter were people sitting outside the arena to watch the games in 90 degree F heat. I do remember seeing Lightning jerseys in the streets and in that crowd. I didnt need a television feed to show that to me because I was actually at the majority of the playoff games. I dunno if a city is excited when it takes me almost 20 minutes to squeeze through people who are outside to watch the games on a big screen to be a part of the atmosphere (like some of my friends werea) just to get to the arena from a parking garage that is usually a half minute walk. I dont know maybe a tv feed showing Calgary fans in Tampa to a fan like yourself in Canada is a better indication of the excitement of a city than a person like me who actually lives in the city. I mean you can easily tell the excitement level from a tv feed than actually living in the city.......
nomorekids
The original, baby
- Status
