Which GM said this?

[RangerBoy]

From the Larry Brooks column today

From Page Six: Just asking, but which GM who works for a publicly-hawkish owner told his club's player rep on Friday that if he were still in the league, there's not a chance he'd even consider signing anything that the league has offered?

http://newyorkpost.com/sports/40439.htm

Publicly-hawkish?Cal Nicholls,Peter Karmanos,Jeremy Jacobs

Bill Wirtz is a hawk in more ways than one but he has not said one word.Ted Leonsis has not been publicly-hawkish

Former player who is a GM from a publicly hawkish team?It's either Kevin Lowe,Jim Rutherford or Mike O'Connell

I think its Rutherford

Click to read more...

 

[Bruwinz37]

I think it is probably totally fabricated, much like everything in Brooks' articles.

 

[ArizonaGreenTea]

Quebec is no longer in the NHL and neither is Winnipeg, and they're better hockey markets than about a third of the current league.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

I dont think it's Lowe. Although he was one of the more vocal PA dudes back in 94. But then again we dont have a PA rep.

 

[IslesRule]

Larry Brooks is a moron, and writes nothing but pro-player articles. My guess is he made this up, like much of the "info" in his column, it’s total nonsense.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Larry Brooks is a moron, and writes nothing but pro-player articles. My guess is he made this up, like much of the "info" in his column, it’s total nonsense.

No kidding eh? ...He was on the radio like a couple weeks back here in Edmonton and said that the Union was looking out for the small market teams while Gary was looking out for only the big boys....Right Larry, thats why Bettman hasnt caved yet you tool

 

[barnburner]

If Larry Brooks said it - it's a lie.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I dont think it's Lowe. Although he was one of the more vocal PA dudes back in 94. But then again we dont have a PA rep.

It's certainly not Lowe, who has threatened to quit if there ain't any form of certainty because it's just too hard being Edmonton's GM with the current NHL economic system.

 

[ryz]

From the Larry Brooks column today

From Page Six: Just asking, but which GM who works for a publicly-hawkish owner told his club's player rep on Friday that if he were still in the league, there's not a chance he'd even consider signing anything that the league has offered?

http://newyorkpost.com/sports/40439.htm

Publicly-hawkish?Cal Nicholls,Peter Karmanos,Jeremy Jacobs

Bill Wirtz is a hawk in more ways than one but he has not said one word.Ted Leonsis has not been publicly-hawkish

Former player who is a GM from a publicly hawkish team?It's either Kevin Lowe,Jim Rutherford or Mike O'Connell

I think its Rutherford

Larry Brooks is a comlete tool. The fact that he said that leaves no doubt in my mind that it is absolutely false and completely fabricated.

 

[transplant99]

Which GM said this?

Likely the GM of the Motor City Mechanics.

 

[oildrop]

It's certainly not Lowe, who has threatened to quit if there ain't any form of certainty because it's just too hard being Edmonton's GM with the current NHL economic system.

Yeah, I totally agree here. Lowe has stated many many times that he is in favor of a new CBA and he knows Bettman is trying to help the smaller markets.

 

[dedalus]

I suspect that every day brings news which makes Larry Brooks more upset as it makes him look more silly.

Where is the Larry Brooks who said that Bettman would never dare lift the gag order?

Where is the Larry Brooks who confidently stated that the owners would cave next January, fire Bettman, and crawl to Goodenow to cut a deal?

I think poor Larry is beginning to truly realize that he's hitched his wagon to the wrong team. (But that's okay; he'll continue to tell us how brave he is for defending the truth.)

 

[speeds]

Yeah, I totally agree here. Lowe has stated many many times that he is in favor of a new CBA and he knows Bettman is trying to help the smaller markets.

what would make anyone think that Lowe's on-the-record thoughts are the same as his off-the-record thoughts?

If he was a solid union guy before, then it's certainly possible he still feels that way now but can't say so given his current job. He might well be the guy Brooks is referring to; I certainly wouldn't rule him out.

 

[s7ark]

what would make anyone think that Lowe's on-the-record thoughts are the same as his off-the-record thoughts?

If he was a solid union guy before, then it's certainly possible he still feels that way now but can't say so given his current job. He might well be the guy Brooks is referring to; I certainly wouldn't rule him out.

Then why say anything about quitting at all? Why not keep his mouth shut? I don't see it. Doesn't make sense to me. I would rule out Lowe for sure.

But then I would rule everyone out as I have no faith in Brooks at all. I would put much more faith in him just making that up. The guy is a joke.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Larry Brooks
A league with no television presence — more on that in a few moments — needs strong franchises in its biggest U.S. television markets. This isn't meant to denigrate any city, any town, any community, any citizen who lives in a small market. It's fact. It's business. It is much more important for the NHL to have marquee teams in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston and Dallas than it is to rig the system in favor of Carolina, Nashville, Buffalo, Edmonton and Phoenix.

Funny, isn't it, that David Stern seems to understand the importance of big market success, or were all those charges about NBA playoff officiating being, uh, generously manipulated in favor of the Lakers or Bulls matched by others claiming favoritism for Milwaukee or Memphis?

So here's the deal according to Brooks. We have to set up the league, games, financial structure and the media in such a way that these so called large markets (on paper only) that did little to nothing for the league or it's viability as a business no matter what they spent (and lost financially) for years to continue to have advantages regardless of how much it costs this business.

When is Larry Brooks going to get it? There are no major hockey markets in the US outside of Detroit on it's best day. Philadelphia got to the seventh game of the conference finals and had as much impact as Nashville or Carolina for all this big market talk by Brooks.

Maybe he should look at his own sports section and the dozen or so pages dedicated to baseball today and realize hockey is not a major sport in his own market and nothing is going to change that.

 

[SuperUnknown]

So here's the deal according to Brooks. We have to set up the league, games, financial structure and the media in such a way that these so called large markets (on paper only) that did little to nothing for the league or it's viability as a business no matter what they spent (and lost financially) for years to continue to have advantages regardless of how much it costs this business.

Anyway, it makes it sound like professional sports should be "arranged". That's a sad joke.

Besides, if his theory is so sound, why is the NFL so strong despite having many smaller markets team do quite well?

 

[s7ark]

So here's the deal according to Brooks. We have to set up the league, games, financial structure and the media in such a way that these so called large markets (on paper only) that did little to nothing for the league or it's viability as a business no matter what they spent (and lost financially) for years to continue to have advantages regardless of how much it costs this business.

When is Larry Brooks going to get it? There are no major hockey markets in the US outside of Detroit on it's best day. Philadelphia got to the seventh game of the conference finals and had as much impact as Nashville or Carolina for all this big market talk by Brooks.

Maybe he should look at his own sports section and the dozen or so pages dedicated to baseball today and realize hockey is not a major sport in his own market and nothing is going to change that.

Wow, that is one of the stupider things I have read by Brooks. And that is saying a lot. The NFL is the most financially viable sports league in NA and it succeeds by having a system where any team can win it all. Look at the Packers. By having a league where any team can win, fans in ALL cities stay interested. That is how a league stays profitable, not by letting the big cities win it every year.

 

[Guest]

My guess is that Bobby Clarke would make that comment. It all adds up to me, but who knows.

Slightly off topic, oddly enough, but doesn't it seem like nearly every thread is off topic after about 10 posts?

 

[bleedgreen]

brooks is generally full of it, if it based in any fact at all it was probably misquoted. i dont think its ruthereford, he is always been right in step with the pro owner side. he has had to trade multiple players who wanted more money than he wanted to spend, and has worked under a fairly tight budget for years. even if he said he wouldnt have accepted the owners offer, whats the surprise here? no one would have accepted those triggers, no one is surprised it was turned down. it was something to be negotiated from, regardless of what hicks said. no offer will be flat out accepted without negotiation - thats the point here.

 

[tmangos]

... Former player who is a GM from a publicly hawkish team?...

Wouldn't that kind of point to Bob Pulford? (not sure if he's still the GM of the Hawks, tho').

 

[Fish on The Sand]

No kidding eh? ...He was on the radio like a couple weeks back here in Edmonton and said that the Union was looking out for the small market teams while Gary was looking out for only the big boys....Right Larry, thats why Bettman hasnt caved yet you tool

If that was the case, the players would have gone on strike against the current deal.