2005 Lockout - Did it have a positive lasting effect on you?

[End on a Hinote]

Ok, so it's no question the lockout sucked and I preffered that there wasn't one. But as a result of it, I got myself drawn into much more WHL and BCHL junior hockey than I ever had before since the NHL was #1 on my priorities list by Hells half acre.

Since then, I have taken Major Junior hockey much more seriously and have learned to follow it almost as closely as the NHL.

What about people here?


(If this thread already exists somewhere, feel free to lock)

Click to read more...

 

[Ishdul]

Absolutely not positive. It made for a boring year then and, in a History of Hockey sense, it screwed with a lot of the guys who missed a year of their prime and the teams who had a shot at the Cup.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I was here in Europe so I just took in more European games

 

[matCH penalty]

No. It sucked, and it's still a bitter memory.

 

[Up the Irons]

well, it gave me confidence in the sport/league. the league is better because of it when you consider there would be teams with payrolls in excess of 100mil by now and there is definitely more parity and spread out talent.

the sad part is there are almost no trades any more, and teams (a la Chicago) can't keep a good lineup together.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I moved into my first apartment in October 2004. I was very much looking forward to watching hockey in my cozy new digs.....

 

[JackFr]

It made the game better. That's about it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Youngsters

Many youngsters were introduced to the history of hockey when air time was dedicated to the various classic games and great players.

 

[Oowatanite]

Absolutely not positive. It made for a boring year then and, in a History of Hockey sense, it screwed with a lot of the guys who missed a year of their prime and the teams who had a shot at the Cup.

That's what I hate about Lockouts the most, is players in their prime missing a year.

 

[Hanji]

For those who played in Europe, it was interesting to see how they performed while not in an NHL setting.

 

[ricky0034]

I didn't even start watching hockey again at all until 2010

 

[Sensfanman]

Absolutely not positive. It made for a boring year then and, in a History of Hockey sense, it screwed with a lot of the guys who missed a year of their prime and the teams who had a shot at the Cup.

Alfredsson, Iginla and St. Louis agree. All missed a big time year that might have made them absolute locks for the HOF (though the latter two have become them since then).

So I hate the lockout for what it did to the Sens, but it made the game better so as a hockey fan, I think the pros outweigh the cons. The extraneous ramifications in terms of reputation and such notwithstanding.

 

[Lam7825]

of course, as a hockey fan in general, it sucked. I went to St Paul in September '04 to catch 2 games at the World Cup (US vs Russia, US vs Finland), knowing they'd be the last NHL-calibre players I'd see play that year.

I learned to appreciate NCAA hockey- and have been a big fan ever since (University of Minnesota, specifically). I had been a fan of juniors (WHL), but lost interest when our team relocated. So- I'm still an NHL fan (Bruins first, Wild second), and now the Golden Gophers. Since this board is supposed to be about "Hockey's Future" I guess it would be appropriate to appreciate where the prospects are coming from.

Lauri from Tacoma

 

[kmad]

If not for the lockout, the Luongo and Thornton trades might not have happened. Just those two moves alone have shaped the landscape of the league so significantly.

Lidstrom could have another Norris, Brodeur could have another Vezina, Iginla could have another 40 goals, Thornton could have another 100 points, Osgood could have another 30 wins, etc.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Depends. If the lockout was the only way to get the rule changes that made the game better then sure it was good. It shouldn't take a lockout to make said changes

 

[kdb209]

I found HFBoards during the lockout and have wasted too many damn hours here ever since - mostly on the Business of Hockey Board.

Does that count?

 

[Jonimaus]

The Swedish league got a lot better for a year, and that was fun!

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I actually preferred the game prior to the rule changes, shootouts and other gimmicks that have since been added. The parity is great, I suppose, but I don't really agree. I Was never really a fan of being able to tell a rich owner how much he or she is allowed to invest into their own private business. If you don't have the money to stay competitive, maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

Same thing in baseball. Everyone always complains about the yankees/bosox spending. My question is, why shouldn't they be allowed? You can still beat them with a smart business model and proper scouting/development that will often out do the big UFA's.
The Jays are looking like a team that could easily compete with both those teams in the coming years

 

[Vikke]

The Swedish league got a lot better for a year, and that was fun!

That season was amazing, the buzz around the SEL has never been that huge. Everyday there were transfer rumours, NHL superstar headlines etc.. I loved it. Wouldn't want another one, though

 

[IggyFan12]

Sakic would of had 1700 points, Iginla would be at 500 goals now, and if there was no lock out then the Flames would of thrived in the clutch and grab era. The year after the lock out however, inflated players point totals as the PP time was ridiculas, games would have about 15 PP's, so maybe it evens out a little bit no?

Would Ovie of played in the 05 season if there was one or would he of stayed in Russia for one more year?

Also Team Canada at the Olypics maybe they dont stink up the joint if all there players had been playing all along?

 

[FinHockey]

I wasn't a huge hockey fan at the time. Sure I watched some SM-liiga and international hockey but I knew nothing about the NHL. So at the time it didn't matter to me at all but in hindsight I believe it was good for the game.

 

[Big Phil]

Alfredsson, Iginla and St. Louis agree. All missed a big time year that might have made them absolute locks for the HOF (though the latter two have become them since then).

Yes, that one really sucked for Alfie. He is a guy that even the most adamant haters of him can admit he has some borderline HHOF qualities. Considering 2004-'05 was in between two really great seasons for him then we can only suggest he is among the NHL's elite then as well.

How about Markus Naslund? I know a lot of people figure he was on his way down as it is, but three straight seasons where you are the best player in the NHL during that time span (honestly, who else?) tells me that he still could have had another elite year in him. With 4 supreme seasons under his belt and some more good ones all of the sudden it looks a little sexier than three straight seasons.

Marian Hossa had a great year in 2004. Maybe another great season wouldn't put him over the top for the HHOF, but it wouldn't hurt either.

The lockout also forced us to say good bye to players like Stevens, MacInnis, Francis etc. The former two still had hockey left in them but a year off when you are 40 is hard to take. We also had to see Bettman's mug all the time as well as Goodenow's. Grown men were forced to watch movies with their wives that replaced hockey on Saturday nights, or any other night. So yeah, still bitter about it for sure and I am already bitter about missing another year in 2012...............what?

 

[CHGoalie27]

No. It sucked, and it's still a bitter memory.

Add words that would get anyone banned, and this.

 

[Killion]

I am already bitter about missing another year in 2012...............what?

Nothing to Fehr that way. Im more concerned about the Mayan Calendar actually.

 

[Bexlyspeed]

It totally killed hockey for me and i really only started to watch again this past season.

i am nowhere near a big a fan of the NHL as i was pre-lockout.