A way that Bettman and the league could sell me on a cap

  • Thread starter A Good Flying Bird*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
Seriously though, Bettman is a Madison Ave lawyer.
He decided it was important to put hockey in major US markets (for national tv revenue purposes, I'd guess.)

Well, we know it doesn't work now, don't we.

1) Just because the NHL got stuck with a dog of a TV deal, I don't think that it's necessarily PHO, CAR or FLA's fault.
2) How long do you give a franchise to establish a fanbase? Especially one where you don't have a historically "connection". Add in expansion rules that make if very challenging to build a team that is competetive initially, so most expansion teams don't have the play-off history to generate interest.
3) If the salary miraculously capped at $30M, isn't this still probably twice the average salary level when the teams relocated from QUE & WINN?
4) Wouldn't you rather have a population of 3-4M people than 1M (or less) to draw fans from. Add in that there is more corporate spending in larger towns as well.

I think you're just compounding the NHL's current issue of the HUGE difference's between the "have's" & the "have-not's". QUE & WINN would become the bottom, and I can't imagine they'd be able to support a $30M team salary, but that's just me.
 

Ismellofhockey

Registered User
Mar 31, 2002
2,843
0
Visit site
tulsytrid1 said:
http://www.hockeyresearch.com/mfoster/business/nhl_attn.html

Every team, yes even some of the teams in Canada, has bad years attendance wise. For instance, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Tampa Bay, and Florida had a better Attendance record their first five years in the league than Ottawa. The Jets never averaged over 13,750 fans; however in "the desert" the yotes have only had an average attenedance of under 14K twice since moving to Arizona. Carolina had over 15k average over the last couple of seasons which is better than Hartford ever averaged. I do feel sorry for the cities that lost teams in the past; it would suck a major one if the Preds moved; however, to say that the US teams...especially ones from the south does not support hockey is just plain wrong...just look at the attendance figures. No relocation...no contraction. The ones who usually scream contraction are the fans who would OMIT thier favorite team from the possibility of contraction/relocation. Look at the Dallas Stars just for a guideline. It takes a while to build a fan base; winning year in and year out helps speed that process along like it has in Dallas.

Ottawa had to play in the 10,000 seat Civic Centre for 4 years, that explains their low attendance record.
As for fans in Winnipeg and Quebec, Minnesota had problems, came back and have been selling out ever since their return. Colorado had problems, came back and have sold out nearly every game, even Atlanta came back.

Is it fair to say that Minnesota and Colorado fans didn't support the North Stars and Rockies? It's hard to support a team that's threatening to relocate, it's hard to support a team that's always in the league's basement because they can't afford the salaries.

That doesn't mean the NHL can't be viable in those markets. Put a team back in Winnipeg and Quebec today and there would be a frenzy.

I actually have no problem with a team in Phoenix or Carolina, the only problem is that in those cities a fanbase must be created while some hockey markets with existing fanbases are being snubbed. That doesn't seem right to me. Seems to me you need to cater to your existing fans before creating new ones. Expansion is fine, just not at the expense of other cities.
 

The Gabe Blade

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
4,995
1,613
The problem isnt where the teams are located. The problem is marketing. I live in LA and we have a lot of sell outs, but seriously, how hard should it be to sell out an arena of 18,000 to a city/area of millions? Pro Bowling has higher rating than hockey. It is the game that is the problem, not locations. The NHL's marketing sucks, the changes to the game have all but stopped scoring, and the instigator rule sucks ass.
 

rockon83

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
271
0
Manhattan(MA native)
John Flyers Fan said:
http://www.proximityone.com/plc100.htm

As of this time (2000) Phoenix was 6th. It passed Philadelphia about 2 years ago, I don't have a direct link for that, but it was headlines in the Philly papers.
Those numbers mean nothing. Those are city populations. Not metro area population. Because the city line stops at one spot, doesn't mean much. Where the large poopulation stops is what matters. Look at Boston. The city limits are small. That list shows Boston as having 589,000 for a population.

If you look here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884087.html You'll see Boston as having 5.8 million people. Metro areas are more accurate, as the city lines mean nothing as far as population. The best site is www.census.gov for good info.
 

Dadof5boys

Registered User
May 25, 2003
1,596
61
Murfreesbo Tennessee
Visit site
Ismellofhockey said:
it's hard to support a team that's always in the league's basement because they can't afford the salaries..

The expansion teams haven't exactly lit the league on fire as far as standings are concerned. It took 6 years for the Predators to even get a sniff of post season play. Atlanta hasn't made it yet nor has Columbus. My point is excactly what you said earlier and that is most teams in most markets need marginal success in order to build a fan base. I am not saying that Winnipeg or Quebec do not deserve teams. I am just saying that a lot of the southern markets do.
 

Kaiped Krusader

Registered User
Jul 1, 2004
248
0
Rylan up the Opposition
John Flyers Fan said:
http://www.proximityone.com/plc100.htm

As of this time (2000) Phoenix was 6th. It passed Philadelphia about 2 years ago, I don't have a direct link for that, but it was headlines in the Philly papers.
That's an interesting statistic. It must be based on the population entirely within the city limits and completely discount the surrounding metropolitan area, though. Going by that page, Atlanta is the 39th largest city in the U.S., which may well be the case. But metropolitan Atlanta sprawls on for ages though and I doubt it's smaller than the cities Virginia Beach, Albequerque, Charlotte, El Paso, Austin, Columbus, Memphis, Milwaukee and several more cities, suburbs inclusive, ranked higher than it on that list.

Phoenix may indeed be the fifth largest city in the country, but according to this site it's the 14th largest metro area:

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122099c.htm

That's a little closer to what I'd originally thought - maybe a little bit higher even.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I mean, that's the only thing that excites me about a salary cap. The opportunity to let hockey work in hockey markets.

Forget about trying to appease the national audience. Let the game flourish. And people will watch.

Hear hear! The NHL needs to stop trying to bastardize the game to appease networks who aren't interested in the first place. When the local NHL broadcast can compete routinely with network programming they will come to you. Not before. So get the game on the ice fixed. Roll back the rules changes to a pre-Bettman era configuration and scoring will increase as will the ruff tuff play that most fans love.

But listening to players whine constantly about displaying their gawd awlmighty "skills" or the Hockey News' relentless campaign for visors and shootouts isn't helping.
-HckyFght!
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HckyFght said:
Hear hear! The NHL needs to stop trying to bastardize the game to appease networks who aren't interested in the first place. When the local NHL broadcast can compete routinely with network programming they will come to you. Not before. So get the game on the ice fixed. Roll back the rules changes to a pre-Bettman era configuration and scoring will increase as will the ruff tuff play that most fans love.

But listening to players whine constantly about displaying their gawd awlmighty "skills" or the Hockey News' relentless campaign for visors and shootouts isn't helping.
-HckyFght!

Scoring will never rise back to the previous levels, and they don't haev to. Scoring chances are what need to be increased. Goalies today are far too good to ever let scoring increase to old levels.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
Scoring will never rise back to the previous levels, and they don't haev to. Scoring chances are what need to be increased. Goalies today are far too good to ever let scoring increase to old levels.

Agreed. I want more end to end hockey.
Less trapping. Less clutch and grab hook and slash.
That's all I want. A return to the flow of the early 90s, 80s, 70s, even if the goals don't reach prior levels
 

London Knights

Registered User
Jun 1, 2004
831
0
How can the NHL sell a cap to the neutral to pro-player side? Offer one within reason. Don't tag on pointless additions when you have a cap.

If you cap teams at 32-35 million what is the point of having a stricter arbitration system. Are they going to argue over the colour of their jerseys? Yes there would still be possible things to argue over, but to put in a strict arbitration system when you have already limited teams to 1-2 superstars each really defeats the purpose.

Don't say you are trying to do what is best for the fans when you are obviously doing what is best for the billionaire owners. This isn't about the fans. This isn't about paying the players what they deserve. This is entirely about padding the financial statements in the owners favour.

And lastly, if you are so interested in fixing the game, do something. I saw people giving Bettman and the league credit for Shanahan's summit on the state of the game. The only thing Bettman said was that it was a good idea. Was he there? Did he initiate it? Was most of what they came up with stuff that hockey people have been screaming for anyway? No, No, and YES!

The only thing you have done for the past 3 months is insult your product, the players, alienate you consumer, the fans, and place more negative media attention on the league than any other CEO would ever dream of doing, see the pointless media interviews. Go tell me we have plenty of time to work out a new CBA at the All-Star game in Atlanta this year Gary...oh wait there isn't one.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Agreed. I want more end to end hockey.
Less trapping. Less clutch and grab hook and slash.
That's all I want. A return to the flow of the early 90s, 80s, 70s, even if the goals don't reach prior levels

You mean more like the European game on the big ice?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
You mean more like the European game on the big ice?

No. I mean more like early 90s NHL.
Lots of room to skate.
Big hits. Acrobatic goaltending.
Back then the neutral zone was a place on the way to where you were going.
Now it's the dominant section of the ice.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
No. I mean more like early 90s NHL.

Well that's easy enough to do. Kill the instigator rule, trim the roster by four skaters and let nature takes its course. Then you'll have to have a couple of goons on the bench and remove a couple of guys dedicated to checking. More mistakes will happen as the skill players get tired or take shifts that are too long. It will be just like the good old days.

Actually, those days are gone. The players that are in the NHL now a days are just too damn good. Even the worst skater in the league today would be considered average in the late 80's early 90's. Brad Marsh would be AHL fodder in today's hockey, not a guy who played over 1000 games. The skill level has actually improved dramatically. Checking has become a skill and is taught at all levels. What used to be an anomoly is now considered an crucial part of any team. If you had a single checker on your team in the 80's you had something special. Now you have two lines that are assigned to check. The game has changed as have the dynamics of the players coming into the league. There are too many good skaters for the league to see the wide open play like you did in the early 90's.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
as if there's a goalie playing today as good as Ken Dryden...
H
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HckyFght said:
as if there's a goalie playing today as good as Ken Dryden...
H

If Ken Dryden was magically transported into the NHL today he'd have trouble even making it in the NHL today.

In the regual NHL players is say 50% better than his counterpart of the 1970's, then goalies would be about 300% better.

If Ken Dryden made Theodore's 67 starts last year the Habs would have been closer to getting Ovechkin than the 2nd round of the playoffs.



*** This is not a rip on Dryden, the same could be said about Parent, Esposito, Plante, Sawchuk etc.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
John Flyers Fan said:
If Ken Dryden was magically transported into the NHL today he'd have trouble even making it in the NHL today.

In the regual NHL players is say 50% better than his counterpart of the 1970's, then goalies would be about 300% better.

If Ken Dryden made Theodore's 67 starts last year the Habs would have been closer to getting Ovechkin than the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Sorry, but that's unadulterated garbage. The best players of the past would continue to be the best players today.

In 20 years, you'll understand, because you'll be looking back trying to defend the likes of Iginla and Kovalchuk, telling anyone claiming they couldn't make the modern NHL of 2024 that they were nuts.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Sorry, but that's unadulterated garbage. The best players of the past would continue to be the best players today.

In 20 years, you'll understand, because you'll be looking back trying to defend the likes of Iginla and Kovalchuk, telling anyone claiming they couldn't make the modern NHL of 2024 that they were nuts.

So, you're telling me that the game hasn't improved one bit in 20 years ??? :dunno:


I'm not saying that Dryden, Parent etc. shouldn't still be considered all-time great players and Hall of Famers. When you looking back you compare them against your peers.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
So, you're telling me that the game hasn't improved one bit in 20 years ??? :dunno:

Yes, the game has improved in 20 years, primarily because of training methods and technology. Skates alone are night and day. If Bobby Hull had the one piece carbon fiber sticks they have today he would have killed goaltenders with his shot. If Dryden had the advantage of strapping on the equipment that Patrick Roy or JS Giguere got to, he would have been impossible to score on. Dryden played some of the best goal the game has seen. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done without the fear of getting hurt, unlike today's goaltenders.

You don't understand the challenges that these old timers faced in equipment, especially the goaltenders. They felt every shot back then and were iced down every game. No goaltender played 67 games in a season because they couldn't! The equipment wouldn't allow it. Goaltenders were not able to play the butterfly effectively because they were putting their most protected asset (their deer hair goal pads) on the ice and were exposing their poorly protected upper body to the shooter. They may have stopped the puck, but they felt it and were hurting because of these saves. The goaltenders today have huge suits of armor that absorb shots and the goaltenders barely feel them. This equipment covers up huge amounts of the net allowing the goaltender to wait for the puck to hit him. The goaltenders of old were trying to use their gloves to stop the puck and wanted to use their bodies as little as possible. Reflexes were the most important thing for a goaltender in Dryden's day. Today being able to play the engles is the most important thing. That's the difference equipment makes.

The second biggest difference is training. Players of years gone by didn't train much and player sof today over train. I think that if you took the players of years gone by and put them on a training regiment like the players of today are on they would be even better and make todays players look sick. The Hulls, the Howes, the Drydens, the Richards would be in a class by themselves much like Lemieux and Gretzky were in their day. There is no player in the NHL that compares to these guys. They were heads and tails above their peers and would still be today.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Yes, the game has improved in 20 years, primarily because of training methods and technology. Skates alone are night and day. If Bobby Hull had the one piece carbon fiber sticks they have today he would have killed goaltenders with his shot. If Dryden had the advantage of strapping on the equipment that Patrick Roy or JS Giguere got to, he would have been impossible to score on. Dryden played some of the best goal the game has seen. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done without the fear of getting hurt, unlike today's goaltenders.

You don't understand the challenges that these old timers faced in equipment, especially the goaltenders. They felt every shot back then and were iced down every game. No goaltender played 67 games in a season because they couldn't! The equipment wouldn't allow it. Goaltenders were not able to play the butterfly effectively because they were putting their most protected asset (their deer hair goal pads) on the ice and were exposing their poorly protected upper body to the shooter. They may have stopped the puck, but they felt it and were hurting because of these saves. The goaltenders today have huge suits of armor that absorb shots and the goaltenders barely feel them. This equipment covers up huge amounts of the net allowing the goaltender to wait for the puck to hit him. The goaltenders of old were trying to use their gloves to stop the puck and wanted to use their bodies as little as possible. Reflexes were the most important thing for a goaltender in Dryden's day. Today being able to play the engles is the most important thing. That's the difference equipment makes.

The second biggest difference is training. Players of years gone by didn't train much and player sof today over train. I think that if you took the players of years gone by and put them on a training regiment like the players of today are on they would be even better and make todays players look sick. The Hulls, the Howes, the Drydens, the Richards would be in a class by themselves much like Lemieux and Gretzky were in their day. There is no player in the NHL that compares to these guys. They were heads and tails above their peers and would still be today.

I know why the players of today are better than they used to be.

I wasn't saying that if Dryden was born in 1980 and grew up in this era that he wouldn't still be great. Tht wasn't the argument.

All players are bettter today due to better coaching, training, equipment etc. etc.


BTW: goalies routinely played 60+ games back in the 1970's as well.


IMO the biggest reason why goalies have improved more than regular skaters is that for the most part is that goalies used to be the worst athletes/skaters on the team when they were kids growing up.

Now goalies are quite ofter the best athletes on the team.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
If Ken Dryden was magically transported into the NHL today he'd have trouble even making it in the NHL today.

QUOTE]

You must never have seen these guys play. Sad, really. Oh add Billy Smith and Grant Fuhr to the list. The entire Patrick Division of the 80's NHL would go undefeated in the pansy league we have today. No brag, just fact, ma'am. Spending time in a gym pumping iron may make you big and strong, but it doesn't make you tough.
-HckyFght!
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HckyFght said:
You must never have seen these guys play. Sad, really. Oh add Billy Smith and Grant Fuhr to the list. The entire Patrick Division of the 80's NHL would go undefeated in the pansy league we have today. No brag, just fact, ma'am. Spending time in a gym pumping iron may make you big and strong, but it doesn't make you tough.
-HckyFght!


I've seen them play. Had season tickets then , and still have them now. Just recently re-watched a few games from the 80's

1985 Flyers-Rangers - First round & 1987 Game 6, Stanley Cup finals Flyers-Oilers.

If todays Flyers team played the Flyers team from the mid-1980's (my favorie Flyers teams) todays Flyers team would absoltely smoke the teams from the 1980's.

It's why you can't compare era's. Those teams were great for the 1980's but todays Flyers are:

#1. Much bigger.
#2. Much faster.
#3. Far better coached.
#4. Far more physical.

The NHL game played today is much more physical than it ever has been. Yes, the fighting has disappeared, thanks to the instigator, but for overall physicality the game to blows away what we saw in the 70's and 80's.

Too often we remember the past as the good old days ... and "old time hockey" .... "men were men" .... bottom line is that it isn't true.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
IMO the biggest reason why goalies have improved more than regular skaters is that for the most part is that goalies used to be the worst athletes/skaters on the team when they were kids growing up.

Now goalies are quite ofter the best athletes on the team.

Bull. Goaltenders have always been some of the best athletes on the team. They had the best stamina, flexability and hand eye coordination on the team. You ever try and skate on those flat blades on that 40 pounds of equipment, especially the old deer hair pads? You had to be one helluva skater to get around the crease as effectively as those guys did. It was always fun to watch a goaltender lace up some tubes and watch him dangle. The goaltenders were always the best skaters on the team, they just never got show it. These weren't little kids you were talking about here, where goaltender was not the glory position and all the kids wanted to play. We're talking about the best the game has to offer. All of these players were excellent athletes.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
#1. Much bigger.
#2. Much faster.
#3. Far better coached.
#4. Far more physical.

#5. Much more over rated. :eek:
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Bull. Goaltenders have always been some of the best athletes on the team. They had the best stamina, flexability and hand eye coordination on the team. You ever try and skate on those flat blades on that 40 pounds of equipment, especially the old deer hair pads? You had to be one helluva skater to get around the crease as effectively as those guys did. It was always fun to watch a goaltender lace up some tubes and watch him dangle. The goaltenders were always the best skaters on the team, they just never got show it. These weren't little kids you were talking about here, where goaltender was not the glory position and all the kids wanted to play. We're talking about the best the game has to offer. All of these players were excellent athletes.


No they were not. Great goalies like Bernie Parent, Gump Worsely etc. were not great athletes and not in the best of shape.

Quick reflexes ? Yes, but for the most part (always are exceptions) goalies were usually near the bottom of the teams list when it came to athleticism.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,655
37,447
John Flyers Fan said:
Phoenix makes far more sense than some of the teams in the SE: Nashiville, Carolina, Miami etc.

Phoenix just recently passed Philadelphia to become the 5th most populated city in the US.

Houston is 4th and they can't hold down an AHL team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->