Hey, I just assumed we were talking about what was best for the game here. You seem to have Lou Lamoriello syndrome. I'm a fan in the Eastern time zone. I live close enough to my team to hold season tickets and attend games. My team is in the Western conference. Why do you get the better end of the deal?
anybody hear maclean interview bettman @ the allstar game ?
- Thread starter nuckfan insk
- Start date
Hey, I just assumed we were talking about what was best for the game here. You seem to have Lou Lamoriello syndrome. I'm a fan in the Eastern time zone. I live close enough to my team to hold season tickets and attend games. My team is in the Western conference. Why do you get the better end of the deal?
parkdale lad
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2006
- 332
- 0
saskganesh
Registered User
they are only "tough questions" if they have some basis in reality. Maclean is a poofball and is no Dave Hodge, which was/is the point.
Why should you?
There's no ideal solution to address everyone's concerns and problems, but they're a lot closer with the present format then the idea of stretching the division across a continent. You will lose interest if Halifax in Vancouver doesn't start until 11pm AST, and you will lose interest if Vancouver in Halifax starts at 3pm PST. It is fine for one or two games over the course of a season, but if you put them in divisions and enforce the divisional play, that's maybe 7 games that don't work out for one of the main TV viewing audiences. Throw in Edmonton and Calgary and there's a quarter of the season that really isn't ideal for either team's viewing market.
It's one of the reasons why NHL hockey in Halifax is a bad idea. But it's also a good indicator why horizontal divisions aren't the best either. The same situation can be seen with Tampa and Florida playing Anaheim, San Jose and Los Angeles. It's still a three hour time difference.
I can understand it being good in the sense of Canadian teams playing against one another (I love hockey day in Canada), but it doesn't make sense when spread across the expanse of an entire schedule.
On a side note, does anyone have a list of what the actual divisions were?
Please continue to ignore the obvious. I want the same deal all my Eastern time zone brethren are getting.
My team's TV ratings probably tank on all those trips to the West. I can't stay up to watch a game that goes until 1AM. Maybe the better question is... why do 1-2 teams have to take it on the chin and accept all the things you just outlined as unacceptable to teams in the Eastern time zone, and thus the reason horizontal realignments are bad business.
Hank19
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2005
- 1,870
- 1
It was far better than MacLean's weekly interview with Colin Campbell where pretty much the whole conversation is Ron complaining about how he hates the 'new' NHL and argueing how clutching and grabbing would actually increase scoring.
I almost fell off my seat when he showed ONE example of how hooking would have created a scoring chance.
I respect Ron MacLean but I am so sick and tired of him bashing this game with every breath in his body.
Bettman is not the enemy. He's bought and paid for by the BOG. In fact, he recently commented about how he pushed very, very hard to change the current schedule to feature more games between the conferences but the BOG shot it down.
Bettman also implemented several rules and stipulations to help Canadian teams and it's in my opinion, based on facts, that Bettman actually saved both Edmonton and Ottawa from extinction. He knows full well that the NHL's strength relies on Canada. He's not going to shoot his largest market in the foot.
But I do agree with Ron that it would serve the NHL well to add as many Canadian cities as it can if expansion comes up. But you have to make sure they're cities that will be healthy through good years and bad. The league cannot stomach anymore struggling teams. And it's certainly time to stop putting teams in non-hockey markets just for the sake of 'spreading the game'. That line of thinking has been a disaster for the most part since expansion and relocation began in the 90's.
I almost fell off my seat when he showed ONE example of how hooking would have created a scoring chance.
I respect Ron MacLean but I am so sick and tired of him bashing this game with every breath in his body.
Bettman is not the enemy. He's bought and paid for by the BOG. In fact, he recently commented about how he pushed very, very hard to change the current schedule to feature more games between the conferences but the BOG shot it down.
Bettman also implemented several rules and stipulations to help Canadian teams and it's in my opinion, based on facts, that Bettman actually saved both Edmonton and Ottawa from extinction. He knows full well that the NHL's strength relies on Canada. He's not going to shoot his largest market in the foot.
But I do agree with Ron that it would serve the NHL well to add as many Canadian cities as it can if expansion comes up. But you have to make sure they're cities that will be healthy through good years and bad. The league cannot stomach anymore struggling teams. And it's certainly time to stop putting teams in non-hockey markets just for the sake of 'spreading the game'. That line of thinking has been a disaster for the most part since expansion and relocation began in the 90's.
I admit, it screws over those teams right now who are stuck in that situation. But expanding the problem and screwing over the rest of the league should not be viewed as a solution.
This shouldn't be viewed as a 'my team against the world' thing, where if you can't watch hockey when you want, then no one should be able to. I'm sure there is a better solution that works for everyone.
Last edited:
I'll post a comment and link here as well, but of course making the excuse that only a selfish fan or team would demand otherwise is not only the easy way out, but it ignores the facts. Certainly expanding the problem is not an ideal way to solve it, but perhaps any solution should be a shared one and not always come at the expense of the same team or teams. It is a league after all. If we can share revenue to help out those that need it, and if we can share a lockout to help those that need it, why can't we share the other problems? Referencing 'time zones' is such a cop out, expected from some corners, but the knee-jerk acceptance of a such a simplistic solution (if I can call it a solution to anything) from some here is a bit surprising.
Link:
And before history is distorted further by the usual contingent here, please note that in 1994, Ilitch was in favor of a cap then as well. I think the Wings were in the minority then in backing a cap in 1994-- I mean it is obvious that they were seeing how it transpired.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
.............. actually the Cap had nearly nothing to do with player retention at all, although places like Pittsburgh where I live certainly do appreciate actually hacing a choice in whether to keep or let go players like Jagr, Lang, and on and on and on rather than seeing them bolt over money reasons. The amount of talent that my Pens have lost over money the past couple of decades could fill a cup winning team and have enough left over for another. The Cap was about player salary escalation across the board making 2/3 of franchises on the verge of being not viable. It was about player taking the greatest percentage of league income of any sport. The fact that it gave the 2/3 of franchises who did not have the unlimited funds the ability to basically pick and choose who they keep and let go (historically most will resign if the money is right though some will exercise their right to leave and go where they want) is an ancillary, but very nice, benefit. Though I can see why Bettman is focusing on that rather than 'the clubs can make more profits now.'
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,220
- 8,625
Again ... Foote (who took the biggest contract he could get) and Forsberg signed as UFA's post-lockout. Chara became a UFA and took the biggest contract he could get, so did Jovanovski (or pretty close to it). You're talking about UFA's who wanted to test the market. The only possible exception here might be Forsberg - an Avs fan would have to chime in there. The Avs had an option for '07-08 for Blake (who started his career in LA), they declined it to get a lower cap hit in '05-06 and then didn't pursue him much for this year.
Simple question: did the Lightning ever feel like Khabibulin was worth $6.75 million per year? If they did, then you have a point - but if they had no intention of giving him that kind of money, then the fact that a salary cap was in place was moot because they weren't going to give him what someone else did.
Modin? Fine, I'll give that one. They needed cap space, they had to get rid of him. (Of course, they could have tried to resign Richards to a contract worth something less than $38 million over 5 years.) Khabibulin? I want to see where the Bolts would have given him $6 million per first.
The salary cap is at first going to tear apart teams like the avs but after teams reach some form of parity, its going to help teams retain players because their teams will be able to put up a competitive offer for them instead of having to compete with teams like Detroit, Toronto, and Colorado who used to be able to outbid anybody. If teams can't manage to make a reasonable offer to their players it will be because of bad salary cap management...which can't be blamed on the system. And if you've managed the cap well and still can't afford to keep someone then you probably have quite a good team and shouldn't complain anyways.
I understand your concern and the point you are trying to make but, I would hardley call the responses to your posts as knee-jerk, or ignoring your point. The poster addressed your point. And time-zones and travel costs are not "cop-outs". They are legitimate reasons not to persue a horizontal league. Now, I would agree that Detroit and Columbus "sacrifice" being in the Western Conference and the Eastern Time zone. But, slapping the League as a whole with horizontal divisions? You should be rooting for Pittsburgh to move, as I understand it, Detroit gets first refusal at taking their spot in the East. Unless, they move the Hartford.
Trust me, I'm not making excuses for GM's who make some questionable decisions about a player's value. I've said in many places where I've discussed this topic that in a capped environment it's hard to find one player who is worth 15-20% of the entire payroll. Now, I don't know IF the Lightning would have paid that much had there been no cap. However just like every team that either had to cut payroll (the old CBA big spenders) or was due for re-signings due to UFA's coming of age, the cap did force them to make some choices. We can't argue that point as I think the talent dispersion was a secondary goal, second to cost certainty. They will continue to make choices based on the cap (Boyle this year), and maybe add Kubina to last year's group. Ultimately though, even GM's who are more fiscally responsible will have to make choices, especially while the cap continues to increase. I've used Buffalo as a good example of this dynamic. (TB and Ottawa were confronted earlier.)
I understand your concern and the point you are trying to make but, I would hardley call the responses to your posts as knee-jerk, or ignoring your point. The poster addressed your point. And time-zones and travel costs are not "cop-outs". They are legitimate reasons not to persue a horizontal league. Now, I would agree that Detroit and Columbus "sacrifice" being in the Western Conference and the Eastern Time zone. But, slapping the League as a whole with horizontal divisions? You should be rooting for Pittsburgh to move, as I understand it, Detroit gets first refusal at taking their spot in the East. Unless, they move the Hartford.
The poster did address my point but - and this isn't meant as a way to single him out - he gave the standard, somewhat obvious answer. Just as Bettman did last night. It is expected from Bettman. I don't really expect it from writers or journalists because - in my humble opinion - if you are writing about hockey as some type of authority, it is incumbent upon you to delve further than the standard, somewhat quick response. Is the statement valid? Why or why not? The original poster aside, many here seem to enjoy dismissing any comments that don't parrot Bettman. I know there are those who simply do the opposite, yet I hope and expect to find those who are genuinely interested in the merits of these points.
As for Pittsburgh moving meaning an automatic move for Detroit? I'm not betting on it. Read Daly's comments more carefully. If he's saying that [to paraphrase] several teams in the West depend on Detroit to help with their attendance, it does send a message that the league has a different view. The feeling is that the NHL needs Detroit in the West. Devellano has asked, and quite fairly, when do some other teams make some sacrifices for the good of the whole? Who else has supported the cap (in 1994, 2004), approved revenue sharing, sent the fund millions of dollars, and continues to take a hit to its bottom line due to alignment? Make no mistake about it...this is about money and maintaining longterm interest. Detroit is paying all those extra travel costs, is losing revenue/interest by having traditional rivals removed from its schedules, and losing money on TV because how good can the ratings be at midnight for all those Western games only they (and Columbus) have to undertake as Eastern time zone teams? It's the only Big Market team that has such a lousy deal. (Oh, and check out the number of Saturday and weekend games their schedule has this year, and compare to some of the Eastern big markets. It's not a bottomless well.)
And your immaculate sentence just gives me amazing confidence in your ability to insult someone.
Go rent Bon Cop, Bad Cop instead of trying to burn someone on the internet.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,515
- 26,996
I laughed out loud when McLean presented his "horizontal divisions". What a joke. It took Bettman 2 seconds to shoot it dead by saying, "time zones".
Interestingly, Bill Daly was quoted in the Detroit paper on a possible move to the East if Pittsburgh moves West, and he said that while he understands Detroit would like to play more games that start during Eastern time, the West just needs Detroit too much. I hope when this realignment meeting happens the league makes the same argument and Jim Devellano pops in a tape of this interview.
You know, this kinda applies to the argument that the cap won't tear apart well drafted teams too(which it has, and will). In this interview, Gary talked about how now teams can retain their players unlike before. What they really did was instead of finding a way for all teams to do that, they took away the ability of 10 or 15 teams who could. OK, everybody's on equal footing now, but it was more a negative solution than a positive one.
This is excellent. After years of abuse, the Wings are finally standing up for themselves. I like angry Jim Devellano. I hope that if Columbus moves instead of us, we withdraw from the league in protest, and then no one will get the benefit of Detroit attendance.
Fighter of Foo
Registered User
honestly, the easiest solution to the problem is one that may be on the horizon, but will draw the ire of many posters on HFBoards...
2 more expansion teams in the west (KC, Houston, Portland, Winnipeg, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, etc...), and shift Detriot & Columbus to the east. Have 2 conferences of 4 divisions each, w/ 4 teams per division. Division winners get home ice in the 1st round, and continue by reseeding the teams after every round. 50% of teams will make the playoffs, which will be the lowest percentage in years, as well as making more teams feel like they're in the race for longer periods of time, which attract more fans to the sport.
There will be cries that the game is watered down too much, but it is quite the opposite. There has never been this much talent in hockey, and the big difference this time is that talent is on both sides of the puck, not just gifted scorers like Gretzky & Lemieux, but in sound defensive play and solid goaltending. If people really want to see the game opened up, and more like the "high flying 80s" - where no one played defense and clutching and grabbing was way more apparent than it is today, adding two teams will do more for that than any other quick fix, just because that team will take away talent from existing teams. And with the increased number of players from non-traditional areas (IE Texas, California, New Jersey, etc...) there will be enough people to fill those spots.
2 more expansion teams in the west (KC, Houston, Portland, Winnipeg, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, etc...), and shift Detriot & Columbus to the east. Have 2 conferences of 4 divisions each, w/ 4 teams per division. Division winners get home ice in the 1st round, and continue by reseeding the teams after every round. 50% of teams will make the playoffs, which will be the lowest percentage in years, as well as making more teams feel like they're in the race for longer periods of time, which attract more fans to the sport.
There will be cries that the game is watered down too much, but it is quite the opposite. There has never been this much talent in hockey, and the big difference this time is that talent is on both sides of the puck, not just gifted scorers like Gretzky & Lemieux, but in sound defensive play and solid goaltending. If people really want to see the game opened up, and more like the "high flying 80s" - where no one played defense and clutching and grabbing was way more apparent than it is today, adding two teams will do more for that than any other quick fix, just because that team will take away talent from existing teams. And with the increased number of players from non-traditional areas (IE Texas, California, New Jersey, etc...) there will be enough people to fill those spots.
Bucky Katt
Registered User
You can't move both Detroit and Columbus to the east because then you would have 17 teams in the east and 15 teams in the west.
Besides that, I agree with everything you said. The problem with expansion isn't lack of talent but lack of cities that can support and NHL franchise. The depth players now (6th - 7th defensemen and 11th - 13th forawards) are more talented now then they were in the 21 team league of the 1980s.
It's easy to say those teams lost those players and that it is because of the cap, but the fact is those players may not have re-signed at their original teams anyway.
Pre-cap NHL Chara likely would've received $8M-$9M a year. Do you really think Ottawa could've signed Chara for that much? The only way he could've stayed in Ottawa is if he took a pay cut, just like this year where the only way he would've stayed with Ottawa is to take a pay cut.
Jovo was widely thought to be wanting out of Vancouver. That's not to say he necessarily was going to automatically leave, but there is absolutely no way Vancouver was going to give Jovonovski the near $7M he got, what to speak of what he could've received in the old salary system.
Colorado is the only real team you listed that actually probably lost players solely because of the cap. I seriously doubt Forsberg in particular leaves with no cap. Foote likely stays, too. I'm not sure with Blake, though. That said, one of the primary purposes of the cap was to lower the major markets' spending power (ie, Colorado). Colorado was expected to have to lose some star players from its all-star studded line up. That was part of the point of the cap.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
HC Dynamo Pardubice @ Ocelari Trinec - Pardubice leads series 3-2Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated: