txpd
Registered User
think wild posts..."You are pretty sure that if Boston had kept Guerin and Allison, they would have suceeded where LA and Dal failed? They did pretty well without them for a while as I recall."
Did well in what regard? In the last 4 years, in the midst of allowing their star players to leave over salary issues, the Bruins ranked between 21st and 25th in the NHL in average home attendance. Think about that. The Boston Bruins 25th in a 30 team league in attendance in the state of the art Fleet Center. Bruin fans call them cheap. Curse them for letting those star players go and it shows in their attendance. The Red Wings and the Avalanche with $60m + payrolls never have fans complain about them being cheap and unwilling to be committed to win and never have attendance problems. I could be wrong, but didnt Dallas win the President's cup in 2002-03 with Guerin?
Thinkwild also posts, "For every team that loaded up like Det and Tor, there was a cheaper team, who didnt and had better success."
The basics of this cba have been in effect for 10 seasons. 9 of those seasons the Stanley Cup was won by a team in the top 10 in payroll. Once a team outside the top 10 won. That was this past season when it could be argued that the empending lockout caused all kinds of anomolies. Look at your poster teams. Calgary and Tampa Bay. In the last 8 seasons, those two teams made the playoffs 3 total times out of 16 chances. Detroit and Toronto never missed the playoffs in that period and Detroit won 3 cups alone. If you are going to try and argue that low budget teams can make a run at the cup, you can, but you can not argue that they can make any kind of sustained run. All of the odd teams that have made the finals in recent years, Florida, Washington, Carolina, and Anaheim missed the playoffs in the next season. Florida has not made the playoffs since. Neither has Carolina. You could make a case that Calgary could turn back into a pumpkin in the next NHL season and drop off the radar again.
Did well in what regard? In the last 4 years, in the midst of allowing their star players to leave over salary issues, the Bruins ranked between 21st and 25th in the NHL in average home attendance. Think about that. The Boston Bruins 25th in a 30 team league in attendance in the state of the art Fleet Center. Bruin fans call them cheap. Curse them for letting those star players go and it shows in their attendance. The Red Wings and the Avalanche with $60m + payrolls never have fans complain about them being cheap and unwilling to be committed to win and never have attendance problems. I could be wrong, but didnt Dallas win the President's cup in 2002-03 with Guerin?
Thinkwild also posts, "For every team that loaded up like Det and Tor, there was a cheaper team, who didnt and had better success."
The basics of this cba have been in effect for 10 seasons. 9 of those seasons the Stanley Cup was won by a team in the top 10 in payroll. Once a team outside the top 10 won. That was this past season when it could be argued that the empending lockout caused all kinds of anomolies. Look at your poster teams. Calgary and Tampa Bay. In the last 8 seasons, those two teams made the playoffs 3 total times out of 16 chances. Detroit and Toronto never missed the playoffs in that period and Detroit won 3 cups alone. If you are going to try and argue that low budget teams can make a run at the cup, you can, but you can not argue that they can make any kind of sustained run. All of the odd teams that have made the finals in recent years, Florida, Washington, Carolina, and Anaheim missed the playoffs in the next season. Florida has not made the playoffs since. Neither has Carolina. You could make a case that Calgary could turn back into a pumpkin in the next NHL season and drop off the radar again.