I spend more than I make-So someone has to reduce gas prices and

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yes but every time you put something into it, they raise your taxes so you can no longer afford that new deck you built, but the Jones can so they come take it down and move it to there house, now you have a house with no deck at all and our forced to start to rebuild it from ground up again. Next they take your furniture, then, the appliances. Everytime you get something nicer than theirs they're going to come in and take it away becuase you simply cannot afford it.

than i guess you cant afford to be in the house market if you cant afford to even maintain it.

what a complete crock ! not one team is losing their foundation, just so happens some teams have decided to sign players to contracts they cant afford !

you guys are chicken littles and just talk in cliche.

has Nashville, a small market team, not locked up the majority of their core ? did they pay them in "peanut butter & banana sandwiches" ?

no team that is an NHL market has not been able to sign their core players. i feel no sympathy for teams that havent signed expensive UFA's because they arent LOSING out by not having them.

its like feeling sorry for someone who cant afford a rolex when a regular watch provides the same impact.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

no team that is an NHL market has not been able to sign their core players.

What colour is the sky in your world?

I'm sure the Flames, who, even after getting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow--playoff revenue, still couldn't afford to re-sign their #1 C from last year, might disagree with your biased BS.

i feel no sympathy for teams that havent signed expensive UFA's because they arent LOSING out by not having them.

Replacing established players, well before they have stopped being productive or your team has a BETTER replacement part, always means you are LOSING out by not having that player.

its like feeling sorry for someone who cant afford a rolex when a regular watch provides the same impact.

I feeling sorry for someone unable to tell the difference or selfish enough to pretend they can't see how the current system operates because they feel it benefits THEIR team.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

What colour is the sky in your world?

I'm sure the Flames, who, even after getting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow--playoff revenue, still couldn't afford to re-sign their #1 C from last year, might disagree with your biased BS.


Replacing established players, well before they have stopped being productive or your team has a BETTER replacement part, always means you are LOSING out by not having that player.


I feeling sorry for someone unable to tell the difference or selfish enough to pretend they can't see how the current system operates because they feel it benefits THEIR team.

1) The Flames replaced Conroy with Langkow .. whats the problem ?
2) I live in Calgary and I am a life long Canucks fan, I thought these were the teams the old system hurt ?

Sorry, you still havent given one example where a team couldnt keep a core player.

DR

 

[SENSible1*]

You really are a fan of an altered reality aren't you?

1) The Flames replaced Conroy with Langkow .. whats the problem ?

1)The Flames should be able to afford both with the playoff revenues, if the "you get good, then you pay crowd" is correct. Funny how that didn't happen.

Why make a move that is lateral at best when the team should have the money to improve? (Langkow 168 points in the last 3 years--Conroy 181 points in last 3 years)
The Flames had to use up two assets to replace Conroy, who walked away with no return coming the Flames way. The reality is that the Flames organization is weaker because of these moves, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

2) I live in Calgary and I am a life long Canucks fan, I thought these were the teams the old system hurt ?

Canuck fans seem to have forgotten some important lessons from the lean years and love nothing more than sticking it to the Oilers and Flames organizations at all times.

Sorry, you still havent given one example where a team couldnt keep a core player.

I'm sure the exodus from Pittsburg of all their top level talent was simply a fluke coincidence.

Get a grip.

 

[YellHockey*]

1)The Flames should be able to afford both with the playoff revenues, if the "you get good, then you pay crowd" is correct. Funny how that didn't happen.

How can they pay both and find ice time for both?

Why make a move that is lateral at best when the team should have the money to improve? (Langkow 168 points in the last 3 years--Conroy 181 points in last 3 years)
The Flames had to use up two assets to replace Conroy, who walked away with no return coming the Flames way. The reality is that the Flames organization is weaker because of these moves, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

Who says that Conroy for Langkow is a lateral move. Langkow has never played with a player as talented as Iginla. Besides, at Conroy's age, the Conroy of last year probably won't be as good as the Conroy of the next season.

Also, you fail to understand is that there are only so many player spots on a team.

They've got Phaneuf coming in, who most expect will be better then Gauthier. They got Nilsson and Simon for very little. They expect that Kobasew is going to need more ice time.

 

[gary69]

I think you finally lost it dawg....

As for the first post....try...

I live in a town of 50 000 people and we have to pay our doctors 200K a year because if we don't they will all move to Toronto and we will all die.

Boo hoo, I don't know where you live but if that's true, that's just plain stupid to pay that much to doctors per citizen.

You're just paying for the comfort of having the doctors in your home town as opposed to not having to travel to Toronto maybe 1-2 times on average a year per person. If you would accept the position to travel for a few hours to Toronto a year on average, the doctors bill would be probably more around 100K than 200K.

But hey, that's called democracy and the majority of people are allowed to be in favour of stupid decisions, even if only benefits the few and priviliged.

It's not the fault of the few and priviliged, it's the fault of the ignorant masses than don't bother to see the whole picture and what's best for them.

 

[Superfluous U]

no team that is an NHL market has not been able to sign their core players.

dr

Well, you'd think that living in Calgary you would have seen the way Edmonton has been forced to ditch core players at a rate of about one a year. Or, in a straight free agent example, losing CuJo and then playing a season with Essensa and Shtalenkov in net. Don't tell me that didn't hurt the team.

 

[dawgbone]

How can they pay both and find ice time for both?

Bingo... how can they pay for them both?

I guess they can't!

Finding ice time? It shouldn't be too hard. I mean the idea is to win correct?

Aren't they better with a Reinprecht, Langkow and Conroy down the middle than they are with just 2 of them?

Who says that Conroy for Langkow is a lateral move. Langkow has never played with a player as talented as Iginla. Besides, at Conroy's age, the Conroy of last year probably won't be as good as the Conroy of the next season.

Also, you fail to understand is that there are only so many player spots on a team.

Once again, having 3 quality centres down the middle like that is a dream for most teams. Not only that, but Reinprecht hasn't been the most durable player throughout his career.

Dave Andreychuk isn't as good as he used to be either, but he is a veteran leader that does what he has to in the crunch. I've never been a conroy fan, but he is exactly the type of player Calgary needs in order to make another step.

I know why the Flames didn't do it... they couldn't afford to. It doesn't mean they didn't entertain the thought of it. Sutter isn't stupid.

They've got Phaneuf coming in, who most expect will be better then Gauthier. They got Nilsson and Simon for very little. They expect that Kobasew is going to need more ice time.

Kobasew is a LW... not sure what that has to do with Conroy or Langkow. They had Nilsson and Simon last year.

They weren't good enough to win the cup last year, but they were close. Instead of adding one piece to the core (adding Langkow), they've replaced part of the core with another player... it doesn't mean they are better, it just means they are different.

Calgary had a strong run, and according to your world, it means they should be able to keep their team together. They weren't able to.

 

[SENSible1*]

They weren't good enough to win the cup last year, but they were close. Instead of adding one piece to the core (adding Langkow), they've replaced part of the core with another player... it doesn't mean they are better, it just means they are different.

It is also important to note that they made the lateral switch AT THE COST OF TWO ASSETS.

 

[YellHockey*]

It is also important to note that they made the lateral switch AT THE COST OF TWO ASSETS.

You can only have so many players on your roster at one time. Gauthier was traded to make room for Phaneuf.

Saprykin was probably dealt because Sutter felt that he had other players who are either just as good as he is or will be better.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

You can only have so many players on your roster at one time. Gauthier was traded to make room for Phaneuf.

Saprykin was probably dealt because Sutter felt that he had other players who are either just as good as he is or will be better.

so instead of trading gauthier for an asset the flames need (another scoring winger maybe), they go out of their way to create a hole at center, then use their surplus asset (gauthier) and another asset (saprykin) to fill that hole. why?

 

[degroat*]

Hehe.

Nice way to poke holes in that strange "the owners risk their money so they deserve a guaranteed high return on it" argument.

The only thing he poked holes in is others' perception of his intelligence level. The league must have strong and committed owners to be successful and that's not going to happen with the current system. That's not going to happen unless EVERY team can be profitable in most years.

 

[shveik]

The only thing he poked holes in is others' perception of his intelligence level.

If you are so worried about others' opinion, you should not be making ad hominem remarks as the one above.

The league must have strong and committed owners to be successful and that's not going to happen with the current system. That's not going to happen unless EVERY team can be profitable in most years.

I think you are discarding the current CBA because of the false assumption that "IS NOT profitable" is equivalent to "CANNOT BE profitable".

 

[degroat*]

I think you are discarding the current CBA because of the false assumption that "IS NOT profitable" is equivalent to "CANNOT BE profitable".

I'm not assuming anything. It is a FACT that the league's financial situation has detiriorated considerably under the current CBA and common sense just might suggest if the league continued under the current CBA that it will continue detiroriating. Even if my 'prediction' is wrong, the simple fact that the current CBA has ruined the league would frighten investors if the league continued to operate under the current CBA.

 

[shveik]

I'm not assuming anything. It is a FACT that the league's financial situation has detiriorated considerably under the current CBA and common sense just might suggest if the league continued under the current CBA that it will continue detiroriating. Even if my 'prediction' is wrong, the simple fact that the current CBA has ruined the league would frighten investors if the league continued to operate under the current CBA.

By your logic the investors would be also frightened if Bettman stays as NHL commissioner. After all, all of this is happening on his watch.

There is a huge gap between "it happened while" and "it happened because of". This gap cannot be jumped just by appealing to common sense.

 

[degroat*]

The entire league runs its business under the current CBA. There's no question that the league's financial situation is 'because of' their current CBA.

 

[shveik]

The entire league is run by Bettman. There's no question that the league's financial situation is 'because of' Bettman.

Do you see a problem with this kind of logic? Or, rather, lack thereof.

 

[SENSible1*]

so instead of trading gauthier for an asset the flames need (another scoring winger maybe), they go out of their way to create a hole at center, then use their surplus asset (gauthier) and another asset (saprykin) to fill that hole. why?

Hmmm...No response for this one. What a shock!

Just like the lack of a reply when the Penguins were cited as an example of a team who's core was dismantled for financial reasons.

Funny how that works out.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Hmmm...No response for this one. What a shock!

Just like the lack of a reply when the Penguins were cited as an example of a team who's core was dismantled for financial reasons.

Funny how that works out.

PIT has financial troubles because the owners of the day didnt invest in an arena when they were the top team in the world.

Unlike the team in VAN (for one example), who financed their own arena and now turn a huge profit each season, PIT decided they would wait for tax payers to pay for it and it never happened.

Feel no sorrow for PIT, if the league is locked out because of them, shame on the league.

DR

 

[SENSible1*]

PIT has financial troubles because the owners of the day didnt invest in an arena when they were the top team in the world.

Unlike the team in VAN (for one example), who financed their own arena and now turn a huge profit each season, PIT decided they would wait for tax payers to pay for it and it never happened.

Feel no sorrow for PIT, if the league is locked out because of them, shame on the league.

DR

How does their arena strategy change the fact that their core was dismantled for financial reasons, directly contradicting your claim?

Why no comment on the Flames having to weaken their team by trading valuable assets to replace a core member who walked away for financial reasons?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How does their arena strategy change the fact that their core was dismantled for financial reasons, directly contradicting your claim?

Why no comment on the Flames having to weaken their team by trading valuable assets to replace a core member who walked away for financial reasons?

1) they have financial problems because they dont generate enough revenue to support an NHL team. if they had invested in their team when it was on top of the world, they wouldnt have the problem they do today.

2) because i dont feel the flames are worse off, thats why. i think they are better off with Langkow and Phaneuf than with Conroy, Gauthier and Saprykin.

just because teams lose players to UFA doesnt mean its a bad thing for that team.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

1) they have financial problems because they dont generate enough revenue to support an NHL team. if they had invested in their team when it was on top of the world, they wouldnt have the problem they do today.

2) because i dont feel the flames are worse off, thats why. i think they are better off with Langkow and Phaneuf than with Conroy, Gauthier and Saprykin.

just because teams lose players to UFA doesnt mean its a bad thing for that team.

dr

1)

no team that is an NHL market has not been able to sign their core players.

How many NHL markets are there, IYO?

Virtually every team in the bottom half of the league revenue stream has had to lose players due to financial considerations. At what point should they try and rebalance things and provide the opportunity for more markets to be competitive?

2) A couple of other posters have already pointed out your error. Perhaps after reading their posts again and my addition, you'll finally admit the truth, but I'm not holding my breath.

Kobasew is a LW... not sure what that has to do with Conroy or Langkow. They had Nilsson and Simon last year.

They weren't good enough to win the cup last year, but they were close. Instead of adding one piece to the core (adding Langkow), they've replaced part of the core with another player... it doesn't mean they are better, it just means they are different.

Calgary had a strong run, and according to your world, it means they should be able to keep their team together. They weren't able to.

so instead of trading gauthier for an asset the flames need (another scoring winger maybe), they go out of their way to create a hole at center, then use their surplus asset (gauthier) and another asset (saprykin) to fill that hole. why?

What you are ignoring is that they had Phaneuf either way, but were forced to weaken the team to address a hole created by financial consideration, even after a lengthy and profitable playoff run. Sure they may have wanted to give Gauthiers icetime to someone else, but the assets used to get Langkow could have addressed other holes in the line-up.

I know you are aware of this fact and will continue to pretend not to see it just to maintain your position regarding the old CBA, but I won't tire of pointing it out the falseness of your stance.