Strachan Blames Nashville for Big Market Foes

[triggrman]

Thanks for posting the link to the article. I wanted to read it originally, but I had to use the Toronto Sun to wipe myself.

Here's a gem:
"The team that took the most from the revenue-sharing program was Nashville. The Predators, it seems, are to the NHL what Quebec is to Canada."

Could you explain this. Is it an insult? I'm not up on my Canadian politics.

I don't understand why some hate on Nashville, you would think that everyone would want the sport to grow.

 

[Northern Dancer]

Could you explain this. Is it an insult? I'm not up on my Canadian politics.

I don't understand why some hate on Nashville, you would think that everyone would want the sport to grow.

You should know that # 1 Al Strachan is a dork and # 2 that the vast majority of Torontonions have no problem with Nashville and the growth of hockey.
We in Toronto, really only want a winning team.

and btw, a lot of the talk on this thread indicates that the Leafs have been a basket case for the past 10 years, that is not the case, I believe Toronto has played more play-off games than any other franchise during that period. We missed the play-offs last year with 90 points (2 measly wins). Currently second place in our division. The Leafs are not that bad.

edit: and yes the Quebec reference was an insult, of the worst kind. Ignore it !!!!!

 

[YellHockey*]

I have to disagree with this statement. It is absolutely crucial that your front office be above average at drafting, player development, scouting, etc.

In the old NHL those things were essential. You couldn't build a championship team without them. Now in the new NHL you have incompetent management teams in Chicago getting Havlat for a song, being able to sign Khabibulin, and Aucion or Boston getting Chara and Savard.

Well run teams can't keep all their players with the new system since young players are a lot more expensive and the poorly run teams get to benefit from it.

 

[YellHockey*]

Could you explain this. Is it an insult? I'm not up on my Canadian politics.

Quebec sucks more tax revenues out of Canada then they contribute even though they should be one of the richer provinces.

 

[triggrman]

...that the vast majority of Torontonions have no problem with Nashville and the growth of hockey.

Oh, I figured that but the vocal minority rule applies, right....

 

[MLH]

Is this really noteworthy, though, given that there is no MLB or NBA team in Buffalo? I mean, if there are only two major teams in a market, it's pretty hard to not be at least second, right?

'
Well, that wasn't really my point, just saying that it's stronger than a "case".

The Braves (NBA) moved and were never as popular as the Sabres and in many NHL markets college football, college basketball, or NASCAR are more popular.

 

[Transported Upstater]

I thought that was the plan for the last 40 years at MLSE.

The new CBA hasn't changed that has it... it was working so well.

Nice job of staying on topic.

 

[OG6ix]

Yes I do, in fact we did exactly that for the 20 odd years during the very, very bad, dark years of harold ballard's ownership.

we would be so hyped by our inventory of good draft picks they would probably double the prices every year.

Yeah, but it was the only game in Town 20 years ago (atleast for winter sports). I still think they will sell the tickets because Corporate support is very strong in Toronto, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of empty seats if the Leafs played as badly as the hawks did for the last decade. They've made the playoffs a lot though over the last decade. The team is not as crappy as people make it out to be, they just didn't win Stanley Cups, that's all.

 

[Pepper]

Does anyone have a link to the segment where Burke *****slapped Strachan?

 

[BlueAndWhite]

Yeah, but it was the only game in Town 20 years ago (atleast for winter sports). I still think they will sell the tickets because Corporate support is very strong in Toronto, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of empty seats if the Leafs played as badly as the hawks did for the last decade. They've made the playoffs a lot though over the last decade. The team is not as crappy as people make it out to be, they just didn't win Stanley Cups, that's all.

The Toronto Area has more than enough people that having another winter sport (NBA) in town isn't going to detract from the Leafs' attendance. This is of course ignoring the fact that the Leafs fanbase as it exists right now is large enough that even if they sucked royally, there would be more than enough average joes in the seats.

I think you understimate just how horrible the Ballard era was, basketball or not basketball.

 

[joshjull]

In the old NHL those things were essential. You couldn't build a championship team without them. Now in the new NHL you have incompetent management teams in Chicago getting Havlat for a song, being able to sign Khabibulin, and Aucion or Boston getting Chara and Savard.

Well run teams can't keep all their players with the new system since young players are a lot more expensive and the poorly run teams get to benefit from it.

Got Havlat for a song? If you think shelling out that kind of money is a song you must be one wealthy individual. Chicago is your example of incompetant mangement that is building a championship team? They are in 14th place.

Boston paid through the nose for Chara and Savard. They are winning a championship as well? They are also in 14th place. Maybe down the road but not anytime soon.

I consider the Sabres ( my team) to be a well run organization. They have lost many players this past off season and will probably lose more next offseason. But they draft and develop well. So they will have replacements coming up through the system. So the good oprganizations should be able to keep being successful.

The reality is a big free agent signing only wins a team a championship if the base is already built. Meaning if they already have a strong team and system in place and just need that last piece. Then yes a big UFA can help get that championship. But if an organization doesn't have the depth and team already in place a couple UFAs aren't by themselves going to bring a championship. They examples you used show that.

 

[YellHockey*]

Got Havlat for a song? If you think shelling out that kind of money is a song you must be one wealthy individual. Chicago is your example of incompetant mangement that is building a championship team? They are in 14th place.

They got Havlat for one year of Tom Preissing, two fringe prospects and a second round pick. That's a song for one of the better young players in the game.

Having Havlat instead of what they gave up for him makes Chicago a better team.

 

[joshjull]

They got Havlat for one year of Tom Preissing, two fringe prospects and a second round pick. That's a song for one of the better young players in the game.

Having Havlat instead of what they gave up for him makes Chicago a better team.

Why would they be in 15th place without him? You theory that good management is punished and bad is rewarded isn't supported by the reality. What teams that are managed well are suffering because of the cap. Which poorly run teams are competing for the cup? By any chance are you an Ottawa fan?

 

[Northern Dancer]

Got Havlat for a song? If you think shelling out that kind of money is a song you must be one wealthy individual. Chicago is your example of incompetant mangement that is building a championship team? They are in 14th place.

Boston paid through the nose for Chara and Savard. They are winning a championship as well? They are also in 14th place. Maybe down the road but not anytime soon.

I consider the Sabres ( my team) to be a well run organization. They have lost many players this past off season and will probably lose more next offseason. But they draft and develop well. So they will have replacements coming up through the system. So the good oprganizations should be able to keep being successful.

The reality is a big free agent signing only wins a team a championship if the base is already built. Meaning if they already have a strong team and system in place and just need that last piece. Then yes a big UFA can help get that championship. But if an organization doesn't have the depth and team already in place a couple UFAs aren't by themselves going to bring a championship. They examples you used show that.

Question: Why have all the so-called well managed teams,i.e. Buffalo been either bankrupt or on life support? Is not being financially sound part of good management?

 

[joshjull]

Question: Why have all the so-called well managed teams,i.e. Buffalo been either bankrupt or on life support? Is not being financially sound part of good management?

I can only speak for Buffalo. They were in bankruptcy because of an owner that was a criminal. By the way you are incorrectly connecting large markets making money with being well run. They aren't the same thing. You could take a **** at center ice in Toronto. If it had a Leafs jersey on they could sell out the ACC. How does that make Toronto a well run team? Running a team under adverse economic circumstances and fielding a competitive team is more impressive than having a winning team that has enormous economic resourses.

 

[joolzie]

Why would they be in 15th place without him? You theory that good management is punished and bad is rewarded isn't supported by the reality. What teams that are managed well are suffering because of the cap. Which poorly run teams are competing for the cup? By any chance are you an Ottawa fan?

They have been without him for 6+ games, and they've lost every single one of them. With him, they are a better team.

I don't think Chicago picked Havlat up this year and expected to win the Cup. They may have thought they could make a push for the playoffs... which, given how long it's been since they were there, would be an improvement. That is a reward.

I don't necessarily think that Ottawa is a well-managed team, but they have been a better managed team in the recent past than Chicago has, so something is still running downhill.

 

[joshjull]

They have been without him for 6+ games, and they've lost every single one of them. With him, they are a better team.

I don't think Chicago picked Havlat up this year and expected to win the Cup. They may have thought they could make a push for the playoffs... which, given how long it's been since they were there, would be an improvement. That is a reward.

I don't necessarily think that Ottawa is a well-managed team, but they have been a better managed team in the recent past than Chicago has, so something is still running downhill.

But his arguement that bad mangement is being rewarded is a fallacy. If Chicago was well run they would have depth. You can't buy depth you have to develop it. If they had depth they would be able to overcome losing Havlat. Since they don't they are floundering. Further disproving his theory.

 

[joolzie]

But his arguement that bad mangement is being rewarded is a fallacy. If Chicago was well run they would have depth. You can't buy depth you have to develop it. If they had depth they would be able to overcome losing Havlat. Since they don't they are floundering. Further disproving his theory.

Uh... but he's not saying that Chicago is well-run. Chicago has been spectacularly poorly run in recent years. There's some good stuff coming up in the next couple of years, but right now, they are one thin team on NHL-caliber players. Havlat, without question, benefits that team. He has experience being on a winning team, playoff experience, he has tremendous talent and reportedly outstanding work ethic. Those are all great things to show to a crop of baby players. They probably won't see the playoffs this year, but they will take steps forward... for virtually nothing.

Honestly though, I think it's just too early to say what teams have good management and bad management under this CBA. Some teams were better prepared for it, which certainly puts points in their favor, but until it's been running a few years and everyone's operating from a similar point, it's too early to be crowning a king of the salary cap.

 

[OG6ix]

The Toronto Area has more than enough people that having another winter sport (NBA) in town isn't going to detract from the Leafs' attendance. This is of course ignoring the fact that the Leafs fanbase as it exists right now is large enough that even if they sucked royally, there would be more than enough average joes in the seats.

I think you understimate just how horrible the Ballard era was, basketball or not basketball.

you say that now, but even as a die hard leafs fan would you want to watch your team if they were as bad as say... the hawks? Losing every game and not making the playoffs consistently? Personally, I think Montreal is a better hockey city than Toronto is, but whatever. Toronto is a better overall sports town than Montreal is though, and I think that better than the former.

 

[Northern Dancer]

I can only speak for Buffalo. They were in bankruptcy because of an owner that was a criminal. By the way you are incorrectly connecting large markets making money with being well run. They aren't the same thing. You could take a **** at center ice in Toronto. If it had a Leafs jersey on they could sell out the ACC. How does that make Toronto a well run team? Running a team under adverse economic circumstances and fielding a competitive team is more impressive than having a winning team that has enormous economic resourses.

Funny how we are looking at this from two different ways. I definately think being well managed means having a competive team and being financially stable. (btw Leafs have been both). Buffalo on the hockey side has been very well managed but on the financial side it has been a disaster. (Toronto was a disaster both hockey wide and financially under Ballard so we are not infallible)

 

[Northern Dancer]

you say that now, but even as a die hard leafs fan would you want to watch your team if they were as bad as say... the hawks? Losing every game and not making the playoffs consistently? Personally, I think Montreal is a better hockey city than Toronto is, but whatever. Toronto is a better overall sports town than Montreal is though, and I think that better than the former.

Well I would rank our Ballard years as pretty pathetic however I agree not as bad as Wirtz in Chicago. Toronto fans would definately support a non-contending team for an extended period of time. We would be drooling over our draft picks. Heck we haven't won the Cup in 40 years and we still spend most of the winter planning our parade routes.

 

[joshjull]

Uh... but he's not saying that Chicago is well-run. Chicago has been spectacularly poorly run in recent years. There's some good stuff coming up in the next couple of years, but right now, they are one thin team on NHL-caliber players. Havlat, without question, benefits that team. He has experience being on a winning team, playoff experience, he has tremendous talent and reportedly outstanding work ethic. Those are all great things to show to a crop of baby players. They probably won't see the playoffs this year, but they will take steps forward... for virtually nothing.

Honestly though, I think it's just too early to say what teams have good management and bad management under this CBA. Some teams were better prepared for it, which certainly puts points in their favor, but until it's been running a few years and everyone's operating from a similar point, it's too early to be crowning a king of the salary cap.

Uh.... neither am I. I know Chicago has been poorly run. Please reread all my posts because if you came to the conclusion that I think they are. you completely misread them.

 

[MLH]

Buffalo on the hockey side has been very well managed but on the financial side it has been a disaster. (Toronto was a disaster both hockey wide and financially under Ballard so we are not infallible)

Buffalo's easily one of the best run teams financially. They became the NHL's first team to exclusively use variable ticket pricing, they added perks to season ticket holders and got the teams STH base to the highest level it ever has been, they've altered section prices so they can create as close to indifference between ticket price levels as possible, and they recently set up a ticket resale program that makes STH, average joe fans, and the team better off. (The plan allows STHers to sell off some games for a higher price than they paid, allows average joe fans to pick up hard to get tickets at lower prices than anywhere else, and the team gets a commission on each ticket sold even though they already made money the first time they sold it.) They have a waiting list for season tickets, the best selling merchandise in the league, and the highest TV ratings in America (more money from MSG) despite being in one of the leagues smallest and poorest markets.

Obviously, winning helps all of those things (which is why the hockey side and financial side are clearly not mutually exclusive), but it's simply crazy to call their financial plan a disaster. Golisano and Quinn have come up with very creative ways to remain viable in a tough market. That's exactly why the revenue sharing plan is essential. Buffalo has to keep ticket prices low because of the local economy. All teams benefit in the long-run from a league that is properly balances and revenue sharing is neccesary to allow all teams to ice a good team and be in the black.

 

[Northern Dancer]

Buffalo's easily one of the best run teams financially. They became the NHL's first team to exclusively use variable ticket pricing, they added perks to season ticket holders and got the teams STH base to the highest level it ever has been, they've altered section prices so they can create as close to indifference between ticket price levels as possible, and they recently set up a ticket resale program that makes STH, average joe fans, and the team better off. (The plan allows STHers to sell off some games for a higher price than they paid, allows average joe fans to pick up hard to get tickets at lower prices than anywhere else, and the team gets a commission on each ticket sold even though they already made money the first time they sold it.) They have a waiting list for season tickets, the best selling merchandise in the league, and the highest TV ratings in America (more money from MSG) despite being in one of the leagues smallest and poorest markets.

Obviously, winning helps all of those things (which is why the hockey side and financial side are clearly not mutually exclusive), but it's simply crazy to call their financial plan a disaster. Golisano and Quinn have come up with very creative ways to remain viable in a tough market. That's exactly why the revenue sharing plan is essential. Buffalo has to keep ticket prices low because of the local economy. All teams benefit in the long-run from a league that is properly balances and revenue sharing is neccesary to allow all teams to ice a good team and be in the black.

Good post and some excellant points. Obviously the new ownership is doing better than the previous guys.

 

[kdb209]

Good post and some excellant points. Obviously the new ownership is doing better than the previous guys.

Well, they're not spending 15 years in prison, so I guess that's a step up from the old guys.