Would Scab replacements do well or flop?
- Thread starter richardn
- Start date
- Status
It depends on what you mean by successful.
Will they be successful in bringing the PA players who dont mind playing under a cap, across? Yes.
Will they thrill the fans? Maybe.
I think, though, that the majority of people will watch them play, if only to spite the NHLPA. I can say I am one person with whom it will take considerable time to cheer for these guys again. Some I wont ever cheer for again (read: McCabe, Klee)
Will they be successful in bringing the PA players who dont mind playing under a cap, across? Yes.
Will they thrill the fans? Maybe.
I think, though, that the majority of people will watch them play, if only to spite the NHLPA. I can say I am one person with whom it will take considerable time to cheer for these guys again. Some I wont ever cheer for again (read: McCabe, Klee)
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,924
- 39,018
no13matssundin said:
Please, if McCabe doesn't retire (he is a pompous ass anyways) and Klee doesn't retire and they come back for the Leafs and remain 2 of their top 3 defenseman, you're kidding yourself if you're not going to root for these guys again. I'm sure people said that last time.
richardn
Registered User
I am for one totally against scabs. If the league decides to use scabs, then they are truely trying to break the union. I would not even watch scabs on tv. Any player who was amung the first group to cross the picket line I would lose respect for.
Steve L*
Registered User
I dont know, I never rooted for Tibbetts, in fact I was willing whoever he was fighting to hammer him and I never root for Brashear.go kim johnsson said:
txpd
Registered User
If using replacement players doesn't cause a respectable chunk of NHL players to come in, the league will be as dead as it would be with another cancelled or partially cancelled season. on the other hand if there are 5 or 6 NHL players per team on average when play starts, that might be a different story.
If Goodenow's desire is the break the league and kill it, he can do so by refusing to cut a deal in time save the NHL's sponsors and TV deal and by keeping his players away from NHL locker rooms when the league opens up for all comers. Which is really want replacement players amount to. If that happens the NHL is dead. It is permanantly ruined. I don't know why Goodenow wants to do that, but that seems to be his plan at this point.
Would I pay to see ECHL level hockey in Washington or any NHL city? No. I wouldn't pay to see ECHL or even AHL level hockey for the most part if that were the market level that I was at. I see no reason to watch it in an NHL market. If the NHL rosters were 30%-40% NHL players...I might change my mind.
If Goodenow's desire is the break the league and kill it, he can do so by refusing to cut a deal in time save the NHL's sponsors and TV deal and by keeping his players away from NHL locker rooms when the league opens up for all comers. Which is really want replacement players amount to. If that happens the NHL is dead. It is permanantly ruined. I don't know why Goodenow wants to do that, but that seems to be his plan at this point.
Would I pay to see ECHL level hockey in Washington or any NHL city? No. I wouldn't pay to see ECHL or even AHL level hockey for the most part if that were the market level that I was at. I see no reason to watch it in an NHL market. If the NHL rosters were 30%-40% NHL players...I might change my mind.
txpd said:
This is what I think this genius is trying to do.
Why?
I don't know, maybe he thinks that these really rich guys will bail it out and keep on giving them all the money they want.
The most rediculous thing to me throughout this whole affair is how he has these union guys completely paranoid that their employer are trying to hose them day in and day out...while they shell out 1.3 mil per player?
I mean these guys are giving the average player more than Gretz made until well into his mid-twenty's and they think the owners are out to get them?
All I can say is WOW these players must really lack intelligence.
I haven't heard the word "scab" here since April 4th, so it may be safe to say we wont ever be seeing the likes of them at all, speaking that we're the pessimistic type of posters here at HF
Let me save you some time. This question was already done and over 80% said yes. The 20% that said no are either players, agents, friends or relatives of current players that are locked out of their jobs.
Now that I have had my fun. They won't be called scabs or replacements. The NHLPA membership will never vote to strike. No strike = no scabs so the new NHL will have crossover players, prospects and the remaining spots will be filled by the best of the rest throughout the world.
Now that I have had my fun. They won't be called scabs or replacements. The NHLPA membership will never vote to strike. No strike = no scabs so the new NHL will have crossover players, prospects and the remaining spots will be filled by the best of the rest throughout the world.
Chili said:Who wants to pay to see dead skin?
If it's a hockey game, i'd pay. It's a good time.
tritone
Registered User
100% without any doubt. To add to that , I watched about 10 minutes of that joke of a game a few saturday's ago "Hockey, it's ours to give" or something like that. Honestly , I have grown so bitter with the current NHL roster that I was bored out of my mind and really couldn't care less about them .I'm actually hoping it's replacement players to start the season
FLYLine27*
BUCH
eye said:
LOL and what do you think the votes voting FOR going to the game are....90% of those are pro-owners.
FLYLine27*
BUCH
Timmy said:
....Pro-Owners vote for YES, Pro-Players vote for NO. Seems very parallel to me..i dont see how relatives of owners and players have anything to do with since in total there is probably .2% of those on the site.
I would go see them assuming the prices were reduced to make it reasonable. I would not pay NHL prices to watch AHL hockey, but I will pay AHL prices to see AHLish level hockey in an NHL arena. But for me, its also about geography. I live closer to three NHL arena's (NYR, NYI, NJD) than to the nearest AHL arena (bridgeport).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a hockey fan first and a NHL fan second.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a hockey fan first and a NHL fan second.
But what about those very few of us out there that aren't pro-player or pro-owner, and just want to see a deal done for Christ's sake! How the NHL and NHLPA divide up $2 billion is really none of my concern, as long as they do it.FLYLine4LIFE said:
Then again, I get to see maybe 1 NHL game live a year. Would I "go see" scabs, replacements, or whatever PC name the NHL will give them (I'm thinking "freedom players")? No, but no one would notice. Would I watch them on TV? If nothing else was on, yes.
Chili
En boca cerrada no entran moscas
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,509
- 4,393
Balej20 said:
That wasn't a serious comment. As far as whether I would pay...players are replaceable. How many of the ~720 have already played their last NHL game? The turnover from season to season is usually ~100 players and since it would be a second training camp this fall, double that. So we're already looking at a couple of hundred 'replacements'.
So my answer is yes, I would pay.
I am a hockey fan, not a fan of a specific group of players.
I think this opinion is more representative of an NHL fan than a hockey fan. Along with not being the fan of a specific group of players, a true hockey fan wouldn't be a fan of a specific league.Chili said:
I don't even go see the "stars". So I highly doubt I'd go see the scabs.
But I'd watch them on television, sure.
But I'd watch them on television, sure.
Replacement players, no.
Replacement owners? Hell yeah!
Remember, the owners locked out the players. The players didn't strike.
Replacement owners? Hell yeah!
Remember, the owners locked out the players. The players didn't strike.
- Status
