NHL is back

[EnderAndrew]

Good. As an Avs fan, I hate Vancouver.

[Oerwinde]

Good.  As an Avs fan, I hate Vancouver.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Shakes fist* Towel Power!

[Kor Qel Droma]

Boo on yoo Ender! The only hockey jersey I will ever wear is my 1970s Yellow V Canucks home jersey.

 

If Naslund decides to leave Vancouver you know Bert will be two steps behind him. Actually what I heard on teevee today is that Naslunds coming back is supposed to keep Bertuzzi in town.

[alanschu]

I'd like to see Ottawa make a run in the playoffs.  During the regular season they play as well as any team in the league.

 

The Avs still have Abischere (spelling?) who is a Roy-clone.  He's not bad, but he's no Roy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Too bad Tommy Salo never fully recovered after his gaffe in the Olympics.

[Oerwinde]

Boo on yoo Ender!  The only hockey jersey I will ever wear is my 1970s Yellow V Canucks home jersey. 

 

    If Naslund decides to leave Vancouver you know Bert will be two steps behind him.  Actually what I heard on teevee today is that Naslunds coming back is supposed to keep Bertuzzi in town.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Bert I believe still has a couple years left on his contract. Or at least one. Not sure how long that 7 million dollar deal was for. I thought it was for 4 years, so if the lockout counts as one, that leaves 2 years left.

 

And I need to get me one of the classic rink jerseys. Canucks jerseys IMO are ranked

 

1: Skate

2: Rink

3: Orca

4: V

[Kor Qel Droma]

Thats not true. He had three good games in a row once with Oilers before his confidence went in the toilet again. Too bad, he was really good for a while...

[Kor Qel Droma]

Sorry I guess I should use the quote button more often since this thread seems to have some life.

[EnderAndrew]

It is even harder to like Vancouver after the Bertuzzi incident.

[alanschu]

Thats not true.  He had three good games in a row once with Oilers before his confidence went in the toilet again.  Too bad, he was really good for a while...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I have no recollection.

 

Anyone can have some good games when he gets on a roll. I still think he never really fully recovered, which is too bad.

 

He was a talented goalie IMO, and was a joy to watch for the most part.

 

 

Jussi Markanen and Ty Conklin were a good "Goalie-by-Committee" combo. I have always had the impression that Edmonton had really good goalies.

 

We also bring out the best in Igor Ulanov

[Kor Qel Droma]

[

Well Bert I believe still has a couple years left on his contract. Or at least one. Not sure how long that 7 million dollar deal was for. I thought it was for 4 years, so if the lockout counts as one, that leaves 2 years left.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think if Bertuzzi wants out his contract won't stop him ( Pavel Bure, anyone?). And thanks to the new NHL economics , his 7 mil deal is only 5 and a quarter or a half now.

[Kor Qel Droma]

[

We also bring out the best in Igor Ulanov

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He and Jason Smith were downright nasty that one year, weren't they? Then they made it to the playoffs and Igor became the sacrificial goat for his dismal play.

 

Personally I'm quite excited about Edmontons' blueline this year. The only person who isn't resigned is Eric Brewer, I think. He's overrated anyway, and should have more points for a guy who takes up so much ice time.

[alanschu]

I hate hold outs

 

If there's one thing I can't stand it's when people try to weasel out of their contracts.

 

I have no problem with contract renegotiations, but holding out is really lame IMO, especially seeing as financial security is not high on an athlete's list of concerns (unless you're Mike Tyson).

 

Same with musicians (Linkin Park).

 

I never thought it remarkable at the time, but I'm impressed that Michael Jordan didn't demand extra money when he returned to the Chicago Bulls. In 1995/1996, he was still on the last year of his original contact signed back in like 1989 or maybe even 1988. He wasn't even the highest paid player on his own team.

 

Of course he made $25 million the next season and $30 after that

[Oerwinde]

[

Well Bert I believe still has a couple years left on his contract. Or at least one. Not sure how long that 7 million dollar deal was for. I thought it was for 4 years, so if the lockout counts as one, that leaves 2 years left.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think if Bertuzzi wants out his contract won't stop him ( Pavel Bure, anyone?). And thanks to the new NHL economics , his 7 mil deal is only 5 and a quarter or a half now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought Bure just stopped playing until his contract was up? I know he stopped playing and because of it didn't get paid for a while, then screwed up his knees like 6 months into his contract for his new team... whiny Russian pansy.

 

Oh well, maybe Jason King won't fizzle this season and do as well as he did in the first quarter of last season.

[Kor Qel Droma]

Oh well, maybe Jason King won't fizzle this season and do as well as he did in the first quarter of last season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How did King do in the minors? Any ideas how he did this season? The only hockey I've watched in the last 300 days is my local junior team.

[Oerwinde]

 

Oh well, maybe Jason King won't fizzle this season and do as well as he did in the first quarter of last season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How did King do in the minors? Any ideas how he did this season? The only hockey I've watched in the last 300 days is my local junior team.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty much the same thing happened in the minors. He got an award for getting like 12 goals in 4 games, then sucked for the rest of the season. Final stats were 26 goals in 59 games, which isn't bad, but considering he scored half his goals in the first 4-5 games, it doesn't speak wonders for the rest of the season.

[Kor Qel Droma]

Thats too bad, he seemed to bring out the best of the Sedins for a little while. Any ideas if Magnus Arvedson is still signed?

[Volourn]

"He's also the same guy that said lets strike, this deal sucks."

 

You should know what you are talking about before posting. The players didn't strike, the owners locked them locked.

 

In essence, contrary to popular belief, this new deal is bad for the NHL. Instead of making retarded deals that help NO ONE the NHL should be throwing out the trash - ie. teams that don't deserve to be in the NHL. The Carolinas, the Ottawas, Calgary et all should all be thrown in the garbage. They are waht bring the game down. Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, and Red Wings along with their large contracts is what mkaes the game better. How cna I say this? easy. Even with their huge salaries those big market teams STILL make lots of dough. That's right. The rangers can spend tens of millions of dollars, and suck on the ice yet they will still sell out the arena and make cash. It's the pathetic markets like Ottawa that ruin the game.

 

This new deal along with the new rules thata re proposed are really going desroy the game. The game doesn't need more scoring. It is the most exciting game on earth. Period.

 

 

Goodenow deserves to be fired for being a coward who couldn't stand his ground even though his side was in the right. Salary caps, afterall, are an embarassment to a socity that should be about a free market.

 

Bettman should be fired for being a punk who has ruined the game with expansion into cities that don't deserve teams, allowing teams that can't handle exisiting to remain, for locking out the player unnessarily costing the league BILLIONS of dollars, stealing money from players, and for all these new rules that will likely make the game worse not better.

[EnderAndrew]

The players originally refused to sign an offer that had no pay cut, but proposed a salary cap.

 

They held out as much as the owners locked them out. Neither side would agree, and thusly neither side was willing to play hockey games.

[Volourn]

"They held out as much as the owners locked them out."

 

It was a lock out. This is undisputeable. It was the owners led by Bettman who said that they were closing down shop. They players weren't the ones who made the decision. Do not blame them for the lock out or league close down. Blame them for not bowing down right away; but not for the lock out. Afterall, there is a huge difference between a lock out, and a strike. The players did strike in the early 90s; not in 2004.

[alanschu]

"He's also the same guy that said lets strike, this deal sucks."

 

You should know what you are talking about before posting. The players didn't strike, the owners locked them locked.

 

I guess strike wasn't the best word. But the players still weren't signing the deal. It was their choice to not accept it.

 

In essence, contrary to popular belief, this new deal is bad for the NHL. Instead of making retarded deals that help NO ONE the NHL should be throwing out the trash - ie. teams that don't deserve to be in the NHL. The Carolinas, the Ottawas, Calgary et all should all be thrown in the garbage. They are waht bring the game down. Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, and Red Wings along with their large contracts is what mkaes the game better. How cna I say this? easy. Even with their huge salaries those big market teams STILL make lots of dough. That's right. The rangers can spend tens of millions of dollars,  and suck on the ice yet they will still sell out the arena and make cash. It's the pathetic markets like Ottawa that ruin the game.

 

I guess you'd rather the suits be the only ones that enjoy the game. Never mind the fact that Edmonton had >100% attendance one year (thanks Heritage classic), and the fact that other teams and people have considered them to be one of the more exciting teams in the league. Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before posting. Teams like Edmonton and other smaller market teams are finding it harder to hold on to players. You get these garbage teams like New York, that buy so much talent that they become boring to watch, as it's a bunch of shmucks who have no idea how to work as a team. But I guess you'd rather have teams laden with players that don't mesh and all want ice time. Look at all the high spending did for New York. When was the last time they made the playoffs again? A team like New York can continue to make money because they have a market large enough to charge $1000 dollars for a seat. Some big suit's still gonna buy it, just because.

 

 

This new deal along with the new rules thata re proposed are really going desroy the game. The game doesn't need more scoring. It is the most exciting game on earth. Period.

 

Clearly people agree. That's why they're tuning in to the NFL, MLB, and the NBA.

 

 

 

It was a lock out. This is undisputeable. It was the owners led by Bettman who said that they were closing down shop. They players weren't the ones who made the decision.

 

Then why didn't they sign the first deal? Or why are they signing a much worse deal now?

[EnderAndrew]

Name one time the players said they would play if the owners allowed them to play.

 

The players said they refused to play by the existing agreement, and would not sign a new one.

 

Clearly, it's a one sided situation where the owners locked them out.

[Volourn]

"I guess strike wasn't the best word. But the players still weren't signing the deal. It was their choice to not accept it."

 

Them not signing a new deal is irreleavnt. It was the owners who locked them out. As i recall, the players offered multiple deals including a salary cap very close to the one they got now awhile back. Either way, the players didn't walk out nor did they close the leage down. That was an owners suggestion.

 

 

"I guess you'd rather the suits be the only ones that enjoy the game. Never mind the fact that Edmonton had >100% attendance one year (thanks Heritage classic), and the fact that other teams and people have considered them to be one of the more exciting teams in the league. Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before posting. Teams like Edmonton and other smaller market teams are finding it harder to hold on to players. You get these garbage teams like New York, that buy so much talent that they become boring to watch, as it's a bunch of shmucks who have no idea how to work as a team. But I guess you'd rather have teams laden with players that don't mesh and all want ice time. Look at all the high spending did for New York. When was the last time they made the playoffs again? A team like New York can continue to make money because they have a market large enough to charge $1000 dollars for a seat. Some big suit's still gonna buy it, just because."

 

Running a sports team is,a nd should be treated as a business. If you are losing money, you should either sell it to someone who can run it better or close down shop. Period.

 

And, the Rangers' problem wasn't them being boring as theyw erne't. They were very entertaining to watch. The problem is they weren't winning. And, the fact they were still making LOTS of money despite their losing ways and high contracts shows that they have every right to do what theyw ere doing. They did nothingw rong with spending the cash (except with some awful deals they made)).

 

Don't makes exuses. Edmonton doesn't make money and hence can't afford to stay in business. Rangers make money and can. In the REAL world, that's the way it should be. However, people want a false Utopia where every NHL team is created equal. this isn't so.

 

Remember, the salary cap is 20-25 mil minimum to 40 mil or so maximum. You can bet that Edmonton will be at the lower end, and the Rangers will be at the high end so, in essence, this has not changed one damn thing except allowing the owners a much higher profit. Good for them. Still bad for the Edmontons of the world.

 

 

"Clearly people agree. That's why they're tuning in to the NFL, MLB, and the NBA."

 

Before the lockout, the NHL was as popular as it ever was. The NHL was never as popualr as the other leagues, and it likely never will be no matter what because of the size factor between the US vs. Kanada. People should just accept this.

 

 

"Then why didn't they sign the first deal? Or why are they signing a much worse deal now?"

 

Ask them. Obviously, at the time it wans't to their liking. Now, they are just depserate to get it over sincemoronic fans like yourself were blaming the players for the league's problem when it was 100% the owners' fault.

 

Period.

 

 

 

"Name one time the players said they would play if the owners allowed them to play.

 

The players said they refused to play by the existing agreement, and would not sign a new one.

 

Clearly, it's a one sided situation where the owners locked them out. "

 

 

All of them. Hence the fact it was a lock out. It's not like the players just decided not to show up for work. They were told to go home. Period. Stop kissing the owners' behinds.

[EnderAndrew]

Them not signing a new deal is irreleavnt. It was the owners who locked them out. As i recall, the players offered multiple deals including a salary cap very close to the one they got now awhile back. Either way, the players didn't walk out nor did they close the leage down. That was an owners suggestion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? If the players signed, there would be no lockout.

 

The owners had no money. Most teams in the league lost millions every year, and Ottawa officially declared bankruptcy.

 

Financial analysts said that 90% of the teams in the league simply couldn't afford one single year under the old plan.

 

Yet you insist the new deal is just a way for the owners to make more profits. There weren't profits in the first place.

 

The owners were to blame for over-spenind in the first place, but every single league without a salary cap has faced the same problems in the first place. The owners knew they made a mistake and attempted to rectify it. Players had to know they were overpaid, and refused to play.

 

If the players refuse to play, how is it an open-and-shut case that the owners locked them out?

 

When neither side is contracted to work with the other, and neither side will agree on anything, then you can't point the blame solely at once side.

 

The players never agreed to a salary cap until the end. The proposed revenue sharing, and pay cuts, which the owners hadn't pushed for initially. Now the owners got revenue sharing, 24% pay cut across the board, and a salary cap.

[alanschu]

Them not signing a new deal is irreleavnt

 

It kept them unemployed....and made things drag on longer. Only to take a much worse deal later....smaaaaaaaaaart.

 

 

 

And, the Rangers' problem wasn't them being boring as theyw erne't. They were very entertaining to watch. The problem is they weren't winning. And, the fact they were still making LOTS of money despite their losing ways and high contracts shows that they have every right to do what theyw ere doing. They did nothingw rong with spending the cash (except with some awful deals they made)).

 

I guess you'd rather have that garbage.

 

Don't makes exuses. Edmonton doesn't make money and hence can't afford to stay in business. Rangers make money and can. In the REAL world, that's the way it should be. However, people want a false Utopia where every NHL team is created equal. this isn't so.

 

Edmonton did make money in the last two seasons.

 

 

Remember, the salary cap is 20-25 mil minimum to 40 mil or so maximum. You can bet that Edmonton will be at the lower end, and the Rangers will be at the high end so, in essence, this has not changed one damn thing except allowing the owners a much higher profit. Good for them. Still bad for the Edmontons of the world.

 

Edmonton's payroll their last season they played was $31 million.

 

 

Before the lockout, the NHL was as popular as it ever was. The NHL was never as popualr as the other leagues, and it likely never will be no matter what because of the size factor between the US vs. Kanada. People should just accept this.

 

I thought you said we should treat hockey like a business? Businesses try to make money. And they try to maximize their profits. Gaining US fans is what brings it in.

 

And the only reason why hockey is as popular as it ever was is because of all those broke, incapable teams. Lets see how much following it has when it's only played in Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, New York, and LA.

 

 

"Then why didn't they sign the first deal? Or why are they signing a much worse deal now?"

 

Ask them. Obviously, at the time it wans't to their liking.  Now, they are just depserate to get it over sincemoronic fans like yourself were blaming the players for the league's problem when it was 100% the owners' fault.

 

Period.

 

I'm blaming the players for being retards. Clearly their actions support my conclusion.

 

 

All of them. Hence the fact it was a lock out. It's not like the players just decided not to show up for work. They were told to go home. Period. Stop kissing the owners' behinds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if the players were right, why did they sign the newer, much crappier deal? Surely they could have gotten back up to what they were originally proposed.

[Volourn]

"Really? If the players signed, there would be no lockout."

 

It was a lock out. This is a fact. This is undisputable.It's not an opinion.

 

 

"The owners had no money. Most teams in the league lost millions every year, and Ottawa officially declared bankruptcy."

 

Some made money. Some didn't. Ottaw should not exist, and you are gonna be unpleasantly surprised when Otta doesn't make any money this year either unless they raise ticket prices.

 

 

"Financial analysts said that 90% of the teams in the league simply couldn't afford one single year under the old plan."

 

Yeah. Finanical analyists paid by the owners said that. I don't believe them AT ALL.

 

 

"The owners were to blame for over-spenind in the first place, but every single league without a salary cap has faced the same problems in the first place. The owners knew they made a mistake and attempted to rectify it. Players had to know they were overpaid, and refused to play."

 

The BA has a salary cap, and guys like Shaquille still get paid 25$ mil a year while the highest paid NHL players are 10-11$ mil. The problem isn't the existenc eof the salary cap; but ehe retardedness of the NHL owners paying what they can't afford. The Rangers did NOT overspend. They spent what they can afford. Theyw ere intelligent (thoguh dumb on which players they spend their money on). It's teams like Ottaw who overspent. The owbers didn't try tor ectify; they used bully tatics, threats, and intimidation, and insults to get what they want. If they wanting tor mectify the situation there was an eaiser way - use self control and don't spend more moeny than you have. It's called common sense aka good business sense. If your team has $40 million dolalrs in the account, don't go and spend $50 million. It's just plain retarded. The players were not overpaid, theyw ere paid what the market place warranted. And, the players did NOT refuse to play. the owners told them tog o. The owners refused to let them play.

 

 

"If the players refuse to play, how is it an open-and-shut case that the owners locked them out?"

 

Do you even know the difference between a lockout and a strike? Gee... Even Alanshu knew he used the wrong words here. The players didn't refuse to play so it *is* an open-and-shut case that the owners locked them out. It was the onwers' legal right do so, and though I disagree with the decision it was their decision to do so. The players also had the right to strike but they DID NOT.

 

 

"When neither side is contracted to work with the other, and neither side will agree on anything, then you can't point the blame solely at once side."

 

It was a lockout so I cna. Next.

 

 

"The players never agreed to a salary cap until the end."

 

False. False. False. Players proposed a salary cap way back in December or Janurary.Don't make crap up.

 

 

"The proposed revenue sharing, and pay cuts, which the owners hadn't pushed for initially. Now the owners got revenue sharing, 24% pay cut across the board, and a salary cap."

 

Don't get me started on revenue sharing. It's even worse than a salary cap. A team like the Rangers shouldn't be forced to pay for the Oilers' team.

 

 

"Only to take a much worse deal later....smaaaaaaaaaart."

 

I never said they were smart. In fact, they are dumb for the predicament they're in now.

 

 

"Edmonton did make money in the last two seasons."

 

Then there's no problem. Edmonton makes money and moves on. Good for 'em. And, they did this as a small market teams, no salary cap, and were still competitive. Go figure.