Did you hear that Tie Domi said that players are no longer going to talk to or cooperate with Pierre McGuire because he had the nerve to say that he thought 70% of players would accept a cap?
Thankfully, when this settles players like Domi and Linden will be the first to lose their jobs (3rd and 4th liners getting paid a couple of million to do what most AHLers would and could gladly do for $500,000).
gratts99 Wrote:hockey needs to take a year off so they can decide to get rid of some of these teams.. too many teams losing too much money. And if there is a salary cap i would love it.. it makes the NFL work!
The salary cap is only a small part of what makes the NFL work. Their success is built on the strength of their TV contract - the revenues of which pay all player salaries. The NHL has a crappy TV deal, and a few of the teams own their own TV rights (Toronto & NY Rangers just name 2) - so the league doesn't see any money from the TV broadcasts of those teams games... which are the most watched games.
But I'll be very happy on the day that they cancel this season. In fact, I'd like them to scrap the whole NHL, and just have a select few teams start up a new league, modeled exactly on the NFL. With fewer teams - say 6, in theory, they should be able to select only the top players and the league would return to the elite skill status it once posessed. This would provide a more appealing product for TV broadcasters, and help to secure a more lucrative broadcasting contract, ensuring that the league stays financially stable.
"What happened? I blacked out." :lol:
Another thing about the NFL, it also helps when you have 70,000 seat stadiums that sell-out, thats big bucks. As for the hockey, Id rather see an entire season scrapped for the good of the game, Id prefer a new NHL to start over from scratch. Keep the original six and build around it, or to just have a league with only Canadian teams, that would be great, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and others, Id be all for that. If americans(some not all, dont get mad) hate hockey and dont care what happens to the NHL anyway, then dont include them. Who needs Anaheim, Florida, Phoenix and Nahville and so on..There are some great hockey cities in the states and lots of real fans, eg. NY Islanders, Rangers. Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Buffalo and Minnesota. Add those teams to the Canadian teams I mentioned and now you got a league. I just hope it works out for the best, cap or no cap, I just want to watch hockey at its best, not some watered down boring trap league, give me old time hockey anyday. I love watching the classic games on ESPN and the NHL network, even my wife mentioned the other day, while we were watching a playoff game from the 80's how she thought hockey seemed more fun and interesting back then and this is from a very casual fan, who doesnt know alot about the game. The game needs work, I just wish they would listen to the fans more and not some airhead like bettman, I hope when the dust settles that he gets tossed out on his ear.
LizardKing51 Wrote:Another thing about the NFL, it also helps when you have 70,000 seat stadiums that sell-out, thats big bucks. As for the hockey, Id rather see an entire season scrapped for the good of the game, Id prefer a new NHL to start over from scratch. Keep the original six and build around it, or to just have a league with only Canadian teams, that would be great, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and others, Id be all for that. If americans(some not all, dont get mad) hate hockey and dont care what happens to the NHL anyway, then dont include them. Who needs Anaheim, Florida, Phoenix and Nahville and so on..There are some great hockey cities in the states and lots of real fans, eg. NY Islanders, Rangers. Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Buffalo and Minnesota. Add those teams to the Canadian teams I mentioned and now you got a league. I just hope it works out for the best, cap or no cap, I just want to watch hockey at its best, not some watered down boring trap league, give me old time hockey anyday. I love watching the classic games on ESPN and the NHL network, even my wife mentioned the other day, while we were watching a playoff game from the 80's how she thought hockey seemed more fun and interesting back then and this is from a very casual fan, who doesnt know alot about the game. The game needs work, I just wish they would listen to the fans more and not some airhead like bettman, I hope when the dust settles that he gets tossed out on his ear.
Old time hockey? You mean the hockey where half the players couldn't pass, the other half couldn't shoot, and the goaltenders would have made Trevor Kidd look good? No thanks. The modern day NHL is eons better than even two decades ago. The players are bigger, faster, and in peak physical shape all year round. And today's goaltenders are amazing.
And anyone who thinks the talent is "watered down" seems to forget that the talent pool to draw from is larger than ever before. There were few Euros in the league in the 80s. Now look how many there are.
cferneyh Wrote:LizardKing51 Wrote:Another thing about the NFL, it also helps when you have 70,000 seat stadiums that sell-out, thats big bucks. As for the hockey, Id rather see an entire season scrapped for the good of the game, Id prefer a new NHL to start over from scratch. Keep the original six and build around it, or to just have a league with only Canadian teams, that would be great, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and others, Id be all for that. If americans(some not all, dont get mad) hate hockey and dont care what happens to the NHL anyway, then dont include them. Who needs Anaheim, Florida, Phoenix and Nahville and so on..There are some great hockey cities in the states and lots of real fans, eg. NY Islanders, Rangers. Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Buffalo and Minnesota. Add those teams to the Canadian teams I mentioned and now you got a league. I just hope it works out for the best, cap or no cap, I just want to watch hockey at its best, not some watered down boring trap league, give me old time hockey anyday. I love watching the classic games on ESPN and the NHL network, even my wife mentioned the other day, while we were watching a playoff game from the 80's how she thought hockey seemed more fun and interesting back then and this is from a very casual fan, who doesnt know alot about the game. The game needs work, I just wish they would listen to the fans more and not some airhead like bettman, I hope when the dust settles that he gets tossed out on his ear.
Old time hockey? You mean the hockey where half the players couldn't pass, the other half couldn't shoot, and the goaltenders would have made Trevor Kidd look good? No thanks. The modern day NHL is eons better than even two decades ago. The players are bigger, faster, and in peak physical shape all year round. And today's goaltenders are amazing.
And anyone who thinks the talent is "watered down" seems to forget that the talent pool to draw from is larger than ever before. There were few Euros in the league in the 80s. Now look how many there are.
If you think I only meant hockey in the 50's and 60's or whatever, not so. Im 27 years old and Ive been watching hockey since I was a kid and I found it to be more exciting particularly the period between 1980 and the early 90's, not that hockey wasnt good in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The game was different then and I dont compare it to today, yeah some of the players might not make the grade today, but there were a lot of good players, and Im sure I dont have to name a bunch of names, we know who did what. I could care less about the size of the talent pool, when you spread it over 30-32 teams, it will be watered down. When I was 12 I could tell you who played every position on every team and where he came from, now not a chance. I think there are too many teams and the players are spread out too much and the monopoly that a handful of teams have on players is too unbalanced, and its hurt the Canadian teams(except big money TO) but they wont win shit anyway. Todays game is exciting and top notch, but I really enjoyed it more when I was younger, I think it was more competitive and more exciting to watch. Maybe its just me, but I miss it.
LizardKing51 Wrote:If you think I only meant hockey in the 50's and 60's or whatever, not so. Im 27 years old and Ive been watching hockey since I was a kid and I found it to be more exciting particularly the period between 1980 and the early 90's, not that hockey wasnt good in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The game was different then and I dont compare it to today, yeah some of the players might not make the grade today, but there were a lot of good players, and Im sure I dont have to name a bunch of names, we know who did what. I could care less about the size of the talent pool, when you spread it over 30-32 teams, it will be watered down. When I was 12 I could tell you who played every position on every team and where he came from, now not a chance. I think there are too many teams and the players are spread out too much and the monopoly that a handful of teams have on players is too unbalanced, and its hurt the Canadian teams(except big money TO) but they wont win shit anyway. Todays game is exciting and top notch, but I really enjoyed it more when I was younger, I think it was more competitive and more exciting to watch. Maybe its just me, but I miss it.
No, I knew you were talking about hockey in the 80s. Most people who grew up watching hockey in the 80s have completely romanticized the game from that era, as every generation tends to do. People who grew up watching hockey in the 70s probably thought hockey in the 80s was crap, same for those who grew up in the 60s and thought hockey in the 70s was crap, etc etc etc.
I think the reason that you were able to name everyone in the league when you were 12 is because you had the time to do it. If you are 27 I trust you've got other things to worry about than who is the third line left winger on Nashville. I least I hope you do :lol:. But when you are 12, things like that mean all the world to you.
Yes, there are 30 teams now instead of 21, but again, when the talent pool has effectively doubled with the best talent from Sweden, Finland, Russia, the Czech Republic, and other countries now playing in the NHL, how can you possibly say the game is watered down? All you have to do to see how much better the talent player is to look at todays goons. The vast majority of them today can actually play the game. In the 80s the vast majority of goons could barely skate!
I happen to think today's game is way more competitive than ever before because there is so much at stake. In today's game a team like Calgary - short on shill, big on hard work - can make it to within one goal of winning the Cup, tossing aside much more talented teams along the way. That's not exciting to you? (Note: I'm not a Flames fan. Unfortunately for me, I'm a Leafs fan). If it was 1985 and a team like the Flames met a team like the Wings in the 2nd round, the Wings would have swept them aside because in those days, simply having more talent pretty much guaranteed you'd win the Cup. But these days it requires talent AND a lot of hard work, great goaltending, and great coaching. Withiut any of those your team ain't going anywhere (just ask the Ranger$ of the past six years - lots of talent, but without the hard work to back it up, it hasn't meant a damn thing).
Anyway, just my two cents. Whenever I watch a game from the 80s all I can do is laugh at how slow the players are and how brutal the goaltending is, so when I hear someone say "Oh, it was sooooooo much better then", all I can do is wonder if I watched the same thing.
cferneyh Wrote:LizardKing51 Wrote:If you think I only meant hockey in the 50's and 60's or whatever, not so. Im 27 years old and Ive been watching hockey since I was a kid and I found it to be more exciting particularly the period between 1980 and the early 90's, not that hockey wasnt good in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The game was different then and I dont compare it to today, yeah some of the players might not make the grade today, but there were a lot of good players, and Im sure I dont have to name a bunch of names, we know who did what. I could care less about the size of the talent pool, when you spread it over 30-32 teams, it will be watered down. When I was 12 I could tell you who played every position on every team and where he came from, now not a chance. I think there are too many teams and the players are spread out too much and the monopoly that a handful of teams have on players is too unbalanced, and its hurt the Canadian teams(except big money TO) but they wont win shit anyway. Todays game is exciting and top notch, but I really enjoyed it more when I was younger, I think it was more competitive and more exciting to watch. Maybe its just me, but I miss it.
No, I knew you were talking about hockey in the 80s. Most people who grew up watching hockey in the 80s have completely romanticized the game from that era, as every generation tends to do. People who grew up watching hockey in the 70s probably thought hockey in the 80s was crap, same for those who grew up in the 60s and thought hockey in the 70s was crap, etc etc etc.
I think the reason that you were able to name everyone in the league when you were 12 is because you had the time to do it. If you are 27 I trust you've got other things to worry about than who is the third line left winger on Nashville. I least I hope you do :lol:. But when you are 12, things like that mean all the world to you.
Yes, there are 30 teams now instead of 21, but again, when the talent pool has effectively doubled with the best talent from Sweden, Finland, Russia, the Czech Republic, and other countries now playing in the NHL, how can you possibly say the game is watered down? All you have to do to see how much better the talent player is to look at todays goons. The vast majority of them today can actually play the game. In the 80s the vast majority of goons could barely skate!
I happen to think today's game is way more competitive than ever before because there is so much at stake. In today's game a team like Calgary - short on shill, big on hard work - can make it to within one goal of winning the Cup, tossing aside much more talented teams along the way. That's not exciting to you? (Note: I'm not a Flames fan. Unfortunately for me, I'm a Leafs fan). If it was 1985 and a team like the Flames met a team like the Wings in the 2nd round, the Wings would have swept them aside because in those days, simply having more talent pretty much guaranteed you'd win the Cup. But these days it requires talent AND a lot of hard work, great goaltending, and great coaching. Withiut any of those your team ain't going anywhere (just ask the Ranger$ of the past six years - lots of talent, but without the hard work to back it up, it hasn't meant a damn thing).
Anyway, just my two cents. Whenever I watch a game from the 80s all I can do is laugh at how slow the players are and how brutal the goaltending is, so when I hear someone say "Oh, it was sooooooo much better then", all I can do is wonder if I watched the same thing.
I see your point on the "watered down" aspect of the game, I have to agree with you on that. Of course there has always been great players, we all know that. Todays game is competitive and exciting, I dont disagree, but for me it just seems like somethings missing or not quite right, maybe its lost its allure or cache a little, its just when you see Nashville playing Florida its just snooooooore, I think rivalries and location played a big part in the excitement, I think thats been lost a little. Im a HUGE Habs fan and always will be, I just think its a shame that they cant compete like they used to because they cant afford to or whatever, it just aint the same. Plus I would like it better if they pooled all the teams for the playoffs so we could have different cup finalists, under this system Montreal and Toronto could never play for the cup (unlikely I know) and the fact I'll never see a Montreal-Quebec game anymore, just little things like that I miss most, I love hockey dont get me wrong, I think for me hockey hit its peak in 1993, but after bettman dug his claws in after the new collective agreement in 94 the game went for a dip, lost some great franchises in Winnipeg and Quebec and hasnt really recovered, to my satisfaction anyway. I still enjoy watching the old games though, still lots of fun. Mostly I miss the Rocket, man he was something to behold, he'd score 5 goals, punch a guy out, carry 3 guys on his back on the way to the net and still score. My favorite player of all time #9. Like I said once before, if someone like Sundin got tossed out of the playoffs, torontonians wouldnt burn the ACC down, would they?
LizardKing51 Wrote:I see your point on the "watered down" aspect of the game, I have to agree with you on that. Of course there has always been great players, we all know that. Todays game is competitive and exciting, I dont disagree, but for me it just seems like somethings missing or not quite right, maybe its lost its allure or cache a little, its just when you see Nashville playing Florida its just snooooooore, I think rivalries and location played a big part in the excitement, I think thats been lost a little. Im a HUGE Habs fan and always will be, I just think its a shame that they cant compete like they used to because they cant afford to or whatever, it just aint the same. Plus I would like it better if they pooled all the teams for the playoffs so we could have different cup finalists, under this system Montreal and Toronto could never play for the cup (unlikely I know) and the fact I'll never see a Montreal-Quebec game anymore, just little things like that I miss most, I love hockey dont get me wrong, I think for me hockey hit its peak in 1993, but after bettman dug his claws in after the new collective agreement in 94 the game went for a dip, lost some great franchises in Winnipeg and Quebec and hasnt really recovered, to my satisfaction anyway. I still enjoy watching the old games though, still lots of fun. Mostly I miss the Rocket, man he was something to behold, he'd score 5 goals, punch a guy out, carry 3 guys on his back on the way to the net and still score. My favorite player of all time #9. Like I said once before, if someone like Sundin got tossed out of the playoffs, torontonians wouldnt burn the ACC down, would they?
I get what you are saying - you miss the rivalries, etc, from when you were growing up. Yeah, I can certainly see that. Those Habs/Nordiques series were always entertaining, just because of the pure hatred those teams had towards each other. But yeah, Nashville versus Florida on a Tuesday night in February.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
When the whole lockout started I was on the side of ownership. But the more I read, the most I find myself feeling for the players. Don't get me wrong - I'll never side with the players (these clowns would rather steal a job in Europe and play for an average of $200K versus playing in the NHL for an average of $1.3 million - yeah, that's smart) because they don't care about the success of the game - they only care about their bank accounts. But I can certainly understand why the players don't trust the owners:
- Jeremey Jacobs (Bruins owner) was fined by Massachusetts for cheating on his taxes by underreporting gate receipts
- Jerry Moyes (Phoenix majority owner) is under SEC investigation for insider trading.
- Philip Anschutz (Kings owner - and 62nd richest person in the world) is the founder and majority shareholder of Qwest Communications. In October Qwest agreed to pay $250 million to settle charges that the company engaged in rampant fraud, conducted by former top managers in
order to dupe investors.
- John Rigas (former owner of the Sabres) was convicted in July of conspiracy, bank fraud and securities fraud for looting his cable company (Adelphia) and duping its investors.
- There's a book out about Bill Wirtz (owner of the Blackhawks and in the Hall of Fame as a "builder") that alleges repeated antitrust violations, bribery of public officials, stealing from his niece's trust fund, collusion against NHL players, and the buying of special-interest legislation. Apparently Wirtz also doesn't credit luxury box revenue or alcohol sales to the Hawks.
So when you've got this cast of clowns (and others) owning franchises, why would you trust their revenue projections? Furthermore, for a great read on why salaries are as high as they are today, visit this site:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.com/dubi/2004/04/your_own_worst_.html">http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.com/ ... orst_.html</a><!-- m -->
You'll see that a lot of the teams that whine about salaries today (Ottawa, Vancouver, Carolina, Boston, Chicago) are directly responsible for making them what they are today!
Regardless, the friggin players gotta wake up and realize that with no NHL this year, and possibly none next year, it doesn't matter if there is a salary cap or a luxury tax going forward - league-wide revenues are gonna plummet which means less money to pay players no matter hour you cut it. Baseball's attendance dropped by 20% in 1995 (after the '94 World Series was cancelled). I can't imagine how much NHL attendance would drop by if the NHL didn't operate for two seasons - and gate receipts are the #1 revenue source ifor the league. If they were smart they would agree to the cap, and focus their negotiating efforts on the amount of the cap. Instead, it's become an ego driven pissing contest where no one wants to capitulate and everyone wants to save face. Sad.
That was some interesting reading, kind of puts a new twist on things. I have beefs with both sides, but Ive been talking so much about this lately, on here and at home that Im running out of breath. All I care about is getting the game back, and making it work for everyone, especially the fans, because we buy the tickets and the jerseys etc.. and I love watching my Habs play good or bad.
with all crap going on in the nhl these days it makes you kinda wonder what they are playing for...the money or the love of the game.
that being said, everyone is welcome to come watch me play for free every sunday in a beer league!!!
Funny, but between watching and helping out with my 6-year old son's team, playing in my Monday night pick-up, skating on my modest backyard rink, and following the local Jr. A team (Go Tigers!), I really haven't missed the NHL this year...
The day they finally acknowledge their stupidity and cancel this (and next?) season will officially be met with a "meh" in these parts...
They really have no idea how much permanent damage they're doing...
Mike.
cferneyh Wrote:Did you hear that Tie Domi said that players are no longer going to talk to or cooperate with Pierre McGuire because he had the nerve to say that he thought 70% of players would accept a cap?
Thankfully, when this settles players like Domi and Linden will be the first to lose their jobs (3rd and 4th liners getting paid a couple of million to do what most AHLers would and could gladly do for $500,000).
Ya know, I'm a Leaf fan and all, but the more I hear Domi, the more convinced I get that he's a complete idiot! I heard what McGuire said, all he said was his opinion, nothing more. Now you can say he's wrong in his opinion, but to say you'll effectively boycott him... give me a break! :roll:
On another topic, I read a column by Al Strachan that suggested fans have been deluded into believing that if this lockout kills some team, that the hockey will be better. He claims the hockey will be less exciting because the talent level per team will be higher, therefore fewer mistakes and scoring chances. I don't think he's right, and I'll use one example that should just about kill his argument... 2002 Olympics. For the most part, the skill level was pretty high in that tournament, no? And most games were pretty darn exciting. Now sure the big ice had something to do with that, and the NHL can't (or won't) implement that, but if they continue to make other rule changes to improve the game, like some being used in the AHL, then fewer teams can make for better hockey.
j-monster Wrote:On another topic, I read a column by Al Strachan that suggested fans have been deluded into believing that if this lockout kills some team, that the hockey will be better. He claims the hockey will be less exciting because the talent level per team will be higher, therefore fewer mistakes and scoring chances. I don't think he's right, and I'll use one example that should just about kill his argument... 2002 Olympics. For the most part, the skill level was pretty high in that tournament, no? And most games were pretty darn exciting. Now sure the big ice had something to do with that, and the NHL can't (or won't) implement that, but if they continue to make other rule changes to improve the game, like some being used in the AHL, then fewer teams can make for better hockey.
Don't believe anything that Strachan writes. The guy is the unofficial spokesperson for the NHLPA. And he's the same guy that constantly berates the Leafs for "not spending enough to show they truly want to compete", and then rips the owners for overpaying players in the first place and creating this mess.
cferneyh Wrote:Don't believe anything that Strachan writes. The guy is the unofficial spokesperson for the NHLPA. And he's the same guy that constantly berates the Leafs for "not spending enough to show they truly want to compete", and then rips the owners for overpaying players in the first place and creating this mess.
Ah, so I'm not the only person who thinks Strachan is a shill for the players. So when do they announce that he's taken a job as head PR guy for the 'PA? :roll:
While the lockout is sad, I feel I'm just about the only person on the side of the players.....
Sure, they make ridiculous amounts of money and no one should get payed that much to play a game. But... for the sake of argument, lets say you make 50,000 a year in a company with ten employees.... and the boss tells you that because of the new government regulations (collective barganing agreement), he's only allowed to pay a total of 360,000 to his employees (salary cap)... thus, everyone is going to take an average $14,000 a year cut in salary. You'd be pissed off too.
I think it should either be a higher cap (i.e. 75mil) where teams can buy extra room from the league for 5 cents on the dollar paid out to EVERY OTHER TEAM - i.e. 1 million more = 50,000 paid out to 29 teams, or 1.45mil in payments..... or,
Salary cap the games, not the total cost. Maximum yearly salary for the team that gets dressed = $45mil. That way, if you wanna pay a player 15 mil a year, great, but the rest of your team can only cost 30 mil on any given night.
I think both solutions could work for both parties, if implemented correctly, and they can both shut up and get back to playing and working on the strength of their league.