Screw the players. Looks like the season is over

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Do you really think the PA is/was going to release all their intentions?

Cherry, Melrose, and a bunch of "industry sources" have all said that $45 million was the magic number.

The media has been putting out so much "inside information" on the lockout thats turned out to be false that I wouldnt buy into this automatically either.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

I think the PA was mixed on expansion.

On one hand, you're creating more jobs and more money for players.

On the other hand, other players could be taking some older players jobs.

Regardless, expansion was another Bettman failure.

How has expansion been a failure? Both Minnesota and Columbus have had excellent attendance, and Atlanta is in the same boat financially as Edmonton, which isnt bad but it is far from the truth that the expansion teams are dragging the league down.

 

[yotes1921]

I think you can point to a few teams that have been a failure, but to say that it dragged hockey down is a stretch. Hockey can not be treated like other sports until it generates similar revenue. Expansion was a gamble to generate more interest and hopefully land a TV contract, that in return would allow these players to make more money. In retrospect expansion was a good gamble that may have expanded a couple cities too far.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

I think you can point to a few teams that have been a failure, but to say that it dragged hockey down is a stretch. Hockey can not be treated like other sports until it generates similar revenue. Expansion was a gamble to generate more interest and hopefully land a TV contract, that in return would allow these players to make more money. In retrospect expansion was a good gamble that may have expanded a couple cities too far.

Give me an expansion team that has been a complete failure.

 

[Town Drunk]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=NHL+$45+million+cap

Bettman and Co. have put out a lot of false information themselves. I'll trust the "insiders" a lot more right now than Bettman.

And how expansion been a failure? Are you serious?

Play has been watered down.

Minnesota had already had a pro team before, and is more of a hockey town than say Nashville.

5 expansion teams were in the bottom 10 of attendance last season.

I never said that is has dragged the league down, you’re putting words in my mouth. But it’s watered play down, and attendance isn’t as high as they had hoped. It’s been a failure.

 

[yotes1921]

In the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 season four out of five expansion teams had the lowest attendance. I’m a coyotes fan and until they built the stadium their attendance was horrible. I hope attendance will remain. I want hockey in Phoenix but not at the expense of the league.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=NHL+$45+million+cap

Bettman and Co. have put out a lot of false information themselves. I'll trust the "insiders" a lot more right now than Bettman.

And how expansion been a failure? Are you serious?

Play has been watered down.

Minnesota had already had a pro team before, and is more of a hockey town than say Nashville.

5 expansion teams were in the bottom 10 of attendance last season.

I never said that is has dragged the league down, you’re putting words in my mouth. But it’s watered play down, and attendance isn’t as high as they had hoped. It’s been a failure.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004
I count 3.


By dragged the league down, I meant that their supposed "failure" has hurt the league, which is what I assume you meant. An every single expansion team is in better financial standing as such "traditional" markets as Pittsburgh and Edmonton, accoring to Forbes magazine.

The play certainly isnt watered down, the average player is much, much superior to the average player of the 80s, even with more players playing due to expansion. The problem with the on-ice product has more to do with bigger player sizes clogging up space, and the clutch and grab. This has moreto do with the reduced flow than with the skill of players today.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

In the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 season four out of five expansion teams had the lowest attendance. I’m a coyotes fan and until they built the stadium their attendance was horrible. I hope attendance will remain. I want hockey in Phoenix but not at the expense of the league.

ESPN says 3 or 4 out of 10 in the last 4 years.

 

[Town Drunk]

The play isn’t watered down? Are you serious?

Off the top of your head, name a player from Nashville.

The league is full of guys that belong in the AHL, because of expansion.

Did you even watch hockey in the 70’s or 80’s?

Wow.

 

[yotes1921]

Scott Walker, Kimmo Timonen, and Steve Sullivan (X-Yote), Not to mention Vokoun who had a good season last year

 

[Town Drunk]

Not bad

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

The play isn’t watered down? Are you serious?

Off the top of your head, name a player from Nashville.

The league is full of guys that belong in the AHL, because of expansion.

Did you even watch hockey in the 70’s or 80’s?

Wow.

Tomas Vokoun
David Legwand
Marek Zidlicky
Dan Hamuis
Brian Finley
Steve Sullivan
Andres Lilja
Scott Hartnell

70s and 80s hockey was much more fun to watch, because of all the open ice, but the players werent nearly as skilled.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Scott Walker, Kimmo Timonen, and Steve Sullivan (X-Yote)

When was Sullivan a yote?

 

[yotes1921]

I am wrong it was Mike Sullivan

 

[Town Drunk]

Is conditioning better today than it was in the 70's or 80's?

How about equipment? Technology?

Give me a team of Phil Esposito’s, Bobby Clarkes, and Bryan Trottier’s, and they’d skate circles around the Forsberg’s of the league today.

These third and fourth liners on most teams do not belong in the NHL

And according to Forbes magazine, the NHL lost $96 million last year, not the $226 million Bettman claims.

Here’s another good article on Forbes about the situation: http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/16/cz_kb_0916nhl.html

But, I’m done with work for today. Time to run home and spend some time with the family.

I’ll try to pick this up tomorrow if I get a chance.

Have a good one.

 

[azsouthendzone]

Off the top of your head, name a player from Nashville.

that is exactly why replacement players would work

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Is conditioning better today than it was in the 70's or 80's?

How about equipment? Technology?

Give me a team of Phil Esposito’s, Bobby Clarkes, and Bryan Trottier’s, and they’d skate circles around the Forsberg’s of the league today.

These third and fourth liners on most teams do not belong in the NHL

“The players are better today than they were 10 years ago, and they’ll be better ten years from now. It’s called evolution and it happens in all sports.” - Mike Babcock

“When I played, every team had one or two guys with a really big shot, now everyone has a really big shot. When I played, every team had one or two guys that were great skaters, now almost everyone is a great skater.” - Lindy Ruff

And according to Forbes magazine, the NHL lost $96 million last year, not the $226 million Bettman claims.

Here’s another good article on Forbes about the situation: http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/16/cz_kb_0916nhl.html

I fail to see what that has to with expansion. Nobody really knows for sure exactly how much money was lost (well, I suppose the owners do), but both reports do state that the NHL lost money, and lots of it. The PA wouldnt even look into the books with the NHL or Leavitt, thats kind of fishy right there. If the players offer was good enough to prevent the owners from losing more money than cancelling the season, why wouldnt they have taken it?

But, I’m done with work for today. Time to run home and spend some time with the family.

I’ll try to pick this up tomorrow if I get a chance.

Have a good one.

You too.

 

[Town Drunk]

Babcock and Ruff are involved in personnel decisions for their teams. I doubt they’d say anything to bruise today’s player’s egos.

The Forbes piece about the NHL only losing $96 million was meant to show that Bettman has put out false information himself. The PA wouldn’t look at the books because they don’t trust the numbers, and rightfully so. Why wouldn’t they take it? Because they’re greedy and want to make more money themselves. If the owners are in dire straights financially, then again, why don’t they set up some kind of owner to owner revenue sharing? Why did they pay out those big contracts to players?

Back to expansion, according to Forbes, 5 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10 of the league financially. 8 if you want to go to the bottom 15.

In terms of revenue generated, 6 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10, including the Coyotes.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...ategory2=category&passKeyword=&resultsStart=1

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Babcock and Ruff are involved in personal decisions for their teams. I doubt they’d say anything to bruise today’s player’s egos.

The Forbes piece about the NHL only losing $96 million was meant to show that Bettman has put out false information himself. The PA wouldn’t look at the books because they don’t trust the numbers, and rightfully so. Why wouldn’t they take it? Because they’re greedy and want to make more money themselves. If the owners are in dire straights financially, then again, why don’t they set up some kind of owner to owner revenue sharing? Why did they pay out those big contracts to players?

Back to expansion, according to Forbes, 5 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10 of the league financially. 8 if you want to go to the bottom 15.

In terms of revenue generated, 6 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10, including the Coyotes.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...ategory2=category&passKeyword=&resultsStart=1

Would you like more quotes from those around the NHL that say the players are better? That can be arranged. Another key thing to note is that more countries are producing NHL talent than ever, certainly more than the 70s. Many of the best players in the game in the 70s and 80s did not play in the NHL, they played for the Soviet national team. Now the best Europe and Russia has to offer plays here. The Finns are starting to become a big threat hockey-wise, including a handful of the best goalie prospects in the world. The USA hockey program has taken great strides in the last decade as well. More great players are being churned out by more and more countries, which you rarely had in the 70s.

I dont see why you have brought the relocated teams into this, Phoenix, Colorado, and Carolina are vastly better franchise locations than Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. Since Bettman became commish, only 4 expansion teams have joined the ranks (San Jose, Florida, Tampa, and Ottawa {edit: Anaheim too} all either had their teams a few years before, or the plans to locate there were settled before Bettman became the head of the NHL but before they played a game). Atlanta, Nashville, Minnesota, and Columbus were the 4 that joined under Bettman. Columbus and Minnesota are doing fine, and while Atlanta and Nashville arent all that great, they are still doing better financially than the "traditional" markets of Edmonton, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo, so to call them failures is ridiculous.

As for the NHL's books, even Forbes says they are losing lots of money, they are in dire straits. Why would they reject the players proposal and shut down for who knows how long if they felt they could make money under it? I know the PA distrusts the numbers, as well they should, but they should have taken the invitations to look over them and point out the inconsistencies so the sides could have agreed on how bad the situation was, and how it could have been solved.

 

[Town Drunk]

I don’t need any quotes. I watched the game in the late 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. The players back then had just as much skill as the players today. Today, thanks partly to expansion; you have 3rd and 4th liners who belong in the AHL.

Again, give me a team full of Bossy’s and Mikita’s in their primes, and have them play today’s All Stars, and I don’t think it would even be close, IMO. Those guys were just phenomenal hockey players. Throw in some Bobby Clarke’s to rough them up a bit too.

USA hockey has taken some good steps, yes. But make no mistake, Canada still dominates hockey. I’m pretty sure they hold all three golds this year.

I bring up re-located teams because they’re just as bad as expansion teams. In fact, I do believe the Coyotes have lost more money in Phoenix then they did in Winnipeg. I’m entirely sure on that though, but it’s what I’ve heard from several people. And I wouldn’t call Carolina and possibly Phoenix “vastly” better than a city like Winnipeg.

So, because they’re currently doing better than some of the older teams, they can’t be labeled as failures? Even though they’re in the bottom half of the league financially and attendance wise? Right, Pittsburg, Edmonton, and Buffalo aren’t doing well. And I’d contract Pittsburg, Buffalo, Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, and a couple others. I’d keep Edmonton because they have the storied past, and the chances are good their organization can turn things around.

Again, because the owners think they can hold out for more. That may or may not happen.

But if the league was in such dire straights, why not set up some sort of revenue sharing between the owners? If they’re in dire straights financially, why did they pay the big contracts to the players?

On a side note, does anyone know how to turn off the emails you get sent every time someone replies to a thread on here? I’ve gotten over 40 of them today!

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

I don’t need any quotes. I watched the game in the late 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. The players back then had just as much skill as the players today. Today, thanks partly to expansion; you have 3rd and 4th liners who belong in the AHL.

Again, give me a team full of Bossy’s and Mikita’s in their primes, and have them play today’s All Stars, and I don’t think it would even be close, IMO. Those guys were just phenomenal hockey players. Throw in some Bobby Clarke’s to rough them up a bit too.

USA hockey has taken some good steps, yes. But make no mistake, Canada still dominates hockey. I’m pretty sure they hold all three golds this year.

Canada does still produce a large chunk of the best hockey players, but the gap is rapidly closing. When you have more players playing the game all over the world, the talent level is going to dramatically rise. I dont deny that there are many great players of yesteryear, but it is clear that the average and checking line guys are much much improved over those of the 70s and 80s.

I bring up re-located teams because they’re just as bad as expansion teams. In fact, I do believe the Coyotes have lost more money in Phoenix then they did in Winnipeg. I’m entirely sure on that though, but it’s what I’ve heard from several people. And I wouldn’t call Carolina and possibly Phoenix “vastly” better than a city like Winnipeg.

The conditions for a franchise in Phoenix are way better than they ever were in Winnipeg. For one, the Coyotes LOWEST average attendance in their history is only about 400 seats below Winnipegs HIGHEST ever. Also, Winnipeg's average attendance never, ever hit 14k, and was below the league average for twelve years in a row.

Let's put it this way. The conditions in Winnipeg were so bad for the Jets that a new ownership group was willing to move the team even though they knew that they were going to be in an arena unsuitable for hockey with even more obstructed seats, with almost all of the concession/parking/etc money not even going to them for several years, and that a new arena was years away, and not even a guarantee at the time. With the new arena, these problems dont exist. We finally have an arena suitable for NHL hockey, where all the money spent in it goes to the team, and decent attendance to boot. Phoenix (and the Glendale area in particular), are growing rapidly and coupled with the solid economy of the area and the new arena on top of the already existent solid fan base, things will only go up.

Furthermore, according to Forbes Magazine, for the last few years, the Coyotes have had a higher franchise value and more total revenue coming in than (among others) Edmonton. Thus, in order to be a better franchise location financially than Phoenix, Winnipeg would have to be a better franchise location than Edmonton. How is this possible when Edmonton is a city with a larger population, better economy, and larger NHL fan base than Winnipeg?

Lets take a little closer look at the economy of Winnipeg. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation had this to say about the Manitoba economy...

"There is little question that Manitoba’s economy has been underperforming for many years. Though not the worst economy in the country, Manitoba ranks 8th among the provinces, when measuring average economic growth between 1993 and projected 2005. In that same time frame, the national average for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was 5.21 per cent, while
Manitoba showed a meager 4.48 per cent annual growth rate....In every case, Manitoba is set to grow slower than the rest of the country. In 2004 the national average for expected real GDP growth is 3.3 per cent, employment is 1.5 per cent and retail sales is 4.5 per cent. Despite low inflation and an unemployment rate that is the lowest in the country, (5.0 per cent in 2003) neither have contributed toward greater buoyancy in Manitoba’s economy. That is a worrisome trend when one considers the fiscal pressures that will be exerted on the province over the next ten to fifteen years."

Underperforming, meager, slow growth, and worrisome? Yeah, things are looking real promising there. Furthermore, according to Statistics Canada, the average Manitoban makes only $653.90 a week, below the Canadian average $704.88. This is also well under the figures of $741.89 and $742.56 of Alberta and Ontario, respectively.

This figure is increasingly significant when one factors that in order to be successful in the eyes of a potential owner, in order to be more viable than Carolina/Phoenix, Winnipeg would have to unquestionably be a better marketplace than the two Alberta franchises of Calgary and Edmonton due to their financial standing outlined a few posts ago. Winnipeg is clearly not. Not only are they much smaller in population, but the economy is weaker, and their own history of the franchise the first time is against them.

So, because they’re currently doing better than some of the older teams, they can’t be labeled as failures? Even though they’re in the bottom half of the league financially and attendance wise? Right, Pittsburg, Edmonton, and Buffalo aren’t doing well. And I’d contract Pittsburg, Buffalo, Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, and a couple others. I’d keep Edmonton because they have the storied past, and the chances are good their organization can turn things around.

Again, because the owners think they can hold out for more. That may or may not happen.

But if the league was in such dire straights, why not set up some sort of revenue sharing between the owners? If they’re in dire straights financially, why did they pay the big contracts to the players?

On a side note, does anyone know how to turn off the emails you get sent every time someone replies to a thread on here? I’ve gotten over 40 of them today!

Using your numbers a few posts ago, you said that 8 relocated or expansion teams are in the bottom 15, with 5 in the bottom 10. Using what I assume were your 8 choices, I counted 13 teams total that relocated/expanded in the same time period, or almost half the league. So, if half the league is expansion/relocated teams using your definition, shouldnt half the teams in the bottom 15 or 10 be expansion or relocated teams? Last time I checked, 8 out of 15 and 5 out of 10 was roughly half.

 

[Town Drunk]

Point taken on Winnipeg. I have heard from various Canadian friends that the Yotes have lost more money in Phoenix than they did on Winnipeg. They also gave me this site: http://www.curtiswalker.com/jets/history.asp

What Happened - Why did the Jets leave?
Though it's trendy to blame the various levels of government, in reality, they are only partly to blame for the loss of the Jets. First and foremost, the blame must rest at the doorstep of Barry Shenkarow. Even during an era where the Jets could be financially competitive with other NHL clubs, Shenkarow's management of the team kept it wallowing in a sea of mediocrity both on and off the ice. Though Winnipeg is a small market by the standard of other NHL cities, you would have a hard time finding a city that cared more for it's team, even a Barry Shenkarow team. The Winnipeg Arena could have been sold out half the time with anything resembling competency in upper management. During the times when the team was winning, excitement was at a fever pitch, and tickets were hard to come by. Yet, in spite of the perennially mediocre product and the horrible treatment of customers, 12-13,000 fans filled the Arena every night. Try finding another city that will support a Shenkarow team like that.

Of lesser importance, but still very significant, is the landlord of the Winnipeg Arena, Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation. A truly oppressive and arrogant bunch that kept the Jets from any percentages of parking and concessions revenues, and extreme belligerence when the team's survival was at a critical stage played a major role in the loss of the team.

Meanwhile, the three levels of government, knowing that a new arena needed to be built for years, failed to act in this regard. Though it's certainly a matter of debate as to whether the government should be involved in such ventures, but one certainly cannot argue that the people of Manitoba wanted them to collectively act on this issue. When a cheap town starts throwing huge sums of money at the grassroots level for the project, that speaks volumes for the will of the people at large. However, Susan Thompson, Duchess over Winnipeg, was going off behind the backs of the people pursuing the Pan Am Taxpayer Games that no one else but her seemed to want. Sorry, three weeks of glory does not equal an NHL team.

Though unknown as to their true role in the loss of the team, the local daily publication, Winnipeg Free Press (hereinafter referred to as the Barry Shenkarow News, or simply BSN), certainly tried very hard to ensure Barry Shenkarow's continued involvement with the team, be it in Winnipeg or elsewhere. When the Spirit of Manitoba group was organized, the BSN started with a barrage of front page articles designed with the sole purpose of discrediting the group and saying that Shenkarow was the best person to run the club, even going as far as calling the Spirit group "saboteurs".

I must make a comment on the "Thin Ice" group that was against government funding of a new arena. I highly respect the right of them or any such group to protest against such things, but I lose all respect for them when they are not equally, if not more outraged at the ongoing subsidies handed to the local Canadian Taxpayer Football League team, the Blue Bombers. The Blue Bombers seem to think that taking government money is a birthright, one that they continue to take advantage of year after year, which is the sole reason for their continued existence. These people spoke out so vigorously against the Jets getting money for an arena, yet why are they nowhere to be found at Blue Bomber games? Complete hypocrites. They don't deserve my respect or yours.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last paragraph. 5 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10 of the league financially. 8 if you want to go to the bottom 15.

In terms of revenue generated, 6 expansion/re-located teams are in the bottom 10.

Now, if you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about, you fail to take into account several variables.

First, the Nordiques already were a hell of a hockey team.

Ottawa has proven that they can win over the past couple of days and is more of a hockey city than Atlanta and Nashville.

San Jose has won and has a high fan base.

TB won the Cup.

Columbus has done well.

Minnesota has done well.

Do you really believe hockey can survive in Atlanta after this lockout? Atlanta has a very good baseball and football team. Nashville has a good football team. Carolina? These aren’t hockey cities, and the numbers show it.

If you contraction was the only route, wouldn’t contracting Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Pittsburg, and Buffalo make the most sense?

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Basically I traced your 8 teams in the bottom half from the Forbes report. Using this as a reference, I then found that 13 of the current 30 teams relocated or were expansion teams in the same time frame as those 8. So, if nearly half the teams fall under this category of being expansion/relocated teams, shouldnt it make sense that roughly half of the bottom teams fall under this category as well? I hope I am explaining clearly.

And yes, if contraction was a necessity, those would be the most likely teams to contract. But I dont buy into contraction either.

 

[Town Drunk]

Okay, I gotcha now.

Thanks.