NHL Rejects Union Proposal

[The Czech Republic 0]

New Toronto logo

 

[the max 0]

Let's see here:

 

New Jersey Barricadez

Philadelphia Bulliez

Pittsburgh Gamblerz

Boston EXTREME BEARS (logo is Saddington Bear with Oakleys on)

Tampa Bay EXTREME

Washington DEAD PRESIDENTS (logo is the '$')

[Vern Gagne 0]

As Toronto ever changed it logo?

[The Czech Republic 0]

They modernized the maple leaf in the Harold Ballard days because the original detailed version with the veins of the leafs and curved letters and stuff was more expensive than a simple leaf with simple block letters.

[Highland 0]

This is going to make some of you mad. What if they change hockey season from starting in October to around April. WHY?!? Because the NHL has to compete with the NFL and the NBA. If they play in the summer and they have to do is compete with baseball. That is a fairer fight.

Are you stupid?

 

Do the words "ice surface" mean anything to you? And aren't you from ANAHEIM?!? If you're running a league that starts in April, you better have a game with the Anchorage Anchors visiting the Nunavut Minimalists, or you're going to be skating on slush with a super-ball puck. Tampa Bay and Dallas have been maligned for shitty ice surfaces in the beginning of the season and the postseason. The Not-The-Northlands Coliseum, up in Edmonton, is renowned for having a superb ice surface. Likewise, Edmonton is renowned for being pretty fucking cold in the winter.

 

April?!? Come on! This is as "winter sport" as winter sports get! In case you didn't notice, AstroRink hasn't been invented yet, and they're playing on FREAKING ICE. FROZEN WATER. A PHENOMENON THAT TAKES PLACE IN WINTER. CANADIAN CHILDREN PLAY HOCKEY ON FROZEN PONDS, THEN GO INSIDE AND WATCH IT ON TV.

 

Ice hockey in the summer. Don't insult people's intelligence.

Well said.

 

If any sport currently played in the winter should be moved to summer its Basketball. I don't know anyone that goes outside when it's snowing to shoot some hoops, but I could be wrong, so edjumacate me.

[Der Kommissar 0]

I think a blue marijuana leaf would be more fitting for this league.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

This is going to make some of you mad. What if they change hockey season from starting in October to around April. WHY?!? Because the NHL has to compete with the NFL and the NBA. If they play in the summer and they have to do is compete with baseball. That is a fairer fight.

Are you stupid?

 

Do the words "ice surface" mean anything to you? And aren't you from ANAHEIM?!? If you're running a league that starts in April, you better have a game with the Anchorage Anchors visiting the Nunavut Minimalists, or you're going to be skating on slush with a super-ball puck. Tampa Bay and Dallas have been maligned for shitty ice surfaces in the beginning of the season and the postseason. The Not-The-Northlands Coliseum, up in Edmonton, is renowned for having a superb ice surface. Likewise, Edmonton is renowned for being pretty fucking cold in the winter.

 

April?!? Come on! This is as "winter sport" as winter sports get! In case you didn't notice, AstroRink hasn't been invented yet, and they're playing on FREAKING ICE. FROZEN WATER. A PHENOMENON THAT TAKES PLACE IN WINTER. CANADIAN CHILDREN PLAY HOCKEY ON FROZEN PONDS, THEN GO INSIDE AND WATCH IT ON TV.

 

Ice hockey in the summer. Don't insult people's intelligence.

Well said.

 

If any sport currently played in the winter should be moved to summer its Basketball. I don't know anyone that goes outside when it's snowing to shoot some hoops, but I could be wrong, so edjumacate me.

1. I live close to Anaheim.

 

2. All the NHL teams play indoors so does it matter what time of the year.

 

3. The league is screwed if it can't promote itself anyway.

 

I just want to watch hockey again.

 

I went to the California Roller Hockey center today and it was deserted. I hope it opens tomorrow. If I can't watch it then I need to play it again.

[Red Baron 0]

Um...how was the ice surface two years ago when the Ducks were in the finals?

 

 

not too mention the poor ice conditions in the spring time in Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix.

 

Besides if played in the summer time, they compete with Baseball, and thats a loss victory right there. In the winter time, football is played on sunday and monday. Hockey is rarely played on Sunday except for a few afternoon games, and monday its never played until after the football season.

[Red Baron 0]

As Toronto ever changed it logo?

Somewhat.

 

They've changed their team name, from the Toronto Arena's to the Toronto St. Pats to the Maple Leafs, but the actual leaf has never changed.

 

Montreal's "CH" logo has never changed since 1908 I think...

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Um...how was the ice surface two years ago when the Ducks were in the finals?

 

 

not too mention the poor ice conditions in the spring time in Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix.

 

Besides if played in the summer time, they compete with Baseball, and thats a loss victory right there. In the winter time, football is played on sunday and monday. Hockey is rarely played on Sunday except for a few afternoon games, and monday its never played until after the football season.

I really don't know because I do not play on the ice there.

 

I think Broduer hated it though and I know Mike Modano hates the ice American Airlines Arena.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

They've changed their team name, from the Toronto Arena's to the Toronto St. Pats to the Maple Leafs, but the actual leaf has never changed.

 

Actually it has. I can't post them, but click on the timeline here and the logos will appear on the left of the screen. The Leafs have always had the Leaf Logo, but they have had four different designs of it.

 

http://www.mapleleafs.com/timeline.ml

[The Czech Republic 0]

Um...how was the ice surface two years ago when the Ducks were in the finals?

 

 

not too mention the poor ice conditions in the spring time in Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix.

 

Besides if played in the summer time, they compete with Baseball, and thats a loss victory right there. In the winter time, football is played on sunday and monday. Hockey is rarely played on Sunday except for a few afternoon games, and monday its never played until after the football season.

I really don't know because I do not play on the ice there.

 

I think Broduer hated it though and I know Mike Modano hates the ice American Airlines Arena.

So you no-sold my point that the ice surface suffers with "it doesn't matter cuz they all play indoors," then you conceded that Brodeur didn't like the Anaheim rink, and Modano doesn't like the Dallas rink. I think you just proved my point for me. Also, Brett Hull bitched that the ice at Reunion Arena was bad when he was with the Stars, but honestly, Brett Hull bitches about everything, so that really doesn't count.

 

Truth of the matter is, ice surface suffers in multi-purpose warm-weather arenas. It doesn't matter that it's indoors, it just doesn't hold up the same way. Be glad the Panthers and Heat don't share a building (though the fact that they don't seems rather wasteful given that they're the f'ing Panthers), or it would be bad.

 

Does anyone else think ice surface might have an effect on the NHL game as a whole lately? I'm not sure, but it in the 80s, the game was undoubtedly faster and more speed/scoring oriented, and maybe that has to do with the Oilers and their fast ice being the standard at the time, because you didn't have Reunion Arenas or America West Centers in those days.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Also, my "Nunavut Minimalists" joke was no-sold.

 

"Helmets? Pads? Gloves? We don't need Nunavut!"

[the max 0]

The trap and clutch-and-grab defense have slowed the game a TON, and I'm willing to bet that that's more of a cause than the ice surfaces.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Oh yeah it's mostly because of the trap, clutch-n-grab, and overexpansion that allows these subpar players in, no doubt. But I'm wondering if maybe having shitty ice that's more conducive to a trap game is a minor factor as well.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I can buy the first few arguments, but I don't think over-expansion is a major problem. Surely, the entrance of Eastern Europeans into the NHL more than compensates for the extra roster slots.

 

As an aside, since we do have more Eastern Europeans in the game, perhaps the NHL should consider marketing towards that area more often. I think a problem with the NHL is a lack of recognizable faces. It would benefit the NHL to market where the population recognizes the players.

[the max 0]

Shitty ice can be a problem with a team that likes to complain. Someone like Hull is a complainer, so I would expect him to bitch about the ice in Dallas.

 

Tampa allegedly has shitty ice, but they played a fast game all season long, with little to no trapping (even adopting a team motto of "SAFE IS DEATH").

[The Czech Republic 0]

I can buy the first few arguments, but I don't think over-expansion is a major problem. Surely, the entrance of Eastern Europeans into the NHL more than compensates for the extra roster slots.

 

As an aside, since we do have more Eastern Europeans in the game, perhaps the NHL should consider marketing towards that area more often. I think a problem with the NHL is a lack of recognizable faces. It would benefit the NHL to market where the population recognizes the players.

Gary Bettman's idea of appealing to them is to expand (yup!) into Eastern Europe. Toronto Maple Leafs vs. Prague Springers? No!

[the max 0]

He's already expanded.

 

Most of the players are playing over there, all Bettman needs to do is organize a tournament and present the Cup to the winner of it to have NHL: Europe.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think the Stanley Cup absolutely HAS to be awarded to make sure it stays continous. Or continual. I forget.

 

Have the players invent their own teams and make a tournament. Give it to the college kids. ANYTHING!

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I can buy the first few arguments, but I don't think over-expansion is a major problem.  Surely, the entrance of Eastern Europeans into the NHL more than compensates for the extra roster slots.

 

As an aside, since we do have more Eastern Europeans in the game, perhaps the NHL should consider marketing towards that area more often.  I think a problem with the NHL is a lack of recognizable faces.  It would benefit the NHL to market where the population recognizes the players.

Gary Bettman's idea of appealing to them is to expand (yup!) into Eastern Europe. Toronto Maple Leafs vs. Prague Springers? No!

I'd rather see Prague & Stockholm with teams than Tampa and Carolina.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'll tolerate Tampa Bay or Miami but not both.

 

Phoenix is stupid. Atlanta is stupid. Columbus is iffy. The Carolina Hurricanes are the biggest fucking embarrassment to hockey. I bet "Hockey 101" wasn't printed above the urinals in the Boston Garden. I know they didn't need big curtains to make the mostly-comped crowd of 2,000 look more impressive at The Chicago Stadium.

[treble 0]

I think the Stanley Cup absolutely HAS to be awarded to make sure it stays continous. Or continual. I forget.

 

Have the players invent their own teams and make a tournament. Give it to the college kids. ANYTHING!

http://www.freestanley.com/

[Red Baron 0]

With all the stupid teams Bettman brought in, I can not say that any of the California teams should fold. San Jose is a profitable franchise that sells out 99% of the time, and the state of California are investing in many hockey programs for younger kids to get into the sport.

 

Columbus is another great move, is that the team needs more of a fan support. I think it was more logical to put a hockey team there, instead of Cincinnati or Cleveland, because no one would go to those games when you have the Cavs, Bengals, Browns, Indians, and College sports to go to. Columbus has nothing to offer, and its good for them to get a team.

 

Having a team not in Minnesota is like having a team not in Ontario. That was another good move that Bettman made.

 

Though Bettman should have invested a team in Eastern Canada, so they aren't neglected.

[CanadianChris 0]

Though Bettman should have invested a team in Eastern Canada, so they aren't neglected.

If you mean the Maritimes, there is still no chance that a team could survive. There's no place large enough or prosperous enough out there to support an NHL team through 41 home games, plus playoffs.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Seattle needs a team. The NHL hardly has any coverage the Northwest according to my former science teacher.

 

I think Detroit needs to be in the Eastern Conference that way the Avs/Wings can play in the finals. That would have huge ratings.

[the max 0]

Seattle needs a team. The NHL hardly has any coverage the Northwest according to my former science teacher.

 

I think Detroit needs to be in the Eastern Conference that way the Avs/Wings can play in the finals. That would have huge ratings.

Isn't there a team in Vancouver?

 

According to Microsoft Streets and Trips, Vancouver is a two hour drive from Seattle. Can two teams survive there?

[Red Baron 0]

No it wouldn't.

 

Vancouver has a very strong fan base as is, while its two hours to drive to Vancouver, it's probably cheaper to have a team in Seattle than travelling to Vancouver.

 

It's like if Hamilton ever got a team. It wouldn't hurt Toronto's fanbase at all (like when Ottawa came into the league) but most likely it'll hurt Buffalo's fan base (since most of their fans come from Canada, on some damn good deals).

 

It'll all depends on how strong the American dollar is.

[Red Baron 0]

Though where would you put Detroit, since they don't fit anywhere in the Eastern Conference, except being, Eastern. I mean you can knock Boston into the Atlantic Division, move Detroit to the Northeast division, move Washington to the South and eliminate Carolina.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Detroit in the East? Shit, I still want the Leafs back in the West. My Blackhawks need Original Six rivals, dammit. (oh who am I kidding: the once-hot Wings-Hawks rivalry is long dead, and Hawks-Blues is on its deathbed too. Face it, we're dukin' it out with the Columbus Blue Jackets. Where are you, Norris Division? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.)

 

Redbaron: don't give Bettman too much credit for getting Minnesota in the NHL. Fun fact: from 1967-1993, there was a team in the league called the "Minnesota North Stars." Their logo was an N that pointed to a star, it was really sorta neat.

 

There was NO excuse whatsoever for not having pro hockey in the Twin Cities for those seven seasons. (And guess what? Another very heated Chicago Blackhawks rivalry was killed off.) The move to Dallas should've been blocked from the get-go just on sheer principle alone. Sacrificing one of the biggest hockey hotbeds for Dallas was just STUPID! I don't care what happened with attendance, I'm sure they would've pulled it together. And just think: Minnesota could've brought home a Stanley Cup in '99 to go along with all the Golden Gophers' accolades. Removing Minnesota from the league set a bad precedent that the league never recovered from.

 

In closing, saying "Wow, Bettman bringing hockey to St. Paul was GREAT!" is like praising a burglar for giving you some of your stereo system back.