The Hockey Thread - October

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

It feels weird seeing Marc Crawford call Canucks games. Just feels wrong

 

That's how I feel about Harry Neal being the Sabres color man.

[CanadianChris 0]

My sophisticated analysis: The Senators are not a good hockey team.

 

It seemed like they just came out flat tonight.

That's been the story most of the time, though. Come out flat, get down early, mount a comeback that comes up short. I'm not impressed with the coaching so far, although the talent just doesn't seem to be there either.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Sabres drop the shootout to Colorado tonight. 6-0-2 on the year. Tallinder got hurt tonight, putting them down 5 starters now....but they keep racking up the points.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Sabres drop the shootout to Colorado tonight. 6-0-2 on the year. Tallinder got hurt tonight, putting them down 5 starters now....but they keep racking up the points.

 

They hit the wall after the Campbell trade last year, but the case I continually made for the Sabres was how deep they were.

 

I'm puzzled by the Sens. I can't get too deep with my analysis, having only seen them play the two games in Europe, but I really thought the loss of Emery would be improvement enough. Judging from Leafs postgame, the Sens were awful tonight.

 

My buddy, a Sens fan, is blaming the ex of a mutual friend, who became a Sens fan sometime around last December. Scapegoating is fun.

[Red Baron 0]

The 1975 New Years Eve game between the Montreal Canadiens vs The Red Army was a dream come true. It was the best hockey team in the history of professional hockey versus the best International Hockey Team.

 

The Red Army was suppose to have a lethal power play, able to out skate the Flying Frenchman, make every pass 100% with little error, and have spectacular Goaltending from Vladislav Tretiak. The Habs out played them, out skate them, and had a better system, but Tretiak stood in the way.

 

If you haven't seen the game Czech, then maybe you should, and maybe you might have a little more respect for our niche little game that we call hockey.

You can't talk shit to me like this. You like Nickelback.

 

I'm not going to defend Nickelback in this thread, but I'll say this, there is a lot worse Canadian content of music out there than Nickelback.

 

You can ask almost any hockey historian and they would say this game would be the one of the best hockey games ever played, if not the best hockey game ever played. It was more than a little exhibition. This was putting the best team in Europe vs the best team in North America, and the game perfected every little aspect and brought out how hockey was suppose to play. Great goaltending, great skating, forechecking, cycling of the puck, scoring. It had it all. Was it a bit one sided?

 

Yes.

 

The Habs skated harder than The Red Army, played smarter and played defence better. Other than Ken Dryden not being tested often, the game kept a smooth pace throughout the game.

 

 

BPS: Buffalo defeated Krylya Sovetov Moscow, well somewhat of a lesser team than the Red Army. Scoring 12 on the former USSR Champions, the team played foolishly and deserved the loss that they deserve.

[Darthtiki 0]

Is there anywhere I can get a copy of this game...I'm quite intrigued

 

I was happy to see the Ducks show up to play during their Eastern Canada swing and become the third team since Ottawa's reintroduction to pull the trifecta, but the Ducks need to get the sloppy penalties out of their repertoire or it's gonna be a long season.

[Matt Young 0]

I guess you think that if you keep saying it, that will make it true. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

 

No, I did. Sorry if you think otherwise, but I'm not surprised, since you're not very bright.

 

Let's hope the Leafs can make the game tonight against the Sens a competitive one.

 

No, Bob. You say you "owned" me. No one else thinks that. And insulting my intelligence? Really? People have said a lot of things about me, but I most certainly am not unintelligent. How my intellect factors into this discussion anyway, I don't know, but the fact remains that you keep going on about "owning" me in an argument that's based on a matter of opinion. That means neither of us won or could win anything, and it also makes you an asshole.

 

Anyway, I went to the Ontario Reign's home opener tonight. We had great seats in the mezzanine area with a terrific view of the entire rink. We were down by what was the Reign's goal for 2 of the 3 periods, and witnessed them improve their record to 3-1 after a 4-1 victory over Las Vegas, despite being outshot 35-18. As much fun as I've had watching the Kings on TV, seeing live hockey was on a whole different level and I loved it. I'm going to go to as many games as Adam (my friend with the season tickets) is willing to take me to.

 

[Zetterberg is God 0]

Hopefully Franzen's injury isn't too serious. That would be a huge loss.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Says a lot about the Red Wings that they can look like shit last night and still win with ease. Hossa just sorta flicked that penalty shot as if he didn't care where it went. Since it was readily apparent before last night that neither Chicago goaltender can retain his bladder control in an overtime situation, it was obvious where it would end up. Alas. Point For Trying. The worst part is that those worthless salarycapniks assured us that The New NHL wouldn't let the rich get richer or stay at the top year-in-year-out. Why hello there, free agent prize of the offseason, good to see you on the 2008 champions, 2007 semifinalists, and 2006 points leader. When it's this easy for them (and painful for us) to beat the system, isn't it better if there's no system to beat?

[bob_barron 0]

No, Bob. You say you "owned" me. No one else thinks that.

 

I re-read the threads last night, and I feel I did pretty well.

 

And insulting my intelligence? Really? People have said a lot of things about me, but I most certainly am not unintelligent.

 

Maybe in the real world, but on this board you definitely come off as an unintelligent person. I mean, you're a Kings fan, come on.

 

but the fact remains that you keep going on about "owning" me in an argument that's based on a matter of opinion.

 

I said it twice, while you made a custom title taking a shot at me. Plus, you wrote off your team in the sixth inning, so I basically win by default.

 

Czech's right- I hate the salary cap and have never seen the point of it. We lost a full season of hockey....for what exactly? So the Red Wings could show how well run an organisation they are?

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

I hate the salary cap and have never seen the point of us.

Bob Barron: laissez-faire existentialist.

[Guest]

I like the salary cap. When it goes down this year, it'll be fun to watch the ensuing madness.

[bob_barron 0]

I like the salary cap. When it goes down this year, it'll be fun to watch the ensuing madness.

 

How can you like something that has accomplished nothing?

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

You're a Saints fan

[Guest]

I like the salary cap. When it goes down this year, it'll be fun to watch the ensuing madness.

 

How can you like something that has accomplished nothing?

How has it accomplished nothing? Teams who have made bad decisions have had to face repercussions. Burke has made awful decisions, and had to trade anyone numerous talented players in an attempt to stay afloat. When the cap goes down next year, he won't be able to field a good team for years! He has 7 players signed, who will cost 32 million dollars. There's no way he'll be able to keep that team competitive.

 

As for Detroit, well, they haven't been able to field a defense of Lidstrom, Pronger, Rafalski, Schneider, Kronwall, and Stuart. Without the cap they would've tried, and guys like Franzen may never have received their shot. Plus, Colorado's suffered from not knowing how to adjust to the cap area. It's not like they've made any runs deep recently. Talent's more spread out and the quality of play has increased. How has that accomplished nothing?

[bob_barron 0]

How has it accomplished nothing? Teams who have made bad decisions have had to face repercussions.

 

Because it's still the same old NHL. The teams with the money can get all the good players and small market teams do their best to stay afloat.

 

I'm against a salary cap in general. If a team has the resources and ability to spend, they should be allowed to with no restrictions. It's unfair to punish the big market teams that can spend, because there are poorly run small market organisations.

 

Burke has made awful decisions, and had to trade anyone numerous talented players in an attempt to stay afloat.

 

He won a Cup, so I'm sure he's okay with that.

 

When the cap goes down next year, he won't be able to field a good team for years!

 

I haven't read anything about that next year, and that's why he's going to the Leafs.

 

As for Detroit, well, they haven't been able to field a defense of Lidstrom, Pronger, Rafalski, Schneider, Kronwall, and Stuart. Without the cap they would've tried, and guys like Franzen may never have received their shot.

 

Come on, I doubt they would've tried. And they still have Lidstrom, Rafalski, all those Russians, and were able to get the best free agent on the market anyway! Plus, even though he was a non-factor, they still were able to keep Hasek around for a few years. The Oilers couldn't keep Smyth and had to trade him. It's the same old shit.

 

Really, this was all worth losing a season for?

 

Talent's more spread out and the quality of play has increased. How has that accomplished nothing?

 

The quality of play is better because of the new rules they put in to make the game faster.

 

You're a Saints fan

 

You're a Blackhawks fan.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

So the Red Wings have been shut down because they have Lidstrom, Rafalski, Stuart, Kronwall...but not Chris Pronger? Mission equals accomplished, baby. It's the same inequity that you expect in professional sports, except now they're insulting my intelligence by telling me that it doesn't work that way anymore. This salary cap can obviously be circumvented by the right people, and it's not outrageous to conjecture that the means of doing so, or at least Ilitch's means of doing so, involves a prepositional phrase concerning flat-surfaced furniture.

[Guest]

Because it's still the same old NHL. The teams with the money can get all the good players and small market teams do their best to stay afloat.

 

 

That ain't true!

 

Ultimately, we haven't seen the long-term ramifications of the salary cap. The franchises who make terrible decisions are going to be punished. However, prior to the lockout, when did so many small-market clubs with large payrolls. I mean, when teams like Florida and Edmonton are pushing the cap, you don't think something good has come of this? Really? Those guys aren't doing their best to stay afloat, they're spending boatloads of cash they didn't previously have. And the talent is coming or staying.

 

The four teams with the highest cap numbers are NYR, San Jose, Anaheim, and Washington. Big markets? Ha!

 

haven't read anything about that next year

 

With the economy being the way it is, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the salary cap is going to head downwards, thus changing the future plans of many GM's out there.

 

Come on, I doubt they would've tried. And they still have Lidstrom, Rafalski, all those Russians, and were able to get the best free agent on the market anyway! Plus, even though he was a non-factor, they still were able to keep Hasek around for a few years. The Oilers couldn't keep Smyth and had to trade him. It's the same old shit.

 

After trading Ryan Smith, they went out and tendered offer sheets to Vanek (7.1 million) and Dustin Penner (4.25 million), while signing Sheldon Souray (5.4 million). During this offseason, they acquired Erik Cole (4 million dollar salary), Lubomir Visnovsky (5.6 million), and signed Shawn Horcoff (5.5 million) and Tom Gilbert (4 million) to giant extensions. Are you trying to tell me that they didn't have the money to sign Ryan Smith? With that kind of coin, they could've signed anyone! Before the lockout, when are the fucking Oilers dropping that kind of coin?

 

 

As for Detroit, well, they lost Schneider to get Rafalski. That would've never happened before, they would've just did it. And they got that Hossa guy on a one year deal. It would've been much harder to get something done long-term with Zetterberg's contract up. With no cap, they would've signed Hossa to a huge deal. I don't even want to get into the way Detroit loaded their team up with high-money vets and won Cups prior to the lockout. You can't tell me that shit is happening today.

 

The quality of play is better because of the new rules they put in to make the game faster.

 

And small-market teams like Edmonton and Anaheim enjoyed a resurgence thanks to a salary cap which forced teams to come down to earth with player salaries. Leveling the playing field for everyone.

[bob_barron 0]

Czech used that graphic on me in another debate, I have no idea what it means or refers to.

 

I mean, when teams like Florida and Edmonton are pushing the cap, you don't think something good has come of this? Really? Those guys aren't doing their best to stay afloat, they're spending boatloads of cash they didn't previously have. And the talent is coming or staying.

 

With a hard cap, everyone is going to have the same payroll, and Edmonton, and all the other Canadian teams, have been helped out by the rising Canadian dollar and the failing US dollar. They didn't have that luxury pre-cap.

 

The four teams with the highest cap numbers are NYR, San Jose, Anaheim, and Washington. Big markets? Ha!

 

New York- biggest TV market.

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA- 6th biggest TV market.

Anaheim is 24 miles from LA- the second biggest TV market.

Washington is the 8th biggest TV market.

 

With the economy being the way it is, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the salary cap is going to head downwards, thus changing the future plans of many GM's out there.

 

We don't know that yet, if the NHL is still making money, who knows. I think changing the cap year by year is also retarded.

 

As for Detroit, well, they lost Schneider to get Rafalski. That would've never happened before, they would've just did it.

 

I'm sure it sucked for them losing a 38-year old defensemen to get Rafalski.

 

And they got that Hossa guy on a one year deal. It would've been much harder to get something done long-term with Zetterberg's contract up. With no cap, they would've signed Hossa to a huge deal. I don't even want to get into the way Detroit loaded their team up with high-money vets and won Cups prior to the lockout. You can't tell me that shit is happening today.

 

That Hossa guy? It's Marion Hossa! Detroit is still able to load up every year and grab up good players.

 

And small-market teams like Edmonton and Anaheim enjoyed a resurgence thanks to a salary cap which forced teams to come down to earth with player salaries. Leveling the playing field for everyone.

 

Anaheim made the Cup finals a year before the lockout. Anaheim had a resurgence because they have Gigure and they were able to hire one of the best GMs in hockey. They also got lucky that Scott Neidermayer wanted to play with his brother, and that Chris Pronger's a prick.

 

I still don't consider Anaheim a small market, given its proximity to LA.

 

But as I said before, I don't agree with salary caps in principle. If a team has the ability and the resources to go out and get the players they want, they should be allowed to. It doesn't always mean you're going to be successful- look at baseball.

[Guest]

It's the coach from Oklahoma State who went on that tirade about being a man and being forty. And he happened to say THAT AIN'T TRUE a bunch.

 

New York- biggest TV market.

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA- 6th biggest TV market.

Anaheim is 24 miles from LA- the second biggest TV market.

Washington is the 8th biggest TV market.

I couldn't exclude New York

Nobody from Frisco or Oakland cares about the Sharks...so that's a pretty small market.

Anaheim is a no market team

Washington is a middle man

 

That Hossa guy? It's Marion Hossa! Detroit is still able to load up every year and grab up good players.

Not the number of players they were getting before. They aren't loading up every offseason.

 

 

[CanadianChris 0]

But as I said before, I don't agree with salary caps in principle. If a team has the ability and the resources to go out and get the players they want, they should be allowed to. It doesn't always mean you're going to be successful- look at baseball.

The point isn't that the haves will always be successful. The point is that they'll be successful much more often than the have-nots. For every Tampa Bay, there are a dozen Pittsburghs. Look at this season in baseball -- the playoff teams included two from Los Angeles, two from Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia (with both New York teams coming close). Milwaukee was in the top half of the majors in salaries. And yet people still point to Tampa as proof that the system works.

[bob_barron 0]

That's because Pittsburgh spends the money that they have poorly. Obviously if you spend money, you'll probably do better, but it doesn't guarantee you'll be successful. If Pittsburgh had unlimited funds, who knows if they'd still be any good

[CanadianChris 0]

Even if you spend it well, you're still shut out of most of the high-level free agents. You're depending on most of your draft picks panning out extremely well, as well as who you are able to sign exceeding expectations. Basically, you need to get quite lucky to have even a one or two year window when you can contend for a title. Contrast that to big-market teams, who are never out of contention for long, assuming even a semi-competent front office, because they can spend big money for top free agents in addition to their draft. It's unfair. Better to let the teams be able to spend the same amounts of money, and let competence in the front office, scouting and coaching be the difference.

[Guest]

That's because Pittsburgh spends the money that they have poorly. Obviously if you spend money, you'll probably do better, but it doesn't guarantee you'll be successful. If Pittsburgh had unlimited funds, who knows if they'd still be any good

 

Which is where a salary cap comes into play. Those big-market teams can't just bury their mistakes by going out and signing another player in the free-agent window. They have to deal with the consequences. Spending large amounts of money on Drury and Gomez is going to hurt a team when they have to tender offers to the players already within the organization. It'll be hard for the Rangers to replace guys like Dubinsky, Staal, and Zherdev with players who provide similar attributes at a similar cost. You can't do it.

[bob_barron 0]

Even if you spend it well, you're still shut out of most of the high-level free agents.

 

A lot of owners are also penny pinchers who won't spend the money. We shouldn't have a cap just to accommodate people who won't spend the money, like Florida or Minnesota.

 

It's unfair. Better to let the teams be able to spend the same amounts of money, and let competence in the front office, scouting and coaching be the difference.

 

You shouldn't punish teams who can and will spend the money to get free agents. If a team or ownership is unwilling or unable to spend the money, that's too bad.

 

Which is where a salary cap comes into play. Those big-market teams can't just bury their mistakes by going out and signing another player in the free-agent window. They have to deal with the consequences. Spending money on Drury and Gomez is going to hurt a team when they have to tender offers to the players already within the organization. It'll be hard for the Rangers to replace guys like Dubinsky, Staal, and Zherdev.

 

I don't thnk it's right to restrict the amount of money a team can spend on its players because of the have-nots of the league. People say it's unfair- I disagree. Every team can choose how they want to spend their money or how much they want.

[Guest]

I don't think it has much to do with the have-nots, because every team has spent near to or at the cap for at least one season since the lockout! Well, except MAYBE the Islanders. Even the Predators did! It is about leveling the playing field, and spreading out the talent so that the league can stay competitive. Having teams run around throwing money at every free agent is not good for the NHL.

[bob_barron 0]

I don't think it has much to do with the have-nots, because every team has spent near to or at the cap for at least one season since the lockout! Well, except MAYBE the Islanders. Even the Predators did! It is about leveling the playing field, and spreading out the talent so that the league can stay competitive. Having teams run around throwing money at every free agent is not good for the NHL.

 

The exclamation points were not warranted. I didn't think the playing field needed to be levelled, and I felt the league was perfectly competitive pre-lockout. I don't like that the NHL came in and said we're going to cancel a season so we can limit the amount of money the players can make.

 

I don't see how it's bad for the NHL- the players deserve to make as much as they can get from the owners.

[CanadianChris 0]

I don't thnk it's right to restrict the amount of money a team can spend on its players because of the have-nots of the league. People say it's unfair- I disagree. Every team can choose how they want to spend their money or how much they want.

That presumes that every team takes in the same amount of money, though, which isn't true. You can't choose to spend $100 million if you don't have $100 million. A team in, say, Edmonton is put at a disadvantage right off the bat because their owner doesn't own a cable network and can't command huge local rights fees. Now, if you want to say that teams that can't hack it should just be folded, well, that diminishes the entire league, both due to loss of revenue (from the owners' perspective) and loss of jobs (from the players' perspective).

[bob_barron 0]

That presumes that every team takes in the same amount of money, though, which isn't true. You can't choose to spend $100 million if you don't have $100 million. A team in, say, Edmonton is put at a disadvantage right off the bat because their owner doesn't own a cable network and can't command huge local rights fees.

 

Then they have to do the best with what they have. Look at the Rangers, they gave Bobby Holik 4 years, 28 million. It didn't make them successful or either good.

[CanadianChris 0]

That presumes that every team takes in the same amount of money, though, which isn't true. You can't choose to spend $100 million if you don't have $100 million. A team in, say, Edmonton is put at a disadvantage right off the bat because their owner doesn't own a cable network and can't command huge local rights fees.

 

Then they have to do the best with what they have. Look at the Rangers, they gave Bobby Holik 4 years, 28 million. It didn't make them successful or either good.

You can't look at an isolated mistake and say that it proves your point. While the Rangers were dicking around doing nothing, the Red Wings, Stars, Devils and Avalanche were at the top of the league in both spending and -- surprise! -- Stanley Cups.

 

You can't have a league where a third of the teams are out of contention before the season even starts. Sports isn't free-market capitalism, and a "survival of the richest" mentality only degrades the league.