On The Horizon
by SamFels on Jul 26, 2010 6:24 PM CDT
Email
PrintWhile we wait for the Antti Niemi hearing to define how we feel about the summer (though I don't care either way. If the number is low and he stays, great. If not, this team could easily win with Turco or Theodore coming in at a reasonable price), there's other issues going on in the NHL. You've probably been following the Kovalchuk shenanigans, and other free agency stories.
But there's something lurking behind all these stories, and it's this. Read this piece by Adrian Dater.
Frankly, it scares me, and not only because I would then have to get a real job (though that terrifies me more than you'll ever know). We'd all love to sit here and really believe that these two sides couldn't be so stupid again and drive the sport into oblivion with another work stoppage (and make no mistake, hockey wouldn't recover if it even has from the last one). But they are. Very much so. You have a players union that is unquestionably a mess and probably won't straighten itself out in time. Remember, these are basically Canadian farm boys with agents whispering sweet nothings into their ears, and those nothings have nothing to do with the greater good, just larger percentages for themselves. You have a group of owners who don't see things the same way, but are all too piss-scared of Bettman to cause a fracture, because in the end they believe he will make them money. And for the most part, he does.
But they're not all happy, as Dater points out. Secondly, the system didn't do anything. It didn't punish those for having the unfair advantage of a bigger market, it punished success. And teams are still spending wildly. It's actually hilarious that the Leafs, the biggest market, can't ice a team that can stand upright under this system.
What does it mean? It could mean no hockey, and it could mean the destruction of our possibly dynasty, if that ship hasn't sailed already. If the union is a complete mess by the time negotiations roll around, and the owners get their way and lower this cap by 10 mildo, we're all kinds of fucked. And all we did was build a team the right way and be good at hockey, and we'll be punished, and that's complete bullshit.
Secondly, I've railed at this before, but people need to stop looking at the NFL's hard cap and think that's why they're the biggest gorilla in the room. Football is played on Sundays, the perfect TV slot, and has gambling associated with it and all the other stuff. It has nothing to do with players having to be cut on roster bonus days or whatever it is. In fact, most fans hate that legends on their team have to finish their career elsewhere. Pats fans hated Will McGinest going somewhere else, why was Zach Thomas ever a Cowboy, and so on. The NBA has the Lakers. And Celtics. Just hearing those names evokes a connotation. Dynasties and sustained success promote the sport. Look at what happens to your local baseball stadium when the Yankees or Red Sox come to town. Passing your championship around like a joint that everyone gets at some point is hardly attractive.
But I don't understand it all, and I have a nasty habit of overdosing on logic.
-CONVENTION COVERAGE: Once again, the three of us will not be attending the conglomeration of sweaty men in Kane jerseys known as the Blackhawks Convention. If any of you are, please share your experience via the Fanposts and we'll pop it to the front page.
And a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya...
209 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i think - long run - parity is best & hard caps make for parity
if the league’s new CBA drops the Cap, we may – again – see all contracts lowered by some amount.
who fucking cares?
is Kane or Toews or Keith or Hossa going to make more than 80 percent of what they make now doing something else?
more than 5 percent doing something else?
yes, NHL management couldn’t run a 2 float parade down a 1 way street.
yes, the NHLPA is looking at signing the Kevorkian-like Fehr as its boss.
they may both be suicidal – but that sort of MAD inspired détente system (you kids can look it up – how Reagan won the Cold War for us and all) may be what makes both sides step back from the brink.
otherwise – the grandkids start playing hockey soon. you’re all invited to watch me return to coaching and go for some more state championships until the NHL resumes.
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
by krome on Jul 26, 2010 6:36 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Détente was the relaxation in tensions, I thought, not the escalation. Maybe you fogies can look it up.
www.mjt.org
awesome
FOR SALE: pair of shoes, red, size 32 1/2 wide. Please direct all bids to Joel Quenneville, Chicago Blackhawks. Clown horn sold seperately. Also for sale: 328 dogs+1 pistol (bargain price for Leafs fans!)
by BigCSouthside on Jul 27, 2010 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
i said MAD inspired the detente
it was the non-suicidal alternative
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
by krome on Jul 27, 2010 7:08 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Not to get too technical, but...
….MAD (mutually assured destruction) existed throughout detente, and in fact, intensified as both parties continued to build nuclear arsenals and improve their delivery capabilities (e.g. sub-launched MIRVs, etc.). The drain of the Vietnam war, the election of Willy Brandt, and the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations are generally cited by “those who were there” as the reasons for the thaw (detente).
And crediting Reagan with winning the Cold War denigrates our superior economic system. Anyone who ever visited the Soviet Union knew – as George Kennan knew way back in the 1920s – that they were their own worst enemy. Markets, regulated properly, work better than central planning. Case closed. Now if we could only ever get the government regulation thing right, we’ll be golden.
by ChuckSchick on Jul 27, 2010 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
All mostly true.
However, Reagan helped to push them over the edge by investing in our defense which forced the Soviets to do the same and ultimately caused their demise.
I won’t get started on politics but markets generally work best when the government keeps out. That includes the medical market.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
Respectfully disagree
Lack of government regulations on the financial market helped cause the recent recession.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by medical market. D’you mean healthcare/insurance companies? The NHS is pretty sweet…
In a nutshell . . .
Regulations that create competition = good
Regulations that limit competition = bad
If you read the post you'd note...
…that I wrote “Markets, regulated properly (emphasis added), work better than central planning.” Most markets in the western world are regulated in some manner. The Free Market is largely a misconception.
Stanfordron is right that regulations that create competition are better than those that limit competition. That is a good general rule. And there are absolutely (and too often) cases of bad regulation and over-regulation that harm growth and prosperity. But the idea that markets function better without good and proper regulation ignore current history.
I think it's naive
to chalk up the financial crisis to lack of prudent regulation.
concepts like “too big to fail” and Freddy/Fannie’s huge participation are not hallmarks of free or unregulated markets.
everyone had a hand in this- government, wall street, the real estate industry…all the way down to overstretched consumers. this was not regulatory failure, it was human failure. too many people had an interest in keeping the bubble rolling.
And, humans being what they are, all the “never again” crap is just…well, crap.
The idea that “if only we had proper regulation”- I don’t buy it.
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
Then again,
the opportunity for Wall Street and the real estate industry all the way down to consumers to do this had always existed. Yet, they never did it before. Why? Regulations prohibited it . . . until Junior removed them.
so was Holland's 17th century tulip mania a result of regulatory failure?
Periodic crises are endemic to capitalism- the worst form of economic organization except for all the others.
“How do these things ever start?” – Uncle Billy.
Your question implies something must have changed to create the crisis, but that’s not necessarily so. Lots of people incrementally, rationally biting off a bit more risk. Every individual step looks reasonable. A few years on, though, it’s like: how the hell did we end up here?
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
Except
that is was illegal to take those little bites until Junior changed the laws.
Useful link
It seems like most of you already know what happened, but this video is pretty useful in explaining it. In fairness, it doesn’t mention anything about Dubya changing any laws (though that doesn’t mean he didn’t), but it seems like there maybe should’ve been regulations to stop the subprime mortgage lending.
Dead on cliff
I’ve been in the mortgage industry for over 17 years. There’s plenty of blame to spread all around.
The best part though is that the “big banks” (who incidentally owned many of these sub-prime companies) statically wrote just as many “bad” loans as the smaller banks and brokers. The brokers (who share part of the initial blame) only sold products offered by the banks, since they didn’t offer their own products. Plus, all broker loans were underwritten and approved by the banks. Brokers couldn’t approve their own loans.
But of course, the big banks blamed the brokers who didn’t have the organization or special interest groups to protect themselves against the onslaught. The banks said that these loans got through because of lack of regulation and relaxed origination and underwriting standards, when in fact they were the underwriters. Also, loan originators for brokers in almost all states were already required to be licensed and undergo stringent background checks, continuing eduction, annual testing, etc. If you worked for a large bank, you weren’t required to be a licensed originator. The laws didn’t apply to them if they had a national charter or were FDIC insured. So you could walk in off the street and start writing mortgage loans for a bank the next day – and many did.
The big banks took advantage of the situation by influencing the politicians and government to pass laws to punish the brokers. Suddenly all the rhetoric was “Brokers bad, banks good.” The reactive regulations, which the government passed after the situation had already been created (as governments do) forced almost all of the brokers out of business and made the situation 100 times worse. We needed programs to help alleviate the problem, but instead they tightened the guidelines drastically. The laws and restrictions were passed easily because politicians were able convince their constituents that they were meant to protect them from the bad guys.
I know my position sounds biased against the big banks, but in fact I work for a national lender who is the largest lender in Chicago and Illinois. The reason I am biased against the big banks is because of what happened after the bubble had burst. They took advantage of the situation, successfully eliminated their competition, and consolidated power in the hands of the few who created the problem in the first place when they introduced these products. All of this thanks to your friendly neighborhood government intervention. There is so much that could have been done and still could to help eliminate the problem, but the government refuses to intervene and continues to bow to the whim of the big banks. Bad situation made worse. Politicians know which side their bread is buttered on.
So does anyone think we might get Niemi for under $2.25M?
Lord Stanley's new address: Sweet Home Chicago!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Jul 28, 2010 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Fight the machine CNS
FOR SALE: pair of shoes, red, size 32 1/2 wide. Please direct all bids to Joel Quenneville, Chicago Blackhawks. Clown horn sold seperately. Also for sale: 328 dogs+1 pistol (bargain price for Leafs fans!)
by BigCSouthside on Jul 28, 2010 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions
here's the big problem with that
government bureaucrats have no idea how to make “good” regulations. They themselves are governed by the influence of those who got them into power (mostly unions and other special interests). These groups thus influence the politicians to set up regulations that regulate everyone else but them.
That’s why governments do not belong in the private sector and should not try to get involved in the market.
Also, Germ. The NHS is SO sweet, that Britain is starting to really consider cutting it altogether. When you come to the point where you are forced to ration healthcare, wouldn’t you think twice about it too?
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions
You sure about that?
This link goes to a full list of our government’s policies. It’s in alphabetical order, scroll down until you find NHS.
Health spending to increase in real terms.
No government would dare try to cut the NHS.
It's REALLY hard to provide health care if you cant afford to
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/July/26/British-Health-Care.aspx
The next step from what that article states is to start cutting the NHS program itself. This article just states what many physicians and nurses and families of physicians and nurses know instinctively: never put a bureaucracy in charge of your patients’ health.
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Ugh
this is what happens when the Tories get in power, they whine about bureaucracy & then cut shit. But a big part of the reason we’re having to cut things is because of the bailout, it’s not necessarily that the NHS is too expensive by itself to run. Also, that’s only the English NHS they’re talking about; I think the Scottish NHS is run by the Scottish Parliament alone, but I may be wrong.
The fact is, I still prefer the NHS over the American system of insurance companies & getting treatment denied because of pre-existing conditions no matter how much bureaucracy there is. In America, insurance companies are only about the bottom line. In Britain, the patient is the focus.
I disagree, but I'm the son of a physician and the nephew of two others, so maybe I'm biased.
There’s a much better way to handle health care than to put the government in charge of it. I’m not saying letting insurance companies have free reign is a good idea either, but there has to be a better way than letting some corrupt, ignorant politicians control what happens with my money and my health.
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
post fail...meant to include this in the last one
let’s take, for example, health insurance portability. And Tort Reform. And malpractice caps. Those 3 alone would cut the costs of medical premiums across the board by well over half. But none of those were even mentioned in the “Healthcare” bill that Congress passed. Why? Because, as I said, government is corrupt.
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
That healthcare bill was weird
but that’s half the Democrats being spineless & half the Republicans drumming up “they want to kill grandma” and “death panels” and such.
In contention to your “there has to be a better way than letting some corrupt, ignorant politicians control what happens with my money and my health” remark, I’d reply that over here the politicians generally stay out of it; they agree how much the NHS is going to get, but I’m fairly sure that after that they have no say on how the money’s used. No-one gets denied treatment because there isn’t enough money to go round, & that’s a massive point in its favour.
Anyway, agree to disagree?
you say so
I personally get the willies each time congress makes a grab at the private sector and they’ve been doing that an awful lot lately. Whether they do it or some useless pencil-pusher that they hire does it, it comes down to someone standing between doctor and patient.
So sure, i’ll agree to disagree.
by northernsails on Jul 29, 2010 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions
That is really Republican nonsense
trying to take credit for something they did not accomplish. The election of the western-leading economist Gorbachev was the beginning of the end. Our Republican’s had very little to do with it (if anything). But, they like to take credit and get it from people who do not know any better. Going to what Chuck said, the biggest role we played in the demise of the Soviet Union came from Pepsi and Levi’s. Our economic system could produce those products. The Soviet system could not. As more and more Levi’s were smuggled there and as Pepsi was eventually allowed to sell there, the Russian people became aware of the shortcomings of their economic system.
Agreed!
My bad. I will keep my future lecturing focused on the evils of the trapezoid and the shootout.
Agreed, in a way
But one of the things I love about SCH is that we’re fairly good at self-regulating. We can generally talk politics here without it becoming a wingnut vs. treehugger debate.
Then I am in awe
because such degeneration into name calling and vitriol is the norm for most websites where politics are discussed. Must be lots of smart people and Canadians on SCH…
It's great
We had a long-ish debate on the Second Amendment fairly recently, and nobody was compared to Hitler or anything!
I love conversations in this vein, they widen up the personalities here and, well, it’s fun to talk. Most of the time, as Germ says, people are pretty good about things. Also, it’s not the cap.
www.mjt.org
I agree,
the national debt is far less stressful than all this cap stuff.
by stanfordron on Jul 27, 2010 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec for the truth
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
I'm somewhere in the middle.
I guess that makes me a nuthugger?
{O.K., all you SCH nuts line up for your hugs. Women first please!}
"Life is a long lesson in humility."
- James M. Barrie
You're as right as Ed Meese is guilty ...
If the two extremes are the NFL model vs. the MLB model, I think hockey should lean towards the football one all day and all night. I’d rather have to go through a post-spending-binge-summer-of-woe than once every 15 years than have to watch the Yankees womp on the Royals over and over and over again. There’s something very disenchating about 15 of the MLB teams coming to camp with literally no chance whatsoever at winning it all.
Only moderately related but I can’t pass up an opportunity to mention it: I think the first solution is to keep the cap and cut the league down to 24 teams.
by Billy Charlesbois on Jul 26, 2010 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions
and Niemi should wise up & sign
for, say, a year or 2 at no more than a $2 mil Cap hit.
he may find himself driving the Zamboni again (albeit it wearing a Cup ring) or playing for a shitty team for a couple years before going back to driving the Zamboni (albeit wearing a Cup ring).
I used to work with a guy who played for the Yankees for several years (back in the old days)- he didn’t have a pot to piss in. being smart and making the career last is the long term best idea
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
by krome on Jul 26, 2010 6:43 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
i don't know...
By that logic you could also say “get as much as you possibly can while they’re still offering it”. I know the market for goalies isn’t too great for him but I wouldn’t blame him for taking a shot at a big payday
Second City Hockey
June 9, 2010
by Killion on Jul 26, 2010 9:05 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Can't argue that
Niemi may never be more marketable than he is today. No matter what water is walked upon.
I really want him to stay, but life’s a bitch sometimes.
If he stays, there may be resentment that he asked too much, causing us to lose beloved players. If he leaves, he may not fit in with his next team as well as he does here.
The weight of his new contract may cause him to implode. (Haven’t we seen this before? -Goalie-Hog day)
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."
Unless
He asks for 4-5 m/yr and we trade sharp and brouwer to fit him or something insane like that, I don’t think anyone will blame niemi for our cap problems. If we do trade sharp/bolland/someone to fit a large contract for niemi, it will be because the arbitrator said that was the number, and our management made a mistake.
Question: Is it at all possible, that if NIemi gets Halak numbers through arbitration, and we tell him to go F himself, that the hawks might be able to go with cheap goaltending and possibly sign Madden? Or is that an absolute dream?
I would love to see Madden for another year…. How much did he make last year?
pipedream
Unless he takes a pretty hefty paycut. After filling a 22 man roster, we have about 2.3 million/year for a goaltender. If we take out a cheap center, we have about 2.7, which is 100k short of what madden made last year. Thats with Crawford as our backup to no one.
Madden taking a 50% paycut to play for a team that is not-at-all-the-same as last year, with crappy goaltending? what for?
I’d rather overpay niemi than have that scenario.
well,
him being willing to take a paycut to play here i can sort of buy.
However, as it stands, we’d have about 2.8 million to pay him and a starting goaltender. I’d rather overpay a goaltender and go with one of the cheap centers we currently have than have madden and go with a 1m/yr starting goaltender.
yeah, those goalies that make $1M a year or less really suck
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
Once again
Niemi was not some sort of god in net. He had good moments v. san jose, but what won the cup was our stellar defense clearing rebounds out of the crease/slot/everywhere. He was good enough, and made key saves, but wasn’t spectacular, especially in the SCF.
Generally speaking goalies who are making less than 1m a year aren’t as experienced or effective as goalies who have been around a while – banking on catching a break (all season long) isn’t really a good plan, in my opinion.
by oregon_hawk on Jul 27, 2010 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
my point was that there are goalies that can be found that won’t lose a game for you for less than $1M.
And with the defense and style of play the Hawks have that’ll work
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
by Johnny Lava on Jul 27, 2010 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions
nowadays, the goalie that wins the cup
isn’t always going to be the well-payed one. In fact, most of those failed miserably in recent memory (Brodeur, Nabokov, Reboundo, etc.). I understand your point, I’m just applying it to reality and showing how tenuous it is.
by northernsails on Jul 27, 2010 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Very good point about Neemo
How quickly we forget the Huet/Niemi debates of the 09/10 season… Neemo was just as capable of gagging as he was of a shutout.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
Yes how soon we forget
the angst everyone felt not having a solid goaltender with a team that was much better than the one we have now. …until Niemi got a few games under his belt, overcame the “he’s just another Huet” label and became a solid goalie. Now we can not only win but “EASILY WIN” with a Turdco or Theodore. and Niemi is a gagger. Without Niemi we lose half our team including the last 2 years starting goalies. But we got 4 great defensemen who will block or clear every puck so even a <$1 million goalie won’t lose a game or will easily win.
Back to the shootouts don’t matter ridiculousness.
"Shiny New Donkey"
The thought of a work stoppage makes me both ill and enraged at the same time. These are all the same assholes that dam near killed the sport last time. I dont trust any of these morons on either side learned anything. The only good that could possibly come out of this is seeing what Chris Chelios has to say about Gary Bettman.
Also….I should not have changed my tagline. Dam.
19-88-81-2-7-10-36-4-51 : The Hawks
"Bring me the head of Peter Pan!"
sorry, that ‘shiny new donkey’ line sparked a dark ‘Hook’ theme in me.
by northernsails on Jul 26, 2010 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions
It's a Mr. Burns line. Simpsons FTW.
Also this article horrifies me.
There are only two seasons in Chicago; Hockey and Construction.
With so many small market teams
that aren’t bringing in the money, why isn’t it time to eliminate teams or have them move somewhere were hockey might be more popular. Milwaukee or Seattle might be a place to go. Seattle lost it’s Basketball team so there is one less sport to compete with. Two teams in Florida? i don’t get it. Baseball is struggling there as well. Let me know if I’m smoking crack….
Harpoon a fat chick. Save a whale.
too add
I grew up in Chicagoland but I live in NC now. Raleigh is where the Canes play. I don;t know why they don’t play in Bobcats stadium in Charlotte. They would then centralize all their teams. I think this is another example of why teams are struggling in their market. In East NC the only thing people do is cook meth.(joke)
Harpoon a fat chick. Save a whale.
Youth programs
To have hockey teams in markets with small to non-existent youth hockey presence is about as smart as selling winter coats in Cancun. Or coffee to meth heads.
by OMFS88 on Jul 26, 2010 7:34 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'd like to see the league cut down to 28 teams
would benefit the league the most. The best scenario would be to fold Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta and Phoenix. Two competitive teams along with farm systems can be put together from these four franchises. A supplemental draft can be held for remaining teams to pick left over players.
The biggest problem with putting the teams together would be Cap restictions.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
Not smoking crack
I agree. If these small weak market teams can’t make it, get rid of them. There are too many teams in the NHL, IMO. Let the weak teams fold. I could see a team in Milwaukee before Seattle. Milwaukee has had the Admirals for many years and I think there are enough hockey fans in WI to make a team there successful.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
Milwaukee is closer to Chicago
than Vancouver is to Seattle. I thought of that too. But then look at how close teams are out east.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
It's still an issue though.
Especially in areas that are not traditional hockey hotbeds. Vancouver yes, they’re in Canada. Seattle? Not sure what anyone there knows of hockey. Are there a lot of Canuckleheads in Seattle? I don’t know. I’d think a team 90 miles north of Chicago would probably work better than a team 120 miles or so south of Vancouver only because there are probably more hockey fans in the upper midwest.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
move 2 teams
Yotes and one of the FL teams. I think (for no real reason) that hockey would do well in Seattle, especially with Vancouver near there for an immediate “rivalry”
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
by Johnny Lava on Jul 27, 2010 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
they are canucks fans generally.
Picture bloodbaths and elevator shafts
Like these murderous rhymes tight from genuine craft
Dunno bout Milwaukee
Went to an admirals game last year vs the Wolves and walked up to the ticket window 2 minutes before game time. Got 2 on the glass tickets for less than $20 each. LOTS of empty seats.
Been a while for me...
I haven’t been to a Wolves game in several years or an Admirals game in many years. What is attendance like in Rosemont now that the Hawks are a real team again?
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
Massively small sample size
But I was there for a game a few months ago, and the place was packed close to capacity. Plus, with the ‘Hawks being a real team again, I would imagine you’ll find a lot more people going to see the Wolves with the ’Hawks selling out damn near every game.
I'll hang up and wait for my answer.
I grew up in Chicagoland but I live in NC now. Raleigh is where the Canes play. I don;t know why they don’t play in Bobcats stadium in Charlotte. They would then centralize all their teams. I think this is another example of why teams are struggling in their market. In East NC the only thing people do is cook meth.(joke)
Harpoon a fat chick. Save a whale.
Plus they also watch hockey
For a city with 50% more people, the Canes and the Bobcats draw equal numbers in attendance and near equal percentages to capacity. Plus, the canes got a great stadium deal in Raleigh, and they sell out most weekend and prime opponent games.
My cousin works at the RBC Center, so I’ve heard the Canes belong in Raleigh argument from him before.
by warrenjm2006 on Jul 27, 2010 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions
I feel the opposite
Dynasties only build the sport in the dynasty’s city. Period. Taking 20 out of 30 teams out of the playoff equation before game one of the playoffs like the NBA does destroys the sport. If the NHL follows that model, half the franchises in the league will fold in three years. Think that’ll build interest in hockey?
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
I get your point and I agree.
I ’m not talking about a bunch of teams folding. I think maybe a few and then relocating some. if that many teams did fold many players would flock to Europe which isn;t good for us. Russia has money. If we have a lock out again how many would stay over there? I think it would a formidable amount.
Harpoon a fat chick. Save a whale.
The best players would still play in the NHL
the marginal players would flock overseas. There would be a better quality of team play here then which could raise interest among the casual fans.
cut 6-8 teams and the league would be better
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
given the influx of Euro and US players - at least 12 could play at full Original 6 quality of play
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
If we are being honest
A quarter of franchises should fold. The problem with that of course it makes the NHL look Mickey mouse as shit
by OMFS88 on Jul 26, 2010 7:39 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Sorry if this idea has been discussed( I clearly don't know if it has)...
but why not set it up so in situations in which players that are brought up through your own system don’t count for 100% towards your salary cap no matter how good or expensive they become. This would reward teams for good drafting and the like.
Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. After acquiring the dubious distinction of being the only sport to lose an entire season to labor issues, you would think sanity would prevail.
And no offense to the NHLPA, but I still blame Fehr (in part, anyway) for making me wait an extra 11 years to celebrate a White Sox World Series.
Beer. Now there's a temporary solution.
Nah...
The Expos would have rolled over you that year. They were like 90-3 when the strike hit or something.
www.secondcityhockey.com
Yeah, and they basically killed baseball in Montreal for ever after
That team and the market never recovered from that season – and they’re still paying off the monstrous debt on Olympic Stadium, one of the worst of the 1970’s astroturf stadiums from that era.
It wasn't really Fehr's fault
That Asshole Reinsdorf was responsible for the lockout and ended up fucking over Sox fans. I for one cannot stand that piece of shit and I hope he never gets involved with the NHL.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
No argument there
JR was calling the shots for the owners. Still not a Fehr fan tho.
Anyway, those Laddy cup pics are fuckin awesome.
Beer. Now there's a temporary solution.
by one timer on Jul 26, 2010 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Ladd photos are awesome x 10
and like you, I am not a fan of Fehr and don’t want him involved with the NHL.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
Not a lot of great choices
By rights, some teams have got to go elsewhere. Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida and Carolina are the obvious choices. (I am not prepared to give up on the Bolts and the Isles just yet. Tampa actually looks like they are capable of giving a damn. The Isles are on shakier ground, and the Lighthouse Project would be a white elephant if it ever got built (and it won’t).)
You put PHX, ATL, FLA and CAR in Winnepeg, Quebec and two other places which would give a damn (I personally think that, as was suggested, Seattle and Milwaukee would be paydirt). That would add revenue to League coffers, and a bit of a revitalization.
But there can’t be contraction. That would be a red-line for the PA. Less teams = less jobs, and less revenue to go around.
The cap is going nowhere. It’s a fact of life. But a cut in the cap cannot be accepted. And I think the owners get that. A star player makes no money for a club if the team surrounding him is for shit. That’s obvious. The goal is to get a club that is capable of winning. That puts butts in seats.
But the bottom line is that a stoppage does nobody any good. They’ll figure out a way to prevent that at all costs. If they don’t, well… they’d be ten times as idiotic than I would think possible.
WAIT FOR THE WHISTLE!
by Sec 326 Bureau Chief on Jul 26, 2010 8:21 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
i’m going to have to disagree with you.
for the first 5-6 years that the blue jackets were in existence they were selling out every night, not matter how good or bad they were. the issue was that they never seemed to get over the hump. they went through several gm’s and many coaches and rebuilt 2-3 times and have only made the playoffs once. it’s because of that their attendance is down.
but their attendance is still higher than it was here in chicago 4+ years ago.
they’re in central ohio, about 1.5 hours from cincinnati and 2 hours from cleveland. ohio loves sports. they sell out the terrible browns and bengals and draw extremely well for the reds and indians when the teams are competent. not to mention the 150,000 people in red who invade columbus every weekend september through november.
it’s a matter of building a winner. if they can find someone to turn all of these high picks into good players and finally build a team around nash then they would not be the detriment to the league.
i
I hope you are correct
I had the misfortune of forced-attendance at the “Arnold Classic” one year and thought that whole downtown area was awesome. While I never entered the hockey arena, it also looked nice as hell.
I’ll soften my stance on Columbus, but when they do eventually achieve some playoff success I will need to see the fans come out in droves and keep coming as long as the team gives them a reason to.
I feel like Atlanta was doomed to get poor fan support and a crappy team from the minute they started.
i lived in cincinnati for about 10 years and would go up to columbus when the hawks were in town. the fans may have been new, but they were there and they tried very hard. the team just never made it past the expansion phase.
the arena district is nice and there’s good places to eat before the game and drink after. and its a nice rink.
i totally agree w/ you on atlanta.
Quebec and Winnipeg are excellent choices
The franchises should never have left those cities, they deserve another chance. I wonder if they should move the Columbus franchise to Seattle or Milwaukee- they’re doing terrible there at present.
Quebec might work, but Winnipeg probably wouldn’t. The league left those cities just as the economic model was changing: sell out corporate boxes for mind-blowing prices. Winnipeg wouldn’t be any better than Phoenix in that area, and Quebec is mostly provincial government offices. I have doubts that either city could compete in today’s NHL. Although I’d love to see the civil war that would erupt in Quebec if a Montreal-Quebec City ECF ever happened. As a friend of mine said late one night, “We used to ’ate dose guys.”
there were teams in both of those cities and they didn’t work. teams rely on more then just gate receipts to make money. it’s a combination of tickets, tv deals, merchandise and advertising/sponsorship. no matter how rabid a city is about a team, if the teams market is only 500,000 people then the money just isn’t there. that’s the big reason that those two teams left. selling out buildings is, unfortunately, only a small piece of the puzzle.
The best part about this whole thing is that my tonic is not flat.
Holy Crap!
by laaarmer on Jul 26, 2010 9:05 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
The problems are on both sides of this...
Fehr is a complete tool who shouldn’t be allowed near sports in any way. He WILL kill a season, count on it.
Bettman absolutely refuses to let franchises in crappy markets move to more lucrative areas. The owners love him for this, but it’s killing everyone else in the process.
The current system is screwed up—as evidenced by the Hawks removing, what is it now? 8 players, from a Stanley Cup winning team. Is this what the owners wanted? Chicago winning the Cup was the best thing to happen to the whole league. And now it will be hard for Chicago to repeat (yes, I know they’ve got the best top 6 forwards and top 4 d-men in the league) having lost a lot of players who knew the system so well. This isn’t good for hockey.
But both sides are only going to care about getting the most money out of the deal. Expect to see a lot of our boys playing in Russia during the lockout. They pay people over there.
The Chicago Blackhawks -- 2010 Stanley Cup Champions!!!!!!
"I can't stop crying and laughing." Preacher
I don't know if losing players
is good for hockey or not, but I think there have been or will be benefits to some of the former Hawks changing teams. Versteeg, for one. I think he can make a good bit of difference in Toronto. Burke obviously can’t develop/choose talent for shit, so this happening is at least a little good for Toronto, which in turn could mean good things for the league (a la Chicago).
It also means that new talent is coming up from the Hawks minor leagues that wouldn’t have come up otherwise. So while I’m hugely bummed to lose our players, I don’t think it’s all doom and gloom that this has happened.
by Katherine215 on Jul 27, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Gives us something to watch for (i.e. new players)
We already knew Versteeg loved to dick around with the puck longer than he should and was capable of sick moves/goals. And I was pretty sure Buff wouldn’t do anything worth noting until 3 months into the season before resuming his hibernation until the playoffs.
Not that I didn’t love watching them or the rest of the other guys we have lost, but this definitely adds a level of interest to the upcoming season that would not have been there otherwise. I would absolutely reverse all these moves, if possible, and keep the whole team from last year but as you said; watching a new group of guys step up to the NHL isn’t the worst compromise in the world. At least the new guys aren’t walking into a locker room with only Daze and Zhamnov to look up to.
I think when it comes down to it, it is the loss of Ladd that sucks some wind out of the sails and warmth from the heart.
No doom and gloom here--just reality
The Hawks will be an elite team again next season. But watching my way through the playoffs as I am right now, I’m convinced that the Hawks winning the Cup this year was a 3 year process. The team that played the Flyers was so much more in sync than the team that missed the playoffs by a hair 2 years ago and lost to Scum last year. I think we will lose a lot of on-ice chemistry with the loss of all these players this off-season. Can they get it together by the playoffs? We’ll see. Our best players are all that much more mature after winning this year, and that will make a difference. But I think it will be a bit of a learning process for the team as a whole. And probably a bit on the “growing pains” aspect as well.
And I agree on losing Ladd. Ouch!
The Chicago Blackhawks -- 2010 Stanley Cup Champions!!!!!!
"I can't stop crying and laughing." Preacher
The difference though
is that last year, many of our best players, those with the ability to carry the team (esp. Toews and Kane) were the ones still finding their sync. This coming season, it will be the role players and secondary players who are trying to get it together. So, I agree that it will be a learning process, but come playoff time the Hawks will still be a team to be reckoned with, more so than the Hawks team of 2 seasons ago.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." -- Alvin Dark
At least the new guys aren’t walking into a locker room with only Daze and Zhamnov to look up to.
Spot on.
Toews, Hossa, Keith, Sharp, et al. These guys WILL NOT let this team backslide.
It’s a whole different situation form the dark years.
"Life is a long lesson in humility."
- James M. Barrie
Fear the prick that is Donald Fehr
The fact that he is “advising” the players sends shivers down my spine. This is the same slippery weasel that was able to manipulate Bud Selig and his band of ass kissing owners until the cows came home. Imagine what he will be able to do with Gary “Count Chocula” Bettman and some of the wingnuts who own NHL franchises.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Elephant in the room is this...the NHL has too many teams
Abandoning some of the Canadian markets was both sad and a big mistake. Expanding all over the fucking United States was an even bigger mistake. Hence why at some point there needs to be contraction in the NHL and, hopefully, the relocation of two teams back to Canada.
The Atlanta Thrashers? To compete with Nascar in the deep south? The Phoenix Friggin Coyotes? The Columbus Bluejackets? Give me a break.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
If NFL is movies, MLB is TV, and NBA is the internet; Hockey is the radio ...
It will always be there because there is room and a need for it, but it will just never be as popular as the other sports. I think it should gracefully and happily accept it’s niche and focus on being the best product it can be in the markets where it has an opportunity for an enthusiastic fan base rather than force teams in these non-hockey markets over and over again.
by Billy Charlesbois on Jul 26, 2010 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I should have read through all the comments
before I started commenting. I agree with you completely.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
They Can...and They Could be That stupid again.
In 1994 The Rangers ended the NHL’s longest current cup drought and rode huge TV ratings to help the league gain new popularity. A large market team staging a revival on the sports biggets stage and helping the NHL gain new exposure in the porcess. Sound Familiar? The Rangers got so much publicity that summer that I remember Jeff Beukaboom ( I think it was him and others) hanging out with the Stanley Cup at the MTV beach house. At the time that was a pretty big deal for the NHL to gain exposure to places that had not previously acknowledged the sport’s existence.
What did the NHL to further move hockey into the forefront for the sporting and cultural landscape? The owners locked out the players and smashed a really good opportunity to gain further share of the winter sports market with Michael Jordan playing baseball.
Don’t underestimate greed influencing really horrible and potentially catastrophic decisions made by the players and owners. The greed that allowed the league continually expand to give existing owners a free paychek at the expense of the quality of their product. The greed that made the decision to put the NHL on an obscure cable network for a guaranteed paycheck instead of considering the impact of marketing the sport to a larger audience. The players are implicit in this as well and their ridiculously stupid destabilizing of the NHLPA could be the catalyst for our worst fears as we finally have the team and organization we waited all our lives for.
"Hey, go hump your Saint Bernard, scum-nuts. "
There's one huge reason why a mass reduction of teams won't happen...
The 2+ month long playoffs are the NHL’s best marketing tool. Anyone who simply watches a game whether at home or anywhere else can get hooked on competitive playoff hockey by watching just one game. Reducing the number of teams would mean reducing the length of the playoffs, which I think would be a huge blow to the league’s hopes of marketing to a wider audience. So, if the goal is gain more local publicity and support for league teams, you’d have to do another mass move from all the awful franchise homes… specifically Columbus, Miami, Atlanta and Carolina. Phoenix and the Islanders could also be thrown in there as well.
I doubt in today’s economic climate with business owners making very few risky or costly moves that we’d see a mass re-shifting of the NHL like what occurred in the mid-90s, but I would imagine owners of the shitty market teams would target a handful of places… Seattle, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Winnipeg, Quebec and Indianapolis in particular.
by Smokin Herb Grigsby on Jul 27, 2010 1:03 AM CDT reply actions
I disagree
Even with a 24 team league (12 each conf) you can still do the top 8 of each conf format
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
by Johnny Lava on Jul 27, 2010 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
a 24 team league with 16 in playoffs
would be back to the Original 6 ratio of playoff teams. it would give 4 divisions of 6.
a 28 team league could go 4 divisions of 7.
other than the loss of those extra teams worth of jobs – the league remaining might be much better off (getting some poorly located teams into some more rationally sized/located markets might help too).
by the way, I had always heard that old Wirtz was the big block to Milwaukee getting a team.
Preparing my psyche for the coming Capocalypse
Confusion will be my epitaph.
by krome on Jul 27, 2010 7:13 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I had heard that about Wirtz too.
I don’t see a lot of Milwaukee folks buying season tickets to the Blackhawks so what was his problem? OK, that’s a rhetorical question since no one can answer that.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
counting chickens
And all we did was build a team the right way and be good at hockey, and we’ll be punished, and that’s complete bullshit
To most hockey people, building a team “the right way” means not having to blow it up the summer after. Don’t blame the NHL or the cap, Chicago’s cap woes are self-inflicted. Chicago’s (Dale Tallon’s) route to the cup is the anti-dynasty way. I can’t believe you even uttered the word. Amazed.
Wow!!
they still have electricity in Detroit!
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
by Johnny Lava on Jul 27, 2010 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Of course Detroit still has electricity.
Unfortunately, 80% of the citizens can’t afford it.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
the team isn't being blown up
A team is blown up when it loses core players, not when it loses role players. You make us out to be some impossible hybrid of the yankees and the marlins, like we somehow bought a championship and then refused to pay the players so we traded everyone.
I agree that our cap issues are, for the most part, self-inflicted, but this team is still capable of winning. Keep telling yourself that the hawks are done, whatever helps you sleep at night dude.
Ditto for CNS
I'm confused
I know who the Yankees are, and why they’re dicks, but what did the Marlins do? They keep being brought up. Remember, I only care about hockey & am on another continent, so it’s not like I’m massively ignorant/stupid.
Huizenga (their owner)
said that they were losing money even though they won the World Series. No one really believed him – they had just plunked down a ton of cash on free agents before the season – and he ended up selling the team after the next season anyway.
there's no way to reason with a Scum fan
so dont bother. You’d have more success debating the order of the Library of Congress than making any headway with those stubborn peoples.
by northernsails on Jul 27, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
the depths of bitterness
No longer can you roll out the “no Cup” taunt, so this is what we get? Pretty weak, dude.
You are not just offering a different perspective. You come here to wag your finger as the ARBITER OF THE USE OF THE WORD DYNASTY.
The word that amazed you so was used thusly:
It could mean no hockey, and it could mean the destruction of our possible dynasty, if that ship hasn’t sailed already.
Pretty tepid use of the word, imo.
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
possible
yeah well, I’m not hurling insults here. Just commenting. I just wouldn’t start thinking about dynasties until I won 2 in 3, or 4 in 5, or 3 in 7. Just sayin’….
Dynasty's are nice but...
I’ll take a competitive playoff team and a Stanley Cup every 4 or 5 years with no complaints whatsoever.
I won't ever complain about
a team that competes every night, makes the playoffs every now and then and even wins a round or two sometimes. A cup every 4 or 5 years might cause financial ruin and liver failure for me
My point is
with a rock solid core, good coaching and yes a goalie that can win a few games, you are competitive and probably a playoff team. With a little luck down on the farm and through the draft, you can be a top 4-6 team. Get a couple of breaks, draft intelligently enough to actually HAVE a breakthrough player each year, hire a veteran gun occasionally who has a year or two left in the tank and yeah, I think a Cup a couple of times a decade is not out of the question. Seems that describes the post cap Hawks pretty well if I do say so myself….well….assuming arbitration works out well.
I don't think any one of us
would have a problem if that scenario worked out.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
debatable
I guess it doesn’t look so bad from your perspective….
Will it be “blown up” if Bowman has to trade Sharp, Bolland, or Brouwer? I guess they’ll still have the core of Kane, Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson. But how many wins can the Hawks get in ‘10-’11 with 10-12 minimum wage skaters?
You worded the question wrong
It’s “how many wins more than Detroit will the ’Hawks get?” hint: it’s more than 0.
Why aren’t you a member of WIIM, btw? Seems strange for a Red Wings fan…
it should be interesting
hey, maybe Nashville will win the division. I don’t know but I think the Wings have a shot at it too. We’ll see, eh?
and…
Why aren’t you a member of WIIM, btw? Seems strange for a Red Wings fan…
no, but I am a member of JFTC and you should be too!
not front page
the link was to the tag: Capmania, Capaphobia, Capaphilia, Capnesia.
The “dismantling” of the Hawks was the top story of the summer until July 1st an the ensuing Kovy Saga.
good information though…
As were Detroit’s cap woes. And Pittsburgh’s. Washington’s will be self-inflicted too, when they finally have to pay the piper for Ovechkin. The fact is, the cap makes it impossible to build a team that will last more than a couple seasons. Chicago’s route to the Cup was the only way to the Cup, and with the exceptions of the necessary signings of Campbell and Huet for big cap hits, there really isn’t anything to complain about. Even with 51 and 39, those were important signings, the importance of which I think is missed by many people, since when they were signed, the Hawks hadn’t made a free-agent splash in my lifetime and suddenly people had names to talk about.
Tallon's legacy
the Hawks hadn’t made a free-agent splash in my lifetime and suddenly people had names to talk about.
You have a point! However, those 2 signings continue to hurt the Hawks big-time, and from a player performance perspective, are terribly disappointing.
which sorta undermines
your contnetion that the club was not built “the right way.”
this team was not built by signing free agents- some of those signings have been, if anything, an obstacle t success.
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
I can still remember Pat Foley's fair adieu
To Karpovtsev
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions
i somewhat disagree (as far as player performance goes)
Yes, Huet is not stellar between the ears, but he is still a pro player. Even though i understand putting his ridiculous contract in the AHL is, at the moment, the only way we can avoid more cap headache, i still feel sorry for the guy. Hes a pro, his contract size isn’t his fault, and he should be given a chance to play for another pro team, either in the NHL or Europe, just not in Chicago (he had all the oppertunity in the world, but it didn’t pan out). What really starts making me feel bad for him is that apparently he is a stellar teammate, and those aren’t always found everywhere (see Jokinen, Olli or Karpovtsev, Alexander or Burrows, Alice)
Campbell on the other hand, well, let me just say that its obvious you didn’t watch EVERY Blackhawks game this past season (and why would you?) but i think its more than safe to say that Campbell played some of his best games in a Hawk sweater this past season, and if you say his very presence in the lineup wasn’t crucial for the STANLEY CUP CHAMPION CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS midway through the Nashville series, then you are just a hater looking for any reason to shit on Hawks fans (which, for a SCUM fan is not surprising).
Campbell’s cap hit is a burden for the Hawks, but look around the league and you’ll see there is more than just Campbell’s contract that raises a few eyebrows. As for you whole “player performance perspective” thing you mentioned, where does Derek Boogaard’s new contract stand in your eyes? What about the team who traded away Olli "Joke"inen only to hire him back a year later? What about the whole Kovalchuk debacle? Does his blatant One-Way offensive play really command such a high price tag? I don’t see him competing for the Selke or Vezina anytime soon, so why pay the man like he’s a One-Man Hockey team?
All in all, Yzguy, I understand what you’re trying to say, but let me be the one to inform you its been said and analyzed ad nauseam on this site way before you stomped in here, breaking shit and started screaming about our problems with a VERY biased point of view. Its cute that you want to try and get us all frazzled, but the fact THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS ARE STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS really does chase the sting of loosing however many replaceable role players we had to let go of. At least the Conn Smythe winner, Norris winner, and STANLEY CUP GAME WINNING GOAL SCORER will still be on our squad for a while, not to mention Marian “3 Consecutive Trips to the Stanley Cup Finals” Hossa. I believe it was your own cap woes that made him ship off for greener pastures, if im not mistaken. So please, next time you come in here, wipe your feet and clean all the bullshit from your mouth.
LETS GO HAWKS!!!!!
"It's The Chicago Blackhawks, man." ~ Jeremy Roenick, June 9th, 2010.
by Hawkynite! on Jul 27, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 8 recs
Rec'd for
STANLEY CUP CHAMPION CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS & THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS ARE STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
has a nice ring to it
doesn’t it?
"It's The Chicago Blackhawks, man." ~ Jeremy Roenick, June 9th, 2010.
Greened
In YZguy’s defense, I don’t think he’s been overly offensive, especially for a fan of Scum.
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
Good thing.
You better not be if you come onto this site…
39 years of pain vaporized by one OT goal.
i call bullshit.
sorry, yzguy, but im not buying that line. you’re not “just commenting” so stop trying to be slick. this is not the only hockey blog on the planet and you have OBVIOUS allegiances to the very team that is our long time rival. Im sorry, but i see what you’re doing as very opportunistic in light of the Hawks’ situation as can be seen in your initial post here today …
To most hockey people, building a team "the right way" means not having to blow it up the summer after. Don’t blame the NHL or the cap, Chicago’s cap woes are self-inflicted. Chicago’s (Dale Tallon’s) route to the cup is the anti-dynasty way. I can’t believe you even uttered the word. Amazed.You didn’t come here to talk hockey, you came here to talk shit. The Hawks haven’t “Blown Up” or “Pulled a Marlin” or whatever you want to ‘Nanny-Nanny-Pooh-Pooh’ at us. And its rather upsetting (though not surprising) that a trolling SCUM fan is the self-proclaimed “Dynasty Police”. Guess what pal, no one needs your stamp of approval to use that word.
So please, just admit what you’re doing and stop hiding behind this thin veil of “im just an innocent commentator i have a right to my opinion”. Shit, even the guys at TSN have a right to their own “opinion” (especially about the Hawks’ off-season), but it still doesn’t change the FACT that their opinions are ASININE. And from what i have been reading, you have been using a LOT of the same talking points i’ve heard those ass-hats utter time and again ever since Capt’n Serious hoisted that shinny silver chalice.
If you want to talk hockey, then lets talk hockey, but don’t come into the lions den doing your best Nelson impersonation and think you’re totally innocent of all recompense, because i WILL call your bluff and i, good sir, say BULLSHIT!!!
LETS GO HAWKS!!!!!!
"It's The Chicago Blackhawks, man." ~ Jeremy Roenick, June 9th, 2010.
Remember when
Campbell was signed, no talented free agent wanted to come to Chicago. I look at that signing as the genesis of the turnaround for the Stanley Cup. Hell yeah we overpaid, but now we don’t have to pay that much to sign and keep the Hossa’s, Kane’s, Toews, Keith’s Hammer’s, etc. because it’s a good place to be. Yeah Wirtz had to kick the bucket and we got smart/lucky with Kane and Toews drafts and other stuff fell into place. But just the signing had some value. Who knows if w/o a Campbell and Khabi Kane and Toews don’t get Zhamnov disease and just go through the motions for a perennial wait til next year team.
yeah, also when
Campbell came here we really sucked ,so I think Tallon had to lure him with big money….We now win the cup and Tallons large contracts are hurting us. In hindsight we fun the FUCKING CUP. It happens, In detroit (YZGUY) you guys had a lot of success so people wanted to come there to win and would take smaller contracts. That wasn’t our case but in the future our cap space should be fine as long as there no cap drop by 10 milli or a lockout.
Ah geeeeaz, ah geeeeeez, ah geeeeez, oh crap.
Rec'd
for its sheer, marvelous splendor.
by northernsails on Jul 28, 2010 1:18 AM CDT up reply actions
i am loathed to even marginally agree with a Wings fan
but there is something to be said for the Sharks’ perennial complaint — they’re always ood but not good enough. Meaning, they didn’t suck for a long stretch to amass a lot of top picks and aren’t able to draft the way we did with Keith, Seabs, Toews, and Kane. No, all our stars weren’t drafted, some were trade for, some were signed. But it’s somewhat hard to argue the point.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Jul 27, 2010 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Gah! Just contract the league down to 24…goodbye Southeastern division (sans Washington) Nashville, and Columbus. No offense to any of our friends with those teams (particularly NSH, but if you struggle to sell out a freakin’ playoff game, that says something) but as it was mentioned in Dater’s article, a Cup final with a combination of any of you, and down goes…well, pretty much everything. I’d much rather see 6 teams disappear if it prevented another lost season, or God-forbid, seasons.
Sam said it perfectly:
Dynasties and sustained success promote the sport. Look at what happens to your local baseball stadium when the Yankees or Red Sox come to town. Passing your championship around like a joint that everyone gets at some point is hardly attractive.
"What the hell, let's review it." - Dale Tallon
"They are!" - Pat Foley
"What a farce." - Dale Tallon
For all you Liverpool fans on here
Roy Hodgson has confirmed that Mascherano wants to leave the club this summer. Link.
I say adios
I am not a fan of his. Bitches too much and takes too many stupid agressive fouls/cards. Alberto should be able to fill in the holding spot just fine with some combo of Kuyt/Cole/Maxi and Gerrard up top.
interesting
somewhat surprised, but not incredibly so. i think we’ll be seeing a surprisingly different team next year. I mean everyone expects “different team” after last year’s fiasco, but i’m prepped for some oddball moves this off season.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Jul 27, 2010 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Why are you surprised?
After the signings of more skilled players in Alberto and Maxi last season, and now Cole and that Serbian guy, paired with the development of some of the younger players (ie Lucas), I don’t feel that his overly agressive style fits anywhere in the form.
Granted who knows who the hell is going to be left after the next 3 weeks. I am real excited that Roy has taken over.
don't get me wrong, i'm excited too
and like i said, not really surprised. just not sure if i expected him to be the next to go, that’s all. but i agree, i’ve soured on his style lately ayway, so i won’t cry much if he does go.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Jul 27, 2010 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I feel like Don Fehr is the most misunderstood man in sports
First off, nobody seems to notice that MLB is pretty healthy these days. Of course, the Yankees take up a lot of headlines, and people resent that, but would you rather take the long-term health of MLB or the NHL right now, even aside from the looming labor issues in the NHL?
Second, here’s a simple fact about work stoppages in sports: it’s always the owners’ fault. It’s always their inability to get their shit together that leads to problems. Always, always, always.
Look where we’re at now. The Dater article lays it out pretty clearly, doesn’t it? If there’s a lockout, it will be because the small-market teams can’t pull their weight and want to be coddled. That’s it. End of story. Nothing Don Fehr is going to do or say is going to change that, and he’d be ridiculously irresponsible in his duties to play that game with the owners – and even if he caved completely, and gave the owners their way, it would be horribly bad for the NHL long-term.
by Brian C on Jul 27, 2010 11:04 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Quick question
The Penguins were pretty close to moving to Kansas City about 4/5 years ago, but why was that? I don’t recall if it was due to the Mellon Arena closing & Pittsburgh being tight about building a new rink or low attendance/lack of money or shitty management or some combination of all three (and maybe more).
O/T The Odd Couple, Episode 8: European Vacation
Not gonna lie, it gets weird. http://bit.ly/a4ZQMR
It's notsexually weird if that's what you're thinking.
More like, “I didn’t know Marian Hossa lives in a Medieval castle.”
jumped the shark
would be more accurate for that episode
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
And it only took me 8 tries!
Oh, internet, why must your snark sting so bad.
Not liking the sounds of that blog
When in Rome we shall do as the Romans, when in Hell we do shots at the bar.
by HolyBlackhawksBatman on Jul 27, 2010 12:01 PM CDT reply actions
So i heard
That Blackhawks should be announcing the signing of Nick Leddy. I’m guessing to keep him through his college career, but I did hear that he did shine at the prospect camp.
Ah geeeeaz, ah geeeeeez, ah geeeeez, oh crap.
where are you seeing this?
there was a rumor on Sassone’s blog last week but nothing concrete yet.
by Katherine215 on Jul 27, 2010 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions
umm
i believe the Hawks own his rights during his college career and don’t have to sign him to the Entry Level Contract until he’s done/ is ready to play in the pros.
nothin but smiles
my Captain is better than your Captain
Kuc is reporting
Leedy is signed and will skip going back to college.
At $900K
I do not expect we will see him this season.
yeah, strange move
Why even sign him to such a high amount if we can’t bring him up anyway? Guess we want him getting AHL experience instead of more college.
he won’t be in the ahl, he’ll either make the hawks (doubtful) or he’ll play somewhere in the chl (ohl, whl, qmjhl). he still has junior eligibility. this move was strictly because the hawks were not happy with how he was developing under the university of minnesota coaching staff.
Is he too young for Rockford?
What are the restrictions and why can’t he play at Rockford?
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." -- Alvin Dark
i was wrong
when i wrote this today i thought that there was still covered by the “if a player has junior eligibility he either has to play in the nhl or be returned to juniors”. even though leddy has junior eligibility and his rights are owned by a junior team, because he’s played in the ncaa and never reported to his junior team he’s exempt. so he could play in rockford.
but that opens up the debate of whether it’s better for him to play in rockford or in juniors. personally i’d like to see him be a top pair d-man in juniors and play the 50-60 games that comes with that (over the 30 in the ncaa) and move to rockford next season.
No Ladd On The Horizon
Yeah, I think I see what you did there Sam. Is it really a U2 reference? They are beautiful pix though. I have seen the other one where he is facing the other way. Good luck to Laddie wherever his career and his 2(two) Stanley Cup rings take him.
LUigi was found dead at the scene, murdered by a Chelsea Dagger.
The Convention
I’ll be one of those sweaty men in my Kane jersey and I don’t know why we have to take a shot at that. Should be quite an exciting and emotional event and I’m very much looking forward to it. It’s a fabulous chance to celebrate Stanley and hopefully get a picture with it. Sorry it’s not your thing, Sam, but it should be great. I’m sure it will have its moments of frustration, such as standing in lines all day to meet some of the guys and acquire a few priceless autographs of our guys with the Cup, but in the end it will be worth it.
I think the line frustration
should be a little less this year. They’re giving out a set number of wristbands for each signing so you only can wait in the line until the wristbands are gone. and I think they are going to limit when you can line up for them, too.
I’m really hoping they’ll have the Cup there – it’s the first time I’ll have had the chance to see it in person. The forums and Q&As are really good, you should check those out, too.
by Katherine215 on Jul 28, 2010 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions
My thoughts on Niemi
I know I might come off sounding like a broken record but it’s worth repeating – in one season Antii Niemi did what Nikolai Khabibulin couldn’t do in 4 years and Cristobal Huet couldn’t even come close to and that was solidfy the goaltending position for the ‘Hawks. In fact, he’s the first goaltending to resemble anything close to a quality netminder for the ’Hawks since Jeff Hackett.
As a rookie all he did in the regular season was go 26-7-4 with 7 shutouts. That’s the same amount of shutouts as losses. Who wouldn’t want that?
Not to mention that his road record (which is the true test of any goaltender) was exceptional going 14-3-2 with a 1.91 GAA and a .931 SV% while recording 5 shutouts. Not bad eh?
In the playoffs he would continue to perform well under pressure going 16-6 with a 2.63 GAA with a .910 SV% while posting 2 shutouts. 5-1 after a loss and in two occasions he shutout his opposition. Mind you both were against Nashville but still impressive if you ask me especially after the way the first game in that series ended.
Say what you want about Antii Niemi and his style of catching the puck (swatting away bees) he gets the job done and has a strong demeanor that carried him to the Cup – the first ever Finnish netminder to do so. Niemi never cracked the way Quick did, or Fleury did, or Luongo did and has in the past.
He won the Cup and was a big part of it. He’ll get a fair arbitration reward. The ’Hawks will re-sign him and make the necessary adjustments accordingly.
2010 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
It's been a long journey but in the end it was all worth it, and I wouldn't have ever changed a thing. The feeling is so surreal, yet so real.
Why do we even NEED a goalie?
We can play 6 on 5 and it would be a much more exciting, game where we would score more goals. And with our defense, we’d STILL probably have less than a 3.00 GAA and 7 shutouts. Like Sam said, we EASILY WIN with just about any goalie, so why not give the other team more of a chance and just play empty net hockey?
i believe the Flyers, Habs, and Canucks might also consider this option. good call.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Jul 27, 2010 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions
if i recall correctly
you spent a fair amount of space last season beating the ‘savior goalie’ drum.
just sayin’.
June 30, 2010. We will rue this day.
by cliffkoroll on Jul 28, 2010 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions
The next CBA
I highly doubt the NHL will strike or lockout it’s members of the NHLPA again. 2005 was 2005 and it was a first and last time experience.
This isn’t the first time this has been discussed about at great lengths as there was plenty of discussions on this very subject over at From the Rink last summer when Mirtle the Turtle was patrolling that playground.
Don’t be suprised if you see the minimum dropped down to $22-24 million for the smaller markets teams and the ceiling risen up to $76-80 million to keep the larger markets happy as well. I don’t forsee this being a large problem.
What could be a problem is the new circumvention of the CBA in regards to the contracts given to Pronger, Hossa, and now Kovalchuk. They’re insane contracts that have each player earing a paycheque into their 40’s.
Expect to be some changes to the NTC {No trade clauses} and the NMC {No movement clauses} and the overall pick-up on waivers where the team that claims the player only has to pay that player half of what they are set to earn with the team that losses that player accepting the other half.
There are some minor details to be done but I do believe that both sides will try their best to get a deal done before the current CBA runs out.
2010 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
It's been a long journey but in the end it was all worth it, and I wouldn't have ever changed a thing. The feeling is so surreal, yet so real.
FREE CONVENTION TICKETS GIVEAWAY!
Blackhawks convention passes giveaway!!! Check it out here: http://bit.ly/a0iku3
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Wild captain Mikko Koivu expected back from injury to save Setoguchi’s season
- ‘Why This Cammalleri Leave’: The snarky musical valentine to Canadiens trade (Video)
- Worst blown call of season? Corey Perry scores OT goal after tripping Jokinen
- Wednesday’s Three Stars: Jokinen’s trick; Kiprusoff’s scorpion save; Red Wings push streak to 18
- Ryan Miller admits he ‘got the benefit’ on Boston’s goalie interference call
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- New Catholic church ad: Let's pray Habs make the playoffs
- Wings, Leafs to play '13 Winter Classic at Big House
- Detroit Red Wings to host Toronto Maple Leafs in Hockeytown for 2013 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic at Michigan Stadium Jan. 1, 2013
- Senators' Chris Phillips looks back on career ahead of 1,000th game with Ottawa
- NHL Capsules: Kiprusoff gets 300th win in same building where he got his first
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
