Toast.
Knuckles
Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
0
Knuckles
Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
Knuckles
Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
Comments
1) Cancel this season
2) Void all player contracts (all players are fired)
3) Reduce the league to 24 teams, eliminating Columbus, Nashville, Edmonton, Calgary, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida & Phoenix.
4) Enact team salary cap and eliminate arbitration.
5) Allow former players as well as prospects to compete for a job, since there are now fewer jobs available. Set a final eligibility date for the 2005-2006 season which players have to declare they are willing to play and accept a new contract
6) Hold a free agent draft and start from scratch. Any undrafted players are eligible to be signed by anyone during the season.
In 2 years, the league would be completely rejuvinated. And in 3, enough younger guys would have entered that it will seem like we didn't miss a beat.
<< <i>3) Reduce the league to 24 teams, eliminating Columbus, Nashville, Edmonton, Calgary, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida & Phoenix. >>
Eliminate Edmonton? The last dynasty and a good hockey city, the loudest fans. Tampa.. they won the cup last. Although I don't think hockey belongs in any place that is so warm
outside year round including Anaheim. Calgary almost won the cup but I don't give a crap about them. Mostly though I think Edmonton deserves to stay.
<< <i>I don't mind arrows going down. >>
I hope they go way down. I want a lot of things.
<< <i>3) Reduce the league to 24 teams, eliminating Columbus, Nashville, Edmonton, Calgary, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida & Phoenix.
>>
I totally support contraction down to 24 teams, but that is a very strange list. First, if you eliminate 8 teams, you'd be left with only 22 teams, not 24. Plus, hockey is alive and well in at least five of those markets. I'd get rid of these six: Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Atlanta, Washington and Anaheim. If Pittsburgh can't get their new arena worked out in a big bad hurry, you an add them to this list too.
Otherwise, I think your plan is pretty much what Gary Bettman is counting on.
Of course, I'm an Eagles fan so I may be a tad bit biased.
<< <i>I think we should make Football a year round sport. >>
Donald Trump and his USFL friends tried that already.
<< <i>Both sides are idiots . . . The players for killing the golden goose and the owners for having no self-control so that they find themselves in this financial mess. The losers, as always, are the fans >>
Bettman is also an idiot for expanding way too much. It will be nice if a bunch of teams get the axe.. More star players on teams.. less average to crappy players in the league. Should be more exciteing. It will also be nice to see the teams with hardly any cash do better after they come to an agreement of some sort. Too bad it's going to cost a whole season and a half.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think we should make Football a year round sport. >>
Donald Trump and his USFL friends tried that already. >>
Yeah, but I'm talking real NFL football - not that stuff The Donald pulled out of his butt.
I don't recall any missed NFL seasons or players lockouts in my (brief) life; but I can think of several in baseball and hockey.
But he couldn't have done it without the approval of the owners. And like the crack addicts they are, the owners needed the expansion fees to help pay for their addiction to paying too much for players. The fans do figure in here as well when they moan about their team not spending enough money to acquire and/or keep players no matter what it does to the team financially.
CAROLINA:
They've been struggling to be successful both on the ice and on the income statement since moving from Hartford to North Carolina in 1997. Losing money because of lousy play and stiff competition from college sports and professional auto racing has kept attendance low.
ATLANTA:
Hockey has never been popular in Atlanta (recall that the Atlanta Flames bolted to Calgary to survive).
Anaheim:
Poor attendance. Disney is trying to sell them but no one in there right mind wants them. Stupid name. They're a joke.
Washington:
Little to none in the fans department.
Pittsburgh:
This is tuff.. I wouldn't like to see them go but they're the poster child of poverty in the NHL. They play in the oldest arena in hockey. They have no non-hockey revenue to get talent. Shoddy team = low attendance. If they can get a new building they could turn things around but too little too late?
Nashville:
Country music and hockey just hasn't been meshing to well has it? Low revenue.. low attendance..
NEW JERSEY:
Don't axe them, MOVE THEM! Very low attendance for a good team that's been a cup contender for the last number of years. How about the Winnipeg Devils? Or Jets?
There's small market teams like the Edmonton Oilers that make little money but make the game fun to watch. They have among the most loyal fans in hockey. The team's small budget practically prohibits it from competing for the Stanley Cup, but attendance is among the highest in the league.
<< <i>Toast. >>
Jam.
Maybe something good will happen?
your friend
Mike
<< <i>Time for Gene Hackman and Keanu Reeves to make another movie. >>
As we say in Canada 'eh?'
Wrong! The Flames left because the owner, Tom Cousins, had real estate deals go south and he needed to liquidate to raise cash. The Flames were drawing about 10,000 to 12,000 a night. I lived next door to their GM.
The new owners of the Thrashers own Phillips arena so they are one of the ownership groups that are actually losing more money because of the strike (than they would lose if the season was being played).
I would say the pecking order (in terms of average attendance) in Atlanta is:
UGA Football
Falcons Football
Georgia Tech Football
Braves Baseball
Atlanta Thrashers
Georgia Tech Basketball
Gwinett Gladiators minor league hockey
Atlanta Hawks basketball
<< <i>Teams I would axe and why.
Washington:
Little to none in the fans department.
>>
Glad I read all of your commentary. I was going to criticize you for axing Columbus, as they have excellent crowd support despite having a crappy team. The Capitals' logo is the eagle in the Southeast Division.
<< <i>Hey phreakydancin and A761506, you have any good reasons why you would eliminate those teams you listed or did you just randomly throw those out? >>
Absolutely nothing random about my choices.
My reasons pretty much echo those of Knuckles, only I hesitate to dismiss the Penguins due to their wonderful history. I can't imagine contracting a multi-cup winner. Ditto the Islanders. Chicago is also a team with a proud history that has been completely run into the ground. I really wish the league could expel the Blackhawks' backward-thinking owners and get someone better in there. You know that the Hawks still blackout home games? That's no way to market a team.
I added Florida instead, because I don't believe there is much interest in hockey in the South no matter how much you try to market it. Ditto Atlanta, Carolina and Nashville.
And yes, the Devils are a solid team with a total lack of local support. It's a testament to Lou Lamoriello that they've been this good for this long, although I detest their style of play. If Winnipeg or Quebec city could offer the right facility, I think those cities can still support a hockey team. Much like the CFL's Saskatchewan Roughriders, a team with a small but enthusiastic market is much better than a large one that easily becomes disinterested.
MPeter, what teams would you pick to contract, if any?
1) Tampa Bay - so what that they have won a Cup, Florida is no place for hockey, especially Tampa Bay, and the crowds will quickly dwindle to nothing once the team is no longer any good.
2) Florida - People in Miami only want to see two sports, football and basketball. The Marlins only drew when they were winning, and the Panthers are not a good long-term business prospect. Plus, keeping the ice in good shape down there is next to impossible.
3) Columbus - No long-term viability, Columbus is a small market in the middle of no-where Ohio, and as much as the fans show up now, that will eventually cease as the expansion excitement wears off and the team is just mediocre.
4) Nashville - As much as I like the Preds, because I lived in Nashville for a while and would cheer for them, it's not a good market for a hockey team. Fan's don't have a clue what's going on there.
5) Carolina - Rednecks and hockey just don't mix. J/K. It's a tough market though, there's not a huge amount of support. I don't see the financial long-term stability.
6) Phoenix - The fans don't have a clue what is going on, they just know they are at a hockey game. But seriously here, another tough market and tough fans. They left the D-Backs high and dry when they stopped winning, and there is no hesitation to do the same to the Coyotes.
I would not get rid of Pittsburgh, as troubled as they may be, it is an excellent market, they just need a new arena. That team has a storied history as well. I also would not get rid of Washington, they are a very viable market. Atlanta should be able to become a viable team down the road, Atlanta is a huge market and they should be able to draw fans to see the games, their attendance struggles can be attributed to poor publicity and mismanagement.
Boy, that would really make the quality of play so much better, getting rid of the worst 75 or so players.
Fire them, fire them all and start fresh. Scabs can come play and compete for their jobs. The NHL has little to lose at this point.
<< <i>2) Florida - People in Miami only want to see two sports, football and basketball. >>
The people in Miami don't care about any sport, look at UM football crowds. The point is hockey doesn't interest many people in the US, except in the half-Canadian states of the upper midwest and new england. So far as I'm concerned they can sit out the next 1000 seasons. After all, its only Ice Soccer.
CJ
It looks like hockey is just dead in Pittsburgh with attendace being that low much like Nashville's and Carolina's people not only don't like their team but I don't think they like to watch hockey very much period. The Oilers.. Columbus.. to name two are crappy teams that don't have a hope in hell to win the cup but people are still going to their games to watch hockey period even though odd's are their team is going to lose.
Yes it would be a shame to pull the Penguins out of the NHL with their past cup winnings and the Lemieux factor and all however I still think they should be tossed. Much more so than Columbus.
phreakydancin: Yeah I was going to axe Columbus but changed my mind to Washington (forgot to move the X over to Washington)
A761506: Columbus has decent attendance especially when you factor in that they've yet to make the playoffs and only won 25 games last season. They're not losing money they're rakeing in millions from their arena which the team operates. I can't see them going anywhere. I would throw Florida in that same boat.
DirtyHarry: Ahhhh.
<< <i>Anyone have any Joe Ironstone cards or where I can find them ????????? >>
hockeydb.com Looks like he played only four years at the senior (?) level, and never at the NHL level. If any cards exist, they would be extremely rare regional issues. Is he a relative of yours?