HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   If Ballard still owned the Leafs.... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=128445)

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 02:49 PM

If Ballard still owned the Leafs....
 
If Harold Ballard was still around today and still owned the Leafs, how would things be different in regards to the Maple Leafs and this whole CBA mess?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he would be one of those owners crying poor and standing shoulder to shoulder with Wirtz and Jacobs.

Am I wrong in thinking that? I really want to hear some other opinions on this matter.

leaflover 02-09-2005 02:56 PM

Not sure if Harold would have cried poor but we wouldnt have had much to cheer about lately.
If the stands were full Harry would be happy,that was the problem when he owned them.The leafs after the 70's were terrible but the Gardens sold out regardless.I honestly doubt i would still be a leaf fan if Ballard were still the owner.

leaflover 02-09-2005 03:04 PM

To stress my point about not liking Ballard as the leafs owner.

When i read in the newspaper that he died i pumped my fist in the air and said YAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

I'm not proud of that,but thats how hopeless it was to be a leaf fan with Harry calling the shots,and he did call the shots.

Volcanologist 02-09-2005 03:05 PM

The Leafs wouldn't ever have been one of the high-payroll teams under Ballard, that's for sure.

They probably would've just continued to be horrible.

Sundin would have been traded away instead of signing him to a big contract.

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 03:11 PM

I'd have had another team to follow by now.

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 03:16 PM

Well I'm old enough to remember the Leaf teams of the mid-late 80's so I do understand why he was so disliked. Although I maybe didn't suffer as much as those fans who lived right through it.

What I'm getting at though is that some people seem to think that the Leafs essentially have everything automatically handed to them just because they're in Toronto. But a lot of the Leafs success as an organization needs to be chalked up to ownership.

If Ballard still owned the team today, Toronto might be lumped into the small market category. Would we even have a new arena? They might still be playing out of the Gardens for crying out loud. There also certainly wouldn't be LeafsTV or anything like that.

So while these owners across the league harp about the CBA, how much of it is an ownership problem? A lot of Ottawa's troubles as a so-called small market team seemed to magically dry up once Moneybags Melnyk bought the team.

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Sundin would have been traded away instead of signing him to a big contract.

Sundin would never have been acquired in the first place.

Volcanologist 02-09-2005 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Sundin would never have been acquired in the first place.

Fair enough.

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Sundin would never have been acquired in the first place.

He loved Clark and my thought is that he wouldn't have been traded, but with Ballard you never know.

MOGiLNY 02-09-2005 03:26 PM

Sundin, Mogilny, Kaberle, Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Steen, Tellqvist and other Euro players wouldn't be here..

THe Leafs would still be playing at the MLG

The fastest computer in the building would be a Pentium 1 which Ballard would've purchased at value village to celebrate the Leafs' 75th season

Leafs GM would be Don Cherry

Pappy 02-09-2005 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Sundin, Mogilny, Kaberle, Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Steen, Tellqvist and other Euro players wouldn't be here..

THe Leafs would still be playing at the MLG

The fastest computer in the building would be a Pentium 1 which Ballard would've purchased at value village to celebrate the Leafs' 75th season

Leafs GM would be Don Cherry

They would have kept all their draft picks because they are cheaper to pay, the payroll would be under 20 million and the first line Centre would be Stajan and Carlo and Bell would be the top defence unit. But we would have Sidney Crosby in this years draft, and with Ovechkin, and our other top 5 picks over the last 10 years our upside would be out of site. :eek:

leaflover 02-09-2005 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Sundin, Mogilny, Kaberle, Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Steen, Tellqvist and other Euro players wouldn't be here..

THe Leafs would still be playing at the MLG

The fastest computer in the building would be a Pentium 1 which Ballard would've purchased at value village to celebrate the Leafs' 75th season

Leafs GM would be Don Cherry

Actually it was just Russian players Harry didnt want on the leafs.We had Salming and Hammerstrom and Frycer etc.

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 04:09 PM

So on a somewhat related note, what is the difference between Detroit, Boston and Chicago?

All three are in very large markets and have a great hockey tradition. But Boston and Chicago are crying poor while Detroit is a model franchise for the whole NHL.

It all boils down to ownership.

Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs are terrible owners. They're old fashioned dinosaurs who have no interest in building the game. They want the NHL to be just as it was 30 and 40 years ago. Chicago didn't even air their home games on TV last year.

Both those teams are mismanaged and they're owners have a certain degree in common with Ballard.

Meanwhile, a guy like Illitch has done more to move the game of hockey forward in the United States than Jacobs and Wirtz have ever done. If every owner in the league was like Illitch, the NHL would be in great shape. Likewise in Toronto, you see the Leafs doing innovative things to improve the business of hockey such as LeafsTV etc...

However, Gary Bettman wants to create an economic environment that allows owners like Wirtz and Jacobs to thrive. They want to be able to sit on their a$$es and do nothing to improve the business of the game while still raking in the cash.

A number of people have said they wouldn't still be Leaf fans if Ballard owned the team. Well then can you blame fans in Chicago for slowly deserting the Blackhawks?

As much as some people believe that Bettman is fighting for the good of the game, his proposals end up rewarding the teams that are poorly and lazily managed. And that could be a bigger death blow to the NHL than anything.

TrueBlue 02-09-2005 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
If Harold Ballard was still around today and still owned the Leafs, how would things be different in regards to the Maple Leafs and this whole CBA mess?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he would be one of those owners crying poor and standing shoulder to shoulder with Wirtz and Jacobs.

Am I wrong in thinking that? I really want to hear some other opinions on this matter.


If Ballard was still owned the Leafs, Sundin would not be captain. That's a given.

Mess 02-09-2005 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOGiLNY
Sundin, Mogilny, Kaberle, Antropov, Ponikarovsky, Steen, Tellqvist and other Euro players wouldn't be here..

THe Leafs would still be playing at the MLG

The fastest computer in the building would be a Pentium 1 which Ballard would've purchased at value village to celebrate the Leafs' 75th season

Leafs GM would be Don Cherry

Thats not true .. Harold loved Borje and along with Inge Hammarstrom the leafs actually pioneered in the world or Euro's at least Swedes anyway .. The Russian and other I am not sure .. but Sundin and Steen and Telly would not have been a problem with Ballard as Salming was ..

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
So on a somewhat related note, what is the difference between Detroit, Boston and Chicago?

All three are in very large markets and have a great hockey tradition. But Boston and Chicago are crying poor while Detroit is a model franchise for the whole NHL.

It all boils down to ownership.

Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs are terrible owners. They're old fashioned dinosaurs who have no interest in building the game. They want the NHL to be just as it was 30 and 40 years ago. Chicago didn't even air their home games on TV last year.

Both those teams are mismanaged and they're owners have a certain degree in common with Ballard.

Meanwhile, a guy like Illitch has done more to move the game of hockey forward in the United States than Jacobs and Wirtz have ever done. If every owner in the league was like Illitch, the NHL would be in great shape. Likewise in Toronto, you see the Leafs doing innovative things to improve the business of hockey such as LeafsTV etc...

However, Gary Bettman wants to create an economic environment that allows owners like Wirtz and Jacobs to thrive. They want to be able to sit on their a$$es and do nothing to improve the business of the game while still raking in the cash.

A number of people have said they wouldn't still be Leaf fans if Ballard owned the team. Well then can you blame fans in Chicago for slowly deserting the Blackhawks?

As much as some people believe that Bettman is fighting for the good of the game, his proposals end up rewarding the teams that are poorly and lazily managed. And that could be a bigger death blow to the NHL than anything.

The Red Wings have been very vocal about their support for Bettman and what he is trying to do.

BuppY 02-09-2005 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy
They would have kept all their draft picks because they are cheaper to pay, the payroll would be under 20 million and the first line Centre would be Stajan and Carlo and Bell would be the top defence unit. But we would have Sidney Crosby in this years draft, and with Ovechkin, and our other top 5 picks over the last 10 years our upside would be out of site. :eek:

:lol

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The Red Wings have been very vocal about their support for Bettman and what he is trying to do.

Mike Illitch was a lead negotiator for the league during the 1994 work stoppage but has stated he wants nothing to do with this one.

He's supported Derian Hatcher, Chris Chelios and Kris Draper in signing in the UHL and he said he'd hate for a lockout to end Steve Yzerman's career.

Of course publicly he's going to support Bettman- he has to. And to extent he does because a cap would obviously save him a lot of money.

But in no way, shape or form are guys like Mike Illitch the driving force behind this lockout. And that's the main thing.

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Mike Illitch was a lead negotiator for the league during the 1994 work stoppage but has stated he wants nothing to do with this one.

He's supported Derian Hatcher, Chris Chelios and Kris Draper in signing in the UHL and he said he'd hate for a lockout to end Steve Yzerman's career.

Of course publicly he's going to support Bettman- he has to. And to extent he does because a cap would obviously save him a lot of money.

But in no way, shape or form are guys like Mike Illitch the driving force behind this lockout. And that's the main thing.

"You have two sides very strongly entrenched in their positions," said Jimmy Devellano, Red Wings' senior vice-president. "I know our side will not bend."

Devellano says Wings' officials are totally behind the commissioner and his battle to achieve cost certainty in the game.

Many national hockey analysts, and some Wings players, have suggested the Wings are one of several organizations that aren't wholeheartedly supportive of Bettman.

That's totally false, said Devellano.

"There are a lot of assumptions being made out there, including by some players, and those assumptions are very wrong," Devellano said. "The Red Wings want cost certainty."


There are teams more forceful in their position than that?

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK

There are teams more forceful in their position than that?

I'm not going to argue about whether or not the Red Wings back Bettman. I'm sure they do to an extent.

But that isn't my point at all. I'm sure all the owners back Bettman to varying degrees.

My point is that the systems that Bettman is offering will enable these lazy, incompetent owners to sit on their butts and not work to build the business of the game.

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
I'm not going to argue about whether or not the Red Wings back Bettman. I'm sure they do to an extent.

But that isn't my point at all. I'm sure all the owners back Bettman to varying degrees.

My point is that the systems that Bettman is offering will enable these lazy, incompetent owners to sit on their butts and not work to build the business of the game.

I don't think that is true, if they are bad owners then they will suffer the consequences of their own actions. Anyway it is a far sight better than having good owners unable to compete financially because of the current system.

Leaf Army 02-09-2005 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I don't think that is true, if they are bad owners then they will suffer the consequences of their own actions.

And they have.

What do you think has been killing hockey in Chicago? The CBA or the way the team has been managed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Anyway it is a far sight better than having good owners unable to compete financially because of the current system.

If a good owner can't compete financially, they're in a bad market. Simple as that.

If the owner thinks it's too hard to compete, fold the team. If he doesn't want to fold the team, suck it up and stop trying to drag the rest of the league down with you.

And like I said in another thread, this does not apply to Canadian teams like Calgary and Edmonton because they've got unique problems that have little to do with the CBA. Of course Bettman likes to pretend their problems are due to the CBA, but they're not.

Leaf Lander 02-09-2005 08:25 PM

if he still owned the leafs most of you would be fans of other teams and it would just be me and other leaf fans who are over 30 here chatting about them

Clutch Mediocrity 02-09-2005 08:38 PM

You guys are better off not thinking about it.....

mooseOAK* 02-09-2005 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaf Army
And they have.

What do you think has been killing hockey in Chicago? The CBA or the way the team has been managed?

The way it has been managed. A new CBA is unlikely to change that.
Quote:

If a good owner can't compete financially, they're in a bad market. Simple as that.

If the owner thinks it's too hard to compete, fold the team. If he doesn't want to fold the team, suck it up and stop trying to drag the rest of the league down with you.

And like I said in another thread, this does not apply to Canadian teams like Calgary and Edmonton because they've got unique problems that have little to do with the CBA. Of course Bettman likes to pretend their problems are due to the CBA, but they're not.
You can't have it both ways. Calgary and Edmonton can't compete financially so by your measure they are bad markets, and their problems are definitely caused by the old CBA.

Who decides what is a bad market anyway? Messenger?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.