HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Rancor In The Ranks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=85142)

KING 06-20-2004 03:58 AM

Rancor In The Ranks
 
http://nypost.com/sports/23341.htm

jas 06-20-2004 05:41 AM

"Yes, the Rangers would trade up for Alexander Ovechkin in a heartbeat, but don't for a minute believe management in pre-draft meetings has not acknowledged the heavy European (and lesser American) personnel tilt throughout the organization as a subject worthy of discussion and evaluation."

Interesting thought by Brooks. Does that mean he thinks the Rangers will go heavy on Western Canadian players? If so, "with the sixth pick in the NHL Entry Draft, the New York Rangers are proud to select... Andrew Ladd."

DarthSather99 06-20-2004 07:09 AM

That quote is more an opinion than an actual fact. I think Rangers scouts are more inclined to scout TALENT not where a particular player has been born. If the rangers change their draft stragedy to drafting players based on where they were born they we are in BIG trouble.

If anything, I believe the Rangers perfer High school, college players and European talent. High school players in the USA often go to college giving them 4 more years of development, European players can play in europe for a while withou the Rangers losing their right and college players for the same reasons as H.S kids.

Most players aren't ready for the NHL until at least 22-23. This is why I go CRAZY when fans are so easy to throw away J. Lundmark to move up 10 spots in a WEAK draft. You can get the same player at 12 that you can get at 24.

Forechecker 06-20-2004 07:10 AM

I was kind of confused by this article. Did he say that top 6 spending clubs would break ranks if it looked like a two-year lock-out? Or that the small market teams would?

If the WHA is entertaining, a two-year break (as everyone has mentioned) could very well be the death-knell of the NHL. In year two, I could see major arenas signing WHA deals to fill in some of the gap left by the NHL. :banghead: :shakehead

NYIsles1* 06-20-2004 07:25 AM

This is like the fourth or fifth article from Brooks killing the NHL and it's only June. He must really be worried he's going to actually have to do some work without his trade rumors.

Barnaby3636 06-20-2004 07:29 AM

Whats The Last Line In The Article?!?!?!?!?!?

DARTH SATHER 06-20-2004 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnaby3636
Whats The Last Line In The Article?!?!?!?!?!?

He's making fun of Larry Bird's comments.

Barnaby3636 06-20-2004 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARTH SATHER
He's making fun of Larry Bird's comments.

Ohhh okay... Phewwwwww didnt sound like something the great one would say seriously

True Blue 06-20-2004 02:26 PM

"drink Gary Bettman's Kool-Aid and support cancellation of the 2004-05 season without even an attempt at good-faith bargaining. "

I've been saying this for a while;l. BEttman is more interested in cancelling the season than he is in having one. His option #1 is no season. He is as detrimental to the NHL as Sather is to the Rangers.

"It is in this environment that Slap Shots has been told that a substantial number of owners recognize that the league will remain shut for at least two years if the Board stands on its percentage-of-the-gross approach - and acknowledge this as the ultimate Burning-the-Village-to-Save-it strategy - and already, if informally, have begun to formulate an alternate approach that would feature forfeiture of first-round draft picks in addition to a luxury tax for those teams exceeding a payroll threshold that, as we understand it, has initially been targeted at between $45 and $50 million. "

Two things in here really bother me. First of all there is the mention, once again, that some of these morons really believe that shutting the league down for 2 years is somehow good for the game and that such a move will not have serious reprecussions.
Second of all, and even more disgusting, is this idea that the league will FORCE the so-called big-market teams to spend no more than their poor sisters in Canada or the poor step-children in markets that never should have housed NHL franchises, like Tampa & Columbus, & Atlanta by taking away first round draft picks. WHAT KIND OF IDEA IS THIS? This is nothing but Bettman's way of saying "We will force you to spend no more than we want to".
In MLB, the Yankees spend the most, but as Brian Cashman says, no one complains when they sent their $68m check to all the teams. Just no one will complain this year when they send their $80m to the rest of the league. But this is not good enough for Bettman. He is so petrified of the New Yorks, Philadelphias, Detroits, etc., of the works spending more than the alots for them, that he wants to ensure this by not only taxing them with dollars, but not allowing them to have a draft pick. I don't know if I have every heard of a more moronic thing in my life.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-20-2004 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
"drink Gary Bettman's Kool-Aid and support cancellation of the 2004-05 season without even an attempt at good-faith bargaining. "

I've been saying this for a while;l. BEttman is more interested in cancelling the season than he is in having one. His option #1 is no season. He is as detrimental to the NHL as Sather is to the Rangers.

"It is in this environment that Slap Shots has been told that a substantial number of owners recognize that the league will remain shut for at least two years if the Board stands on its percentage-of-the-gross approach - and acknowledge this as the ultimate Burning-the-Village-to-Save-it strategy - and already, if informally, have begun to formulate an alternate approach that would feature forfeiture of first-round draft picks in addition to a luxury tax for those teams exceeding a payroll threshold that, as we understand it, has initially been targeted at between $45 and $50 million. "

Two things in here really bother me. First of all there is the mention, once again, that some of these morons really believe that shutting the league down for 2 years is somehow good for the game and that such a move will not have serious reprecussions.
Second of all, and even more disgusting, is this idea that the league will FORCE the so-called big-market teams to spend no more than their poor sisters in Canada or the poor step-children in markets that never should have housed NHL franchises, like Tampa & Columbus, & Atlanta by taking away first round draft picks. WHAT KIND OF IDEA IS THIS? This is nothing but Bettman's way of saying "We will force you to spend no more than we want to".
In MLB, the Yankees spend the most, but as Brian Cashman says, no one complains when they sent their $68m check to all the teams. Just no one will complain this year when they send their $80m to the rest of the league. But this is not good enough for Bettman. He is so petrified of the New Yorks, Philadelphias, Detroits, etc., of the works spending more than the alots for them, that he wants to ensure this by not only taxing them with dollars, but not allowing them to have a draft pick. I don't know if I have every heard of a more moronic thing in my life.

Agreed. At the rate this thing is going, there aren't going to be negotiations until June 2005.

Fletch 06-20-2004 04:22 PM

Tb...
 
shutting down the league for two seasons may accomplish one thing, and that is contraction of the league. By shutting it down there may be automatic contraction and Bettman's expansion can be corrected and he can blame it on the owners and players, but in the end it may be the best thing. But of course, I'm not 100% hockey survives in N.A. like it is today if two seasons are lost, with some international players choosing not to come over due to restraints on salary and so forth. Hockey, as we know it, may be coming to an end.

True Blue 06-20-2004 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
By shutting it down there may be automatic contraction and Bettman's expansion can be corrected and he can blame it on the owners and players, but in the end it may be the best thing.

Yes, it is the best thing for it. Contraction that is. Lop of 6 teams and almost every thing improves. Talent level on all teams, hockey disappears from those markets that are not interested in it, and the league can stop hemoroging cash.
However, Bettman came out and stated that there is no way that even one franchise will get contracted.
And if the only way to get an answer is to sit out 2 years, can there be more of a "cutting off the nose, to spite one's face" issue? I consider myself a die-hard hockey fan. I watch games that do not involve my team, pay attention to the league, and can enjoy watching a game for just the sake of watching a game. However, if the league is shut down for 2 years, I cannot guarantee that I will be back. 2 years without the NHL and some of us will forget what it is like when there was an NHL. One year is bad enough. But 2 years? How many of even fans like us will come back?
IMO, 2 year shutdown and it is time to kiss hockey, as a sport, good-bye in the USA.

Edge 06-20-2004 07:11 PM

Hockey's biggest problem over the last 15 years is that it has had some horrible management.

If this happens they might as well stick a fork in the NHL.

Even is walking around like big swinging you know what's and EVERYONE is forgetting that hockey just isn't big enough to pull this kind of garbage.

Maybe the players will realize this when they find that most of em will never make the money they do now.

NYIsles1* 06-20-2004 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
"drink Gary Bettman's Kool-Aid and support cancellation of the 2004-05 season without even an attempt at good-faith bargaining. "

Good faith is not Goodnow talking about keeping the status quo for the last seventy five years when other sports do work with a salary cap and are popular. The current system does not work for this sport and has not for a long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Second of all, and even more disgusting, is this idea that the league will FORCE the so-called big-market teams to spend no more than their poor sisters in Canada or the poor step-children in markets that never should have housed NHL franchises, like Tampa & Columbus, & Atlanta by taking away first round draft picks. WHAT KIND OF IDEA IS THIS? This is nothing but Bettman's way of saying "We will force you to spend no more than we want to".

Columbus has better support than the Rangers have at Msg most weeknights, some of these small market are not the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
In MLB, the Yankees spend the most, but as Brian Cashman says, no one complains when they sent their $68m check to all the teams. Just no one will complain this year when they send their $80m to the rest of the league. But this is not good enough for Bettman. He is so petrified of the New Yorks, Philadelphias, Detroits, etc., of the works spending more than the alots for them, that he wants to ensure this by not only taxing them with dollars, but not allowing them to have a draft pick. I don't know if I have every heard of a more moronic thing in my life.

This is not baseball. The Rangers lay off emloyees, cut programming and are virtually invisible in the media. Flyers and Wings all are losing money and most teams have have no revenue to share. The Flyers owner reported he lost money in a new building going to the semi-finals and says he is cutting payroll to 30-35 million. The Blues and Stars lose too much money and are cutting payroll.

This game needs a hard cap so some name free agents have to play in smaller markets.

It's time for a hard cap to police owners who cannot control themselves everytime a free agent becomes available. I hope they get some replacement players, start the season and just break this union like football did.

True Blue 06-20-2004 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Good faith is not Goodnow talking about keeping the status quo for the last seventy five years when other sports do work with a salary cap and are popular. The current system does not work for this sport and has not for a long time.

Nor can good-faith be described as refusing any dialogue unless the other side includes the words hard-cap, as is Bettman's stance. What does not work is the fact that the NHL has expanded into markets that they have no buisiness in being, and that in turn is what is hemoraging money from the league. That, and let us not forget that there IS an economic difference between the Canadian $ & the US $.

"Columbus has better support than the Rangers have at Msg most weeknights, some of these small market are not the problem. "

On it's good nights, Columbus can never be described as MSG. Look aroung in Carolina. That run to the Cup sure helped them. In Nashville, if they tank, how soon will it be before that arena is empty again? Atlanta has some of the best young players in the game, and a friend of mine who goes to a good amount of these games tells me that the arena is mostly empty.

"This game needs a hard cap so some name free agents have to play in smaller markets.

It's time for a hard cap to police owners who cannot control themselves everytime a free agent becomes available. "

The game needs a hard cap? Why? So that the league can be saved from the Rangers? Please. The Rangers are the case and point of proving that signing every big name player does not work. How have the Rangers hurt competitive balance? They have not been in the playoffs in how many years now? What the game needs is for these bozos to realize that hockey is in danger of falling behind synchronized swimming as far as popularity is concerned. What this league needs is owners that are far better money managers than some of the ones that are out there and markets that can actually support them.

"I hope they get some replacement players, start the season and just break this union like football did."

That won't happen right away. If it takes 2 years, the NHL is finished. Heck, even if it takes a whole year off, the damage may be irreversible.

Edge 06-21-2004 03:38 AM

While i disagree {and can give contradictory facts to what NYIsles1 is saying} I do agree that the league salaries are out of whack. It's not signing the stars that hurts, it's having to pay 21 year olds a million dollars at the NHL level and keeping your average talent for a million dollars that hurts.

The problem isn't paying the superstars there money, it's having to pay the Chris Simon's and others of the world a million dollars to keep them in the fold.

A team like Edmonton can't add a single piece because they are soo budget locked.

The biggest problem with the league is owners who don't have a clue. Dolan will throw money at whatever is out there if he wants, because all he knows is what someone who {understandably} is going to tell him.

I'll be honest with you, I think the players are playing with fire on this one. Hockey isn't strong enough to support a work stoppage. Even if the players win they will still lose because there are going to be less jobs for them.

Having said that, the league didn't help itself out by continuing to expand.

Take nothing away, but expanding into Columbus and Nashville and Atlanta was a bad idea when you know your league is in trouble and THAT is going to be a big argument from the players standpoint.

"If the league was so bad then why did you keep adding to it?"

Bottom line is hockey as a whole {owners and players} have shot themselves in the foot.

Stupidity on both sides have ruined chance after chance to take hockey to the next level.

Refs who dont call penalties, league officials who can't stop expanding, players who don't realize just how tight a profit margin hockey works on and finally a league marketing department who can't figure out what to do with their product because they were only hired as part of the good ol' boy network.

Hockey has lacked something the other sports have, it's lack creative minds to drive the product. Too many people in the hockey business are too bland to create enough interest.

NYIsles1* 06-21-2004 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
While i disagree {and can give contradictory facts to what NYIsles1 is saying} I do agree that the league salaries are out of whack. It's not signing the stars that hurts, it's having to pay 21 year olds a million dollars at the NHL level and keeping your average talent for a million dollars that hurts.

Actually, it's both. And it depends what an owners opinion of a star is. Bobby Holik
Alexei Yashin ect, granted that market thinking created some of the problems now because it set a payroll market.

Edge, it is a fact the Flyers owners said they are losing money. Detroit always claim they have to make the finals to break even and enough newspaper reports here claim the garden is losing money on it's sports teams and are making programming cuts and laying off employees. Msg even cut out most Liberty basketball telecasts.

And the fallout from the Jets war is only beginning. Jet's Journal was pulled from Msg.

San Jose cut it's payroll drastically made the semi-finals and claim to lose ten million dollars. The Kings accountant-fan was allowed to investigage their book by the club because he did not believe the numbers and after an audit agreed a team in the new Staples Center was losing 20-30 million a year. Chicago/Boston are limited in what they can spend because they have priced out their fans like most markets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
The biggest problem with the league is owners who don't have a clue. Dolan will throw money at whatever is out there if he wants, because all he knows is what someone who {understandably} is going to tell him.

The biggest problems is owners losing money who continue to overspend with very high payrolls and drive up the market because they cannot control themselves and what every advantage they can get, which is why that option has to be taken away from them. No luxury tax, no flexible cap, a floor as well as a ceiling when it comes to salaries, prospects with no cash allowed in trades to be exchanged and a reduction in ticket prices for the fans.

In a sport doing horrible vs sports already with caps the strictest standards need to be in place. Dolan loses money and continues to make those no-brainers deals like Jagr, Bure, Kovalev. Wang lost 23 million a year ago and added Ronning after dumping Wiemer and has raises to give where he must break up his team and he is hardly alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
Take nothing away, but expanding into Columbus and Nashville and Atlanta was a bad idea when you know your league is in trouble and THAT is going to be a big argument from the players standpoint.

I will give you the Atlanta market because they simply seem indifferent to sports.

Why they cannot sellout baseball playoff games says a lot. However someone twice decided Atlanta was a good enough NHL market, let's see them in a playoff and see how that market responds. We saw Carolina fade after going to the finals so it's fair to say that market may well be a mistake.

Columbus and Nashville look like excellent expansion markets. The Jackets draw SRO for monday night preason games and it seems the only teams they beat every year are the Islanders and Rangers. Meanwhile what do those 5pm Sunday pre-season Ranger games do at Msg? About 5,000 fans while every sports fan in the market is watching football or key baseball games?

What's a bad idea is when these new markets are priced out of name players because other markets overspend on top of losing revenue because they cannot control themselves. Those markets need some of the few name players. Again, Columbus has been a very successful expansion story and they have never even competed for a playoff spot. Minnesota speaks for itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
Bottom line is hockey as a whole {owners and players} have shot themselves in the foot.

Stupidity on both sides have ruined chance after chance to take hockey to the next level.

If your going to tell me about ten years ago (I disagree) and that a three month strike was hockey best chance it's fair to say they never had chance because it did not take much. ABC/FOX spent years showing New York on their infrequent telecasts, it failed with horrible ratings as the best teams were ignored and the fans never warmed up or learned about the next generation of star players. Espn has had enough of showcasing hockey and has better programming. A few weeks on NBC will change nothing.

Hockey had some great semi-finals this year that should have taken the sport to the next level. Philadelphia (a big hockey market) did not produce great ratings vs Tampa Bay desite an excellent series. The finals proved in canada it did not matter whether it was Tampa or New York in the finals, the ratings were the same with their fans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
Refs who dont call penalties, league officials who can't stop expanding, players who don't realize just how tight a profit margin hockey works on and finally a league marketing department who can't figure out what to do with their product because they were only hired as part of the good ol' boy network. Hockey has lacked something the other sports have, it's lack creative minds to drive the product. Too many people in the hockey business are too bland to create enough interest

Why should any player not ask for what he is worth? The players did not create this market and these owners should have been more responcible, they kept adding big contracts and raising prices and now were at a point where it's impossible to raise either. The refs are the same old story. I cannot answer for the league's marketing what I can say is this is a baseball market year round in New York and their news is more important with the public and seven million people will attend baseball.

The league seems ready to not even send either New York team to the West Coast any longer.

NYIsles1* 06-21-2004 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
On it's good nights, Columbus can never be described as MSG.

All Columbus has is good nights in the stands, the team has been awful since day one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
The game needs a hard cap? Why? So that the league can be saved from the Rangers? Please. The Rangers are the case and point of proving that signing every big name player does not work. How have the Rangers hurt competitive balance? They have not been in the playoffs in how many years now? What the game needs is for these bozos to realize that hockey is in danger of falling behind synchronized swimming as far as popularity is concerned. What this league needs is owners that are far better money managers than some of the ones that are out there and markets that can actually support them.

Just because the Rangers cannot overspend and win does not mean high paroll teams have not dominated winning the cup. Dallas (2) Colorado (2) Detroit (3) Rangers (1) if anything the Rangers are the exception, not the rule.

New Jersey's payroll grew to over 50 million around the time they won their last cup also and this was a team that was ready to pay Holik what the Rangers did, not exactly small market?

Just because Brooks feels that Tampa finally broke thru means competitive balance has arrived.

Fletch 06-21-2004 10:30 AM

Agreed Edge...
 
everybody's shot themselves in the foot from the league, to the players, to the owners. Expansion, chasing UFAs, signing rookies to $1+ million salaries (hasn't Lundmark been making that amount for a couple seasons now?), players holding out for more money when they are in contract. Everyone's to blame. The solution, I believe though, is not a hard cap around $31 million. We live in a free market society. That ain't a free market to me. But a work stoppage could be so derimental to hockey that these players, and their owners, stand to lose a heck of a lot more than if they go to the bargaining table and work something out.

NYIsles1* 06-21-2004 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
We live in a free market society. That ain't a free market to me.

We do live in a free market society and in hockey that has put this business where it is today. Football and basketball thrive with salary caps, tell me why hockey owners cannot make the same tough choices, do the same things and more because this game is far behind those sports and make it work because it has worked for these sports?

kazo 06-21-2004 11:17 AM

[QUOTE= Football and basketball thrive with salary caps, tell me why hockey owners cannot make the same tough choices?[/QUOTE]

Because the commissioner of the NHL is now, always has been, and always will be, totally clueless. He has absolutely no feelm as all for the game he is supposed to be in charge of. CBA or not, until he goes the NHL will always be in some sort of chaos.

Actually, the word buffoon is what comes to mind most often when thinking about this guy.

LondonFan 06-21-2004 11:30 AM

My radical views for the day
 
Here is my opinion:

Run the teams like a business. If the team loses money, they go bankrupt, they fold. The "league" should not be responsible for controlling the operations of individual teams.

If an owner/board knows that with say a 50mil payroll they will lose 10mil, then it should be their right to decide whether they will just take that loss (say an owner has deep pockets and a love of the game), or whether they should cut payroll and lose some players. The one restriction I believe there should be revolves around a link between team revenue and team payroll. Something along the lines of no team being able to have a payroll higher than revenue.

Players should be UFAs at the end of their contracts a lot younger. Maybe 23. Drafts and to some extent trades should be eliminated. Young players will come into the system with transfer money from NHL teams, thus allowing a fairer and freer arrangement with hockey in Europe.

Slightly more extreme: Why not go for some relegation / promotion action. Remove the ties between NHL and AHL teams, the bottom two teams each year get relegated to the AHL and the two finalists in the AHL get promoted - thus making it something really to play for, and stopping teams in the NHL from deliberately tanking.

Basically, I think the players and teams should be a little more self-policing, let them sort it out between them. Two much right now rests on the shoulders of two men.

pld459666 06-21-2004 11:38 AM

I blame the NBA
 
had they elected to keep the idiot Bettman none of this would be upon us today.

9 teams in 6 years?

renaming the divisions and conferences taking away the identity from the game making it look an awful lot like the NBA.

Going to 3 divisions in each conference, taking away the divisional playoff format.

He's killed the game in every possible way and a conspiracy theorist would think that Stern put him up to this 15 years ago

hmmm hmmm

:teach:

pld459666 06-21-2004 11:40 AM

we can just....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonFan
Here is my opinion:

Run the teams like a business. If the team loses money, they go bankrupt, they fold. The "league" should not be responsible for controlling the operations of individual teams.

If an owner/board knows that with say a 50mil payroll they will lose 10mil, then it should be their right to decide whether they will just take that loss (say an owner has deep pockets and a love of the game), or whether they should cut payroll and lose some players. The one restriction I believe there should be revolves around a link between team revenue and team payroll. Something along the lines of no team being able to have a payroll higher than revenue.

Players should be UFAs at the end of their contracts a lot younger. Maybe 23. Drafts and to some extent trades should be eliminated. Young players will come into the system with transfer money from NHL teams, thus allowing a fairer and freer arrangement with hockey in Europe.

Slightly more extreme: Why not go for some relegation / promotion action. Remove the ties between NHL and AHL teams, the bottom two teams each year get relegated to the AHL and the two finalists in the AHL get promoted - thus making it something really to play for, and stopping teams in the NHL from deliberately tanking.

Basically, I think the players and teams should be a little more self-policing, let them sort it out between them. Two much right now rests on the shoulders of two men.


rename the whole thing Soccer on Ice ;)

Prucha73 06-21-2004 12:16 PM

How about putting advertisement stickers of different brand name products on players' jerseys? Wouldn't that generate a lot of income? What about deacreasing roster by 3 spots by getting rid of the 4th line?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.