HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Brilliant Brooks

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-05-2004, 05:25 PM
  #26
Marshall
Too right, man.
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Town Alexandria
Posts: 11,845
vCash: 500
Brooks cares about one thing: the Rangers. Anything that doesn't help the Rangers is automatically communist, facist and endorses the beating of puppies. He's a knob. It's sad that he makes a living this way, but he makes headlines.

Marshall is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 05:27 PM
  #27
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Yeah and they raise the bar on salaries for everyone.
they do ? i dont see any contracts signed by NYR that have any effect elsewhere.

certainly not like the contracts signed by Iginla, Redden, Jovo and Theodore. Those are the contracts that cause the inflation, not Holik's.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 05:31 PM
  #28
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
they do ? i dont see any contracts signed by NYR that have any effect elsewhere.

certainly not like the contracts signed by Iginla, Redden, Jovo and Theodore. Those are the contracts that cause the inflation, not Holik's.

dr
The Sakic offer sheet?

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 05:39 PM
  #29
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
The Sakic offer sheet?
But that was eight years ago. They learned their lesson and haven't done it since.

Was it even the same management team in New York when that happened as there is now?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 05:44 PM
  #30
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
But that was eight years ago. They learned their lesson and haven't done it since.

Was it even the same management team in New York when that happened as there is now?
Salaries hit a new high water because of that. Every other star wanted $7million per year. And then more than the next guy. And so on.

Dolan was in charge then.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 07:37 PM
  #31
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
The Rangers essentially bought the 94 cup from Edmonton. Seven players came in deals on the same level as the Kovalev-Pittsburgh trade. Where were Leetch and Richter in those deals because they should have been part of the return for Messier as opposed to eight million dollars plus marginal players and prospects?

Lowe, Tikkanen, Graves, MacTavish, Anderson, Beukeboom.

What makes me laugh are people (a lot of media no doing their homework) outside NY talk about the Rangers like they are a big market team and base it only on ten years ago. I guess they only see the Yankees when the see something with New York written on it.

1994 is long gone and the sports landscape changed dramatically in NYC. They cannot fill the seats even with all the name players, they get very little attention in the local media because they are burried behind the Yankees and other major market teams in NYC and they are willing to lose tens of millions only because Cablevision is a rich company.

And they are not alone, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit and St.Louis also are losing revenue. This is not a big market sport outside of Toronto and they have no standing inside the US. It should not operate with a free market system.

Where was the hype when Colorado-Detroit, Rangers-Flyers made the conference finals in 1997. This league no longer has a big market in the US.

And this was with Messier, Leetch, Richter, Gretzky and all the star imports. It's only going to get worse.

When they were in first place in Dec 2001 they had the same media attention as they receive now, one article per day, per paper. They traded Leetch and it did not make the back pages. Major Market?

Even the Knicks this year only have 13,000 seat tickets and cannot fill the seats, they are the signature tennant at the garden.

All three hockey teams in this market are burried. There are no journalists following hockey here during it's regular season. In 1994 the Mets had the highest payroll in baseball history at 39 million. The Yankees were in last place for years. There was no Yankee-Mets-Red Sox rivaly or inter-league play.

You want to trust an owner in Dolan who's idea of a youth movement is to sign Nylander to a three year deal for three million with an option. Anyone think Joe Balej in Hartford (who cannot score in the AHL) is going to be a second line right wing in the NHL when a work stoppage ends is kidding themselves, not as long as Jagr, Holik and Messier are still in the mix. Why do you really think Yashin got the deal he got from the Islanders, if he scored 50 goals and led the Islanders to a cup with only a three year deal someone would have made him an offer for more than he makes now, especially based on 2001 contract offers.

This game does not need a cap not to save the Rangers from becoming the Yankees of the NHL. They do need one to save the league from owners that who for all that spending and $$$ losing are about as popular in their market as the SI Yankees.

Edmonton on it's worst day is easily a more visible hockey market than NYC, they make more money than all three NY teams.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 12-05-2004 at 07:45 PM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 07:53 PM
  #32
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Edmonton on it's worst day is easily a more visible hockey market than NYC, they make more money than all three NY teams.
like i said above:

"this lockout is really a "save the big markets" lockout"

its not for EDM, and you just backed it up.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 09:19 PM
  #33
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The Rangers essentially bought the 94 cup from Edmonton. Seven players came in deals on the same level as the Kovalev-Pittsburgh trade. Where were Leetch and Richter in those deals because they should have been part of the return for Messier as opposed to eight million dollars plus marginal players and prospects?
Now this is a funny statement. You're calling a guy who has scored more points in a season then all but three people a marginal player.

Quote:
Lowe, Tikkanen, Graves, MacTavish, Anderson, Beukeboom.
Weight, Marchant, Damphousse, Richardson, Thornton.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 07:22 AM
  #34
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Now this is a funny statement. You're calling a guy who has scored more points in a season then all but three people a marginal player.
The Messier to the Rangers deal was eight million, Bernie Nicholls (a player who was on the outs in NY) Steven Rice, Louie Debrusk, and a low level pick for future considerations which became Jeff Beukeboom.

Kevin Lowe held out half a season and the Rangers paid Edmonton a million dollars.

The Rangers to my knowledge never had Damphousse, Richardson or Thornton.

The did make the Sakic offer, both Kovalev trades with Pittsburgh, the Jagr, Bure salary exchange. How many players from Colorado and New Jersey became Rangers?

Even Pat LaFontaine became a Ranger for a million dollars and a draft pick.

Anyone want to trust this ownership or others who operate this way with a marginal luxury tax? Cablevision does not care how much revenue the Rangers lose, they want a spending advantage, meanwhile teams will not be able to keep players based on the market they set.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 08:25 AM
  #35
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Anyone want to trust this ownership or others who operate this way with a marginal luxury tax? Cablevision does not care how much revenue the Rangers lose, they want a spending advantage, meanwhile teams will not be able to keep players based on the market they set.
what players has any team lost because of the NYR spending policies ?

be careful, the sky is falling.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 08:40 AM
  #36
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
what players has any team lost because of the NYR spending policies ?

be careful, the sky is falling.

dr
The sky already fell when it comes to the NHL. That's why the game is shutdown.

The question should be more like what teams have lose players because the Rangers set the market with absurd contract offers in free agency. Or even better what contracts were they willing to take on in cash-leveraged deals where they gave up nothing of value. Those fans lost their star players.

40 million was not enough to keep Bobby Holik in a Devil uniform and seven million will not be enough to keep Niedermayer when the time comes. Kasparaitis signing was like a lottery complete with midnight visits and dvd players.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 09:01 AM
  #37
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The Rangers to my knowledge never had Damphousse, Richardson or Thornton.
Edmonton got them from Toronto in exchange for Anderson. Toronto then traded Anderson to the Rangers.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 09:03 AM
  #38
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
40 million was not enough to keep Bobby Holik in a Devil uniform and seven million will not be enough to keep Niedermayer when the time comes.
Then why did Scott Stevens stay in Jersey? Or Brodeur?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 09:24 AM
  #39
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,808
vCash: 500
And when Brodeur becomes a free agent, are we to be shocked when the Rag$ offer $1+ M above fair market value to get him, force other bidders up and repeat the traditional vacuum of dignity they have shown for over a decade?

Toronto gives too much, Colorado doesn't care, the Rag$ don't care, and guaranteed, everyone else pays more.

Holik doesn't possess an inkling of class Brodeur has, and he readily signed his soul away to the bloated bottom feeders (who have alienated their own fans in Manhattan) to join Kasparaitis and others who want money, not W's.

Brodeur would reject the Ranger$, not the offer, and get a big raise from NJ or whomever, as would Niedermeyer and anyone else pretty much. All it takes is one of the "fat" seven teams to show interest and the contracts go up quicker than Gary Bettman's hairline. One cannot argue with a history of deadening repurcussions on the sport by the wreckless owners in this game.

Mind you, I'm with the players if not for those few who cause the inflation so wrecklessly, because an owner victory is a loss for those owners (NOT just those players) who chose to kill the sport.


And just a little history: the Rangers were BAD in the eighties......Larry Brookes was writing pet obituaries and screwed that up. The editor gave him one last shot and demoted him to Ranger hockey. He's only doing this gig until he can get back to writing how brave "Fluffy" was fighting the vaccuum cleaner and.....

i.e.: he's a putz lucky to get paid. This from an avid NY Post reader/subscriber.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 10:50 AM
  #40
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
what players has any team lost because of the NYR spending policies ?

be careful, the sky is falling.

dr
Colorado lost Mike Keane and Greg DeVries. Probably would have liked to have Kasparitus back, I don't know how much they wanted Fluery. Lefevre and Kamensky were over the hill. All this and Brian Trottier too.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 11:12 AM
  #41
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
The Larry Brooks article----what I question is Brooks' theory that only broad philosophical disagreements would be cause for impasse. That assertion is made early in the piece and seems to be the basis for the rest of the story. Seems to me, say, if one side proposed a 75% tax and the other a 200% tax, and those positions remained so for a significant period of time that could also ultimately lead to impasse, as well as disputes for lesser numbers. Seems that under Brooks' theory impasse would almost never occur. One would not think that all impasse situations that did happen were broad philosophical issues. Why not just a simple wage issue. Say a union wanted a wage per hour somewhat higher than management wanted to pay. Could that not lead to impasse? And that theory that it could not is the basis of the rest of Brooks' theories in the article. I , for one, think that if the union's proposal is as the rumors indicate, it could possibly lead to a settlement prior to the scheduled end of the 2004-2005 season.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 11:38 AM
  #42
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Colorado lost Mike Keane and Greg DeVries. Probably would have liked to have Kasparitus back, I don't know how much they wanted Fluery. Lefevre and Kamensky were over the hill. All this and Brian Trottier too.
so this lockout is to help COL keep their players ???

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 11:54 AM
  #43
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so this lockout is to help COL keep their players ???

dr
Alot of teams would benifit. Common complaint about the Avs is that they haven't enough role players.

You asked a questoin and I answered. Another "you name me one" argument


Last edited by Hasbro: 12-06-2004 at 12:01 PM.
Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 01:30 PM
  #44
Olorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The Rangers essentially bought the 94 cup from Edmonton. Seven players came in deals on the same level as the Kovalev-Pittsburgh trade. Where were Leetch and Richter in those deals because they should have been part of the return for Messier as opposed to eight million dollars plus marginal players and prospects?

Lowe, Tikkanen, Graves, MacTavish, Anderson, Beukeboom.

...

When they were in first place in Dec 2001 they had the same media attention as they receive now, one article per day, per paper. They traded Leetch and it did not make the back pages. Major Market?

...

You want to trust an owner in Dolan who's idea of a youth movement is to sign Nylander to a three year deal for three million with an option. Anyone think Joe Balej in Hartford (who cannot score in the AHL) is going to be a second line right wing in the NHL when a work stoppage ends is kidding themselves, not as long as Jagr, Holik and Messier are still in the mix. Why do you really think Yashin got the deal he got from the Islanders, if he scored 50 goals and led the Islanders to a cup with only a three year deal someone would have made him an offer for more than he makes now, especially based on 2001 contract offers.
Just a couple of points.

The Rangers got less than two seasons of Tikkanen for Doug Weight who went on to be a first line center for the next ten years. The Rangers got 35 games from MacTavish for Todd Marchant who went on to become a valuable third liner for the next ten years (and by valuable I only mean that he is/was one of the league's better players in the role he plays). Anderson (who also played 35 games) was acquired from the Leafs for Mike Gartner.

As far as I know, Smith exploited some loophole to sign Graves and I believe Edmonton was subsequently awarded Troy Mallette as compensation. I agree that Graves and Lowe were essentially bought. Cash was a large factor in the Messier deal, but Nicholls was still a ppg player at the time of the trade (he dropped off afterwards, though). I can't recall how highly thought of Rice and DeBrusk were at the time. I know Rice was a former 1st rounder and DeBrusk was nothing more than an enforcer. I don't know the terms of the future considerations, but it lead to the exchange of David Shaw for Beukeboom. It's obvious that the Rangers won the trade even without Beukeboom involved; again I don't know the terms of his inclusion but I'd lay that blame more on Sather (because what leverage would Smith have to demand a provision that could possibly land him Beukeboom when the deal was obviously slanted in his favor to begin with). Messier was also devauled because he asked to be traded. Also, I realize this in an area reliant purely on speculation, but nevertheless, assuming Fraser and Sather had other options besides Rice and DeBrusk they have to subject to accountability for choosing players who failed to become valuable NHLers.

To reiterate amidst the above clutter, I believe Tikkanen, MacTavish, and Anderson were legitimately acquired and both Edmonton and Toronto benefited from those deals as well (and longer than) the Rangers.

Graves was either stolen, or astutely signed/traded for by Smith. I'd be on the side of stolen (but either way, I'm thankful he was acquired). Lowe held out and was bought. Messier was devalued and bought/traded for. Nicholls was a legitimate asset, at least.

Two of the most important goals in the '94 playoffs were scored by a player acquired in exchange for Tony Amonte (who scored 268 regular season goals for his new team as opposed to the 11 regular season goals Matteau gave the Rangers). Larmer was acquired for players who played far longer than he did.

You can't pretend that some significant players in the Rangers' core weren't drafted/developed by the organization (Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Kovalev) and that they won the cup solely as a result of illegitimate acquisitions.

...

As far as I know, they were in first place for a short time in 2001 (due to the FLY line's one month run) by a slim margin. I don't know if a slight early season lead in the standings is supposed to cause widespread media buzz or not.

I don't subscribe to or regularly read any NYC papers, so I can't comment for sure on the Leetch trade. I do find it unlikely that the Leetch deal was completely ignored, though.

Are you contending that New York isn't one of the league's largest markets? As far as I know, the Rangers' attendance figures are still among the highest in the league. Interest in the team certainly isn't at it's peak, which is logical since they've been a consistent failure since October of 1997. Most franchises suffering from such a run of incompetence and futility would be hard pressed to keep people buzzing over their existence.

...

I'd be alright with Nylander in the short term, but I agree that four years is too long and for that amount of time his price tag is high.

However, whose progress is he impeding? The Rangers have four forwards on their roster (Nylander, Holik, Jagr, Lundmark). Nylander is their first line center when play resumes. They have no prospect in their system capable of filling that role. Theoretically, they could spend their next first round pick on a player projected as a number one center and let that player develop for three seasons while Nylander plays out his contract (if in fact he does remain a Ranger for its duration).

On their depth chart, Balej should be right behind Jagr on right wing which would place him on the second line. Nylander and Jagr are the only true top-six forwards they have and Holik may or may not play a third line checking role. That's three or four top-six spots open. Lundmark and Balej should each fill one, and honestly no one else in Hartford is projected for such a role and I'd be surprised if a prospect outside the AHL jumped to a top two line position in the NHL.

Balej's in a slump, he's not producing. He's been scratched the past two games (sweet accountability) and hopefully he'll get the message. He has already proven, last season, that he can score in the AHL, I disagree that he "cannot" score there. His stint in the NHL was decent and showed promise.

Yashin's contract was influenced by outside elements, but Milbury has to be somewhat accountable for it.

Just for clarification, I'm not defending/in agreement with Brooks and his points. My ideal situation would be the ability of every team who drafted/developed/traded intelligently to keep their players together indefinitely.


Last edited by Olorin: 12-06-2004 at 03:44 PM.
Olorin is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 06:57 PM
  #45
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan13
Cash was a large factor in the Messier deal, but Nicholls was still a ppg player at the time of the trade (he dropped off afterwards, though).
Nicholls was essentially run out of New York after 1990. This is a player they would have released if they could not unload him.

Again, where were Leetch and Richter in that trade for someone who just led his team to a fifth cup. This is why the system has to change. They even got Beukeboom because Peter Pocklington needed cash.

None of this would have happened with cost-certainty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan13
You can't pretend that some significant players in the Rangers' core weren't drafted/developed by the organization (Leetch, Richter, Zubov, Kovalev) and that they won the cup solely as a result of illegitimate acquisitions.
All I can say is a Ranger team with Messier and with Leetch and Richter in Edmonton does not win a cup. They barely got past a sub-five hundred team in seven games with the trades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan13
Are you contending that New York isn't one of the league's largest markets? As far as I know, the Rangers' attendance figures are still among the highest in the league.
The US does not have a major hockey market. New York has more important sports to cover. Hockey is eighth or ninth. The Rangers despite padded attendance play in front of about 12,000 on weeknights with large pockets of open seats all over the building. I went to 15 games and the only time most of the seats were filled were rivalry games with their own fans in attendance.

And that's the way it is for all the local teams. No coverage, high prices, one fan demographic. And a weak product. Lot's of die-hards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan13
I'd be alright with Nylander in the short term, but I agree that four years is too long and for that amount of time his price tag is high.
All that signing tells me is the Rangers are going to keep spending no matter how much they lose. That's why the league needs cost-certainty, same applies to all these other so-called big markets that lose revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan13
I'm not defending/in agreement with Brooks and his points. My ideal situation would be the ability of every team who drafted/developed/traded intelligently to keep their players together indefinitely.
And cost-certainty gives the league the best chance of happening, IMO. Brooks puts on a sad show each week. But he draws attention to his work.

Even Pittsburgh has more hockey coverage than New York in their two papers.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 07:18 PM
  #46
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Cost certainty is a buzzword developed by lawyers. The fate of the league is not dependant on achieving it. Name another situation in your life when you have said, cost certainty is needed.

Impasse at the labour board is apparently a procdural determination. Was the process good faith. Not was the offer good faith.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 09:48 PM
  #47
Olorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
All I can say is a Ranger team with Messier and with Leetch and Richter in Edmonton does not win a cup. They barely got past a sub-five hundred team in seven games with the trades.

...

The US does not have a major hockey market. New York has more important sports to cover. Hockey is eighth or ninth. The Rangers despite padded attendance play in front of about 12,000 on weeknights with large pockets of open seats all over the building. I went to 15 games and the only time most of the seats were filled were rivalry games with their own fans in attendance.

And that's the way it is for all the local teams. No coverage, high prices, one fan demographic. And a weak product. Lot's of die-hards.

...

All that signing tells me is the Rangers are going to keep spending no matter how much they lose. That's why the league needs cost-certainty, same applies to all these other so-called big markets that lose revenue.

...

And cost-certainty gives the league the best chance of happening, IMO. Brooks puts on a sad show each week. But he draws attention to his work.

...

Even Pittsburgh has more hockey coverage than New York in their two papers.
I'm assuming you're referring to the finals with the Canucks. IMO, they should have won Game 1 and swept the series. I know Keenan's supposed dealings with Detroit came up later and the series, and I'd guess (in my estimation, anyway) that was a distraction. And the fact that the team played lazy and with unwarranted confidence in Game 5 when they should have closed the series. They were undoubtedly the better team in that series. Game 1 was stolen by McLean and Games 5 and 6 were largely the team believing their task was done and all that was left was to cruise to victory. That team was built and motivated to win that year, and that year only.

...

If you mean "major market" as in hockey's the number one sport then the only market that might meet that criteria would be Detroit (I don't know first hand, but this is what I've heard).

I agree that you see mostly die-hards at non-rivalry games. As a die-hard, I really don't care who my team is playing but I realize that isn't so for everyone. I do feel that the product can be marketable to a wider base, the potential is there because it can be a great game. IMO, watered down talent and clutch and grab style is holding league popularity back.

...

Eventually, I believe Dolan will learn. As the head of a major corporation he's, above all else, a businessman. At some point he has to become tired of losing money in this branch of his empire. Maybe I'm being naive, but consistently losing money should be contrary to what he stands for as a businessman. It's not like he's a Russian oil tycoon who uses the success of his team as a measure of his own status. The man is hockey clueless. Again, I may be being naive but logic has to win out in the end, doesn't it? Maybe.

And, it would be management's goal to ice a credible team next season. Nylander's signing gives them a grand total of four NHL forwards (who do cost 23 million plus whatever Lundmark makes).

...

Agreed.

...

Are you certain about Pittsburgh having more hockey coverage than New York?

Olorin is offline  
Old
12-06-2004, 10:01 PM
  #48
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
....

None of this would have happened with cost-certainty.


All I can say is a Ranger team with Messier and with Leetch and Richter in Edmonton does not win a cup. They barely got past a sub-five hundred team in seven games with the trades.
lol .. if there was a salary cap back in those days, EDM would be WORSE OFF ! No one would have given up really good prospects to rent players. Would CHI have dealt Amonte for 2 months of Noonan and Mattuea ? WOuld COL traded Regehr for two months of Fleury ? How about DAL trading Iginla for Neiuwenedyk.

NONE of those trades would happend and where would CGY and EDM be today ? lol, ya they woulda been better if they could have kept Fleury and Neiuwendyk and Macinnes. Lol ... right.

ok, but you asked for it. hope you enjoy not being able to dump your over priced over the hill players on rich teams at the deadline.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.