HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Paul Kelly Weighs in on Lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2012, 05:18 PM
  #26
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb_fan View Post
If thats the case why do we have consistently crappy teams?
1: Because no matter how much talent you have in a league, some talent will always be better than others, or more ready for prime time than others.

2: Because the deeper talent in each individual team relative to the 80's is competing against as deep or deeper of talent in each of the other 29 teams.

3: Because mismanagement and/or crass, money-sucking ownership happens and will continue to happen no matter how talented the players are compared with other eras

If you invented a time machine and pitted the New York Islanders of 2011-2012 against the New York Islanders of 1984 -- yes, the dynasty team -- I think it would surprise you how well the current, horrible Islanders team stood up against the old champs.

Quote:
I think the bottom lines have a deep talent pool to... but the top end players... nope.
And that will always be the case no matter how many, or how few, teams there are in the league. Since it's very possible to place well in this league without "top end players," or at least without premium name brand superstars, I'm not sure how relevant the point is.

Especially because 80% of the people using a mantra like this, when they say "top end players" actually mean "top end forwards," and don't give a lot of thought to actual roster construction beyond "we have this one very skilled guy who scores a lot of goals." A superstar can be a crutch or even a liability if he has to make himself the story rather than being one player out of many (ref: Kovalchoke).

Building around superstars has been proved to be one of a number of ways to construct a winning roster.


Last edited by Dojji*: 10-31-2012 at 05:23 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 05:26 PM
  #27
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Pretty obvious that you've never been out here.
Yep. I misspoke and tried to cover my butt. It happens. Need to stop doing that. Especially when the Battle of Alberta kind of helps my argument. I'm not sure either of those teams would have the rich history they had without the other to hold them to a higher standard.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:20 PM
  #28
bb_fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: boston
Posts: 8,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
Because the consistently crappy teams are run by bozos like Howson, Snow, etc.
For the most part i agree... bad owner-bad team.

But i find it hard to believe that there's enough good talent for 30 teams let alone 32

bb_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:53 PM
  #29
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
Florida has a very favorable arena deal through 2030 or something like that, Columbus struggles because they are terrible. Give that market a good team and they will draw well.

IMO, aside from Phoenix, the Islanders were next in line for financial problems but it looks like they have a new home.

I still think there are 4 markets that can support a new team

Toronto (Hamilton, Markham, etc.)
Seattle
Quebec
KC

I would expand to Toronto and Quebec. Both have arenas in place.
Leave Seattle or KC open for a possible relocation for Phoenix, choosing which market does not have the NBA first


Boston
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Quebec
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
Columbus

NYR
NYI
NJD
Washington
Carolina
Tampa
Florida
Philly


Hamilton
Detroit
Chicago
Nashville
Minnisotta
Dallas
St Louis
Winnipeg

Seattle
Colorado
Vancouver
San Jose
Anaheim
LA
Edmonton
Calgary
I like the 4 divisions/conferences.. but i'd switch pitt with philly only for selfish reasons haha. Those games are always fun then add them playing what 2 or 3 more times a season then normal.

BlackNgold 84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:27 PM
  #30
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb_fan View Post
For the most part i agree... bad owner-bad team.

But i find it hard to believe that there's enough good talent for 30 teams let alone 32

Then I don't think your standard of what constitutes "talent" is reasonable.

You can easily run a 32 team league right now talentwise as long as you aren't insane enough to think that the fact that every team in the league isn't the Red Wings means there's a talent shortfall.

The presence of "have-nots" is less relevant than the question of whether it's possible to get off the list. Teams like the Predators and Lightning have proven that this is very much possible.

Meanwhile one of the NHL's former crown jewels is the New York Islanders, and they by any reasonable analysis should be a "have" except for mismanagement and extenuating circumstances. There's more to why teams struggle than "bad hockey markets" or "not enough talent."

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:36 PM.

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.