HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 08:01 AM
  #176
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
NHL seems to be playing by the NBA's script... they will push to see what they get.. however, I don't see how the majority of players or owners want to not have a season.

Look at the NBA, they started on Christmas, played a shortened season, and by the time the finals rolled around no one remembered the lockout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Agreed. The NHL has a limited fan base that will go out and watch the games. Once it is settled I will order Center Ice and get my Devils-Bruins, Rangers-Bruins tickets. I don't take this personal. I also don't miss it, as of now..but when Janauary roills around and there is nothing on, I would think I will.
We all will probabley come back no matter what. But we're die hards. Its that elusive "casual" fan that the nhl has been trying to get for awhile that will be turned off. To be honest, i don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:06 AM
  #177
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
We all will probabley come back no matter what. But we're die hards. Its that elusive "casual" fan that the nhl has been trying to get for awhile that will be turned off. To be honest, i don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing.
I highly doubt the "casual fan" is tuned into the NHL before Christmas anyways.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:08 AM
  #178
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
We all will probabley come back no matter what. But we're die hards. Its that elusive "casual" fan that the nhl has been trying to get for awhile that will be turned off. To be honest, i don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing.
I don't think the league is at risk of losing casual fans. By nature of being casual, they aren't upset about this lockout and have found something new and shiny to occupy their time while their newfound sport of hockey is on hold. Once it's back, for the most part, I think they will be too.

IMO, the league is more at risk for losing dedicated fans than casual ones, but I don't even know how impactful that will be. It might take a year or two, but everyone will be back eventually.

This is a speedbump in the growth of the sport, made more poignant because hockey is as popular as it's been in years. At the height of popularity, the predicted effects of the lockout will appear to be more catastrophic, but I would truly be surprised if those predictions came true. My opinion, of course.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:09 AM
  #179
Hnidy Hnight
Registered User
 
Hnidy Hnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
We all will probabley come back no matter what. But we're die hards. Its that elusive "casual" fan that the nhl has been trying to get for awhile that will be turned off. To be honest, i don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing.
It's definately a good thing. Casual fans only drive up prices. What you want ideally as a hardcore fan is what New Jersey had in their glory years. Cup contending product, with plenty of cheap ticket specials

Hnidy Hnight is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:15 AM
  #180
rudos1
Registered User
 
rudos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Have you read any of the recent Chris Beniot books? Great stuff in there about the workings of wrestling in Japan...

Tigermask was still my all time favorite, Jushin Liger a close second.....



No but the Davey Boy Smith autobiography and Lou Thesz one had a lot of Japanese wrestling stories in it. Wish I could get current All Japan and Noah too but for now King of Sports will help keep me going. That and all the lucha libre I get from digital cable..

rudos1 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:18 AM
  #181
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,716
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
You know, I like to look at all data and facts as well as analyze them. I like to know the how and why of things.
I think the NHL's primary argument is wrong and the numbers (according to Forbes) back me up. 9 teams this year, 6 over the CBA lost money. That is with the way the owners spent.

I agree that spending more (wisely) can help increase revenue. Too many teams however are not spending wisely.
First of I hope you don't take this post the wrong way...

I admire the effort that you put into it and that you like to look at all the facts and analyze them. You do a good job at it. However, here is my problem. First off, you use Forbes. Their numbers aren't accurate. They are close, but not close enough and far enough off that it skews the numbers. I can't tell you by how much, but the Mods know they can message me at anytime and will vouch for it.

But more importantly, and while the post above addresses it slightly, I go back to your post on page 5 with the six teams you mention.

I see it like this: Some fans come here for information or to try and understand what information they are getting someplace else in hopes that someone here can explain it. And while you go into great depth, your only giving part of the analyzing you are doing - sort of the one that meets your argument. Again, you address it in the post I quoted, but nowhere near to the extent of your post on page 5.

I'm really pressed for time, so I'll give a quick shot at it:

6 teams lost money (your words based on Forbes - but i disagree with that), but I'll stick to your 6.

All six of the teams increased their spending on player salaries. All with the exception of St Louis (and only because of the uncertainty with the ownership situation) increased in attendance.

All but Columbus ( who started to move out salary when all was said and done) saw an increase in on ice performance over the previous year. St Louis and Florida saw 22 point increases, Colorado 20 Islanders 6 and Phoenix was stagnant but went further into the playoffs where they generated more $$.

That's a pretty major improvement and it showed at the gates. Now, you can't turn around a franchise in one season. Keep those improvements for 2, 3 season's and what happens?

On ice performance has a lot to do with how the team fairs at the box office. And on ice performance is directly related to spending money to attract players.

We know the two sides aren't far off on revenue sharing - they are close. But it's not the only solution.

I know you're a proponent of a fixed lower floor. But that is not the answer either. The disparity between the larger revenue generating markets and the smaller ones in terms of on ice product widens in that case, making the richer teams the better on ice product and the poorer teams the worse and thereby lower attendance and even less revenue.

Part of the problem is that the cap went up too fast. No one expected revenues to climb as fast as they did. But the biggest problem is that the players share went up with the revenues increase, not the actual dollars, but the percentage of revenues.

Had that not increased, we wouldn't be in near the mess we are in now.

Wish I had more time

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:31 AM
  #182
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,745
vCash: 500
LeBrun says it's a question of "who blinks first":

Quote:
NHLPA executive director Don Fehr has done a "masterful" job so far of managing this lockout, one NHL governor told ESPN.com Wednesday. Fehr is getting the league to move on key issues such as revenue sharing and is keeping his players on board through it all. Heís also frustrated with the league to no end. But Fehrís grade is far from complete. His most important test is coming. Unless Iím completely misreading the tea leaves, I canít think of very many NHL players who are willing to sacrifice an entire season of hockey just so they can make a point to commissioner Gary Bettman. Iím not saying I would sign the leagueís latest, updated proposal from last week, but if Iím an NHL player, I demand that Fehr cut his losses over the next 2-3 weeks and try to make the best deal possible from whatís left on the table.

As one NHL team executive said Wednesday, "The reality is, neither side is really going to like this deal no matter where it ends up. But to wait until next season to get a deal done helps absolutely no one."

And hereís where the read on Fehr gets widely different takes. On the one hand, there are people who believe Fehr has always shown an ability to feel the pulse of his membership, and if itís a deal they want, heíll deliver one when the time is right. But there are others who doubt his true intentions.

"I think he wants to rewrite labor negotiations; the game is not his priority," said one NHL team executive.

A sentiment, by the way, that the players donít buy whatsoever. Those Iíve spoken with all believe Fehr's intentions are to make a deal.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...l-be-permanent

Artemis is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:34 AM
  #183
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,556
vCash: 500
I've hit critical mass w/ this thing.

How stupid are these people?

Neely08 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:48 AM
  #184
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 26,996
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely08 View Post
I've hit critical mass w/ this thing.

How stupid are these people?
the word begins with an s but it is stubborn; they can still play 46 or so if they start by January 1st. The owners know that- the players have to be very nervous.

Someone will put the imaginary gun down.

I thought they'd have a deal now, but until they BOTH reach the edge of the cliff and that would logically (to me) be January 1st or actually mid December to get a deal in place.

Just pathetic but really the owners KNOW the date they can go up to and they have the power because THEY write the checks

DKH is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:54 AM
  #185
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
the word begins with an s but it is stubborn; they can still play 46 or so if they start by January 1st. The owners know that- the players have to be very nervous.

Someone will put the imaginary gun down.

I thought they'd have a deal now, but until they BOTH reach the edge of the cliff and that would logically (to me) be January 1st or actually mid December to get a deal in place.

Just pathetic but really the owners KNOW the date they can go up to and they have the power because THEY write the checks
1995 it was January 20th

IMO, the smallest season they could play is 44 games.

4 games vs the division = 16
2 games vs the conference = 28

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:58 AM
  #186
Braunbaer
Braunbšr
 
Braunbaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
1995 it was January 20th

IMO, the smallest season they could play is 44 games.

4 games vs the division = 16
2 games vs the conference = 28
Would be 36 games. (4 divisional rivals + 10 other teams in the conference)

Braunbaer is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:00 AM
  #187
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,283
vCash: 500
Hockey fans won't come out on top in a battle between a basketball lawyer and a baseball lawyer. Both need to go.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:01 AM
  #188
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbaer View Post
Would be 36 games. (4 divisional rivals + 10 other teams in the conference)
math fail

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:05 AM
  #189
Highatop325
Only took 4 months!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 325, row 15, seat 24
Country: United States
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
math fail
Northeastern clearly isn't known for their math huh Chris? haha

Highatop325 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:25 AM
  #190
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,283
vCash: 500
Unfollow @NHL and @NHLPA on Twitter
Send a message to both sides that enough is enough.
If you feel that your voice isn't being heard, why bother listening to theirs.
Unfollow them, it is a start.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:11 AM
  #191
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Some responses are bolded in your quote. I couldn't get multiquote to work so you can break up a rebuttal however you like.

You are right the facts are all over the internet. Instead of using one number (operating income for 2011); I have chosen to look at all of the numbers, how and why each team makes or loses money, factored in the players offer, TV contract, etc. What they show is 24 teams made money over the last CBA. The reason teams didn't make more/lose less is the owners. The new players offer takes care of all money issues. And if the owners are all in this to make money some certainly aren't showing it with how they run their teams.

I have put up plenty of facts. You said the Bruins in fact likely lost money. Prove it to me with numbers. If you can't then lets take the Forbes number at face value. I'm pretty sure there are things not accounted for on the revenue side as well but I can't prove they made more so I won't try.

My facts are from Forbes. They don't have 1 article that covers the whole CBA. Just because I don't link to every article doesn't mean the numbers I state aren't facts. I have looked at each years P&L from the Forbes numbers, and franchise value gain or loss and put them all in a spreadsheet. This year only 9 teams lost money. Over the CBA only 6 teams lost money. Only 3 teams lost any significant (relative) money. That is at 54 to 57%, overspending their budget, cap circumventing contracts, carrying too much debt.

Here are the losses: Net/Year is the important figure. Then look at their debt value and how much they spent over what they had to as required by the cap floor.

TEAM 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total04Value12ValueGainValue/YearIncome/YearNet/YearDebtValue%$OverCapFloor
Coyotes-$6.0-$11.4-$9.7 -$18.5-$20.1-$24.4-$90.1$136$134-$2-$0.3-$15.0-$15.326%$6.7
Islanders-$9.2-$11.6-$8.8-$5.6-$4.5-$8.1-$47.8$159$149-$10-$1.3-$8.0-$9.267%$0.8
BlueJackets-$4.0-$5.6-$7.1-$9.9-$7.3-$13.7-$47.6$139$152 $13$1.6-$7.9-$6.366%$13.0
Panthers-$1.9-$7.1-$9.4-$13.6-$9.6-$7.0-$48.6$121$162$41$5.1-$8.1-$3.059%$7.2
Blues$1.0-$5.5-$8.6-$2.7 -$6.2-$2.7-$24.7$140$157$17$2.1-$4.1-$2.081%$6.6
Avalanche$5.9$6.6$2.3$3.4$2.3$6.1$26.6$237$198-$39-$4.8$4.4-$0.412%$1.1

So only 2 teams would have lost money if they spent less money down to the floor. 4 wouldn't have had to cut payroll by much. Now had they spent within their budget the franchise value also usually goes up. The numbers (facts) show that the last CBA was very good for the owners. Record revenue, profit and franchise values. Very few teams in any actual trouble.

Now add in the money from the players offer. Add the new TV contract. Add the increased revenue sharing for these teams. Add in the savings as they pay down debt from now being profitable. The owners also get all money if a team is relocated or for new franchises which I'm sure will happen. Relocate Phoenix as the owners could have done at a profit 3 years ago and what does that do to the numbers?

Your facts are actually a lot of speculation, rumors, false, and/or incomplete.
I have to give you props, you research like the dickens when your opinion in challenged. You have to appreciate the effort, fine post. A couple of major issues however.

First and foremost. Owners have issue with what's happening in the present and what's likely to happen if things continue on their present course. Not what happened in 2005 when the cap was half what it is now. You're using the entire lifespan of the CBA to show that only 6 teams lost money during that time. From an earlier post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
But then, look at salaries the year after the lockout:
1 Jagr Jaromir RW New York Rangers $8,360,000.00
2 Yashin Alexei C New York Islanders $7,600,000.00
3 Lidstrom Nicklas D Detroit Red Wings $7,600,000.00
4 Tkachuk Keith LW St. Louis Blues $7,600,000.00
5 Iginla Jarome RW Calgary Flames $7,000,000.00
6 Sundin Mats C Toronto Maple Leafs $6,840,000.00
7 Khabibulin Nikolai G Chicago Blackhawks $6,750,000.00
8 Niedermayer Scott D Anaheim Mighty Ducks $6,750,000.00
9 Guerin Bill RW Dallas Stars $6,738,498.00
10 Sakic Joe C Colorado Avalanche $6,664,797.00

Significantly lower, much more reasonable. All teams could afford their payroll. There was parity, and a level playing field for all. Proving what? At first, when revenues were down the lockout and cap accomplished what the owners wanted.
Teams originally made money. The cap didn't stay at 39million however, and it's very likely it will never ever go that low again. As the cap grew, more and more teams lost money. In 2006 only 8 teams lost money, 3 of those under 2mil. In 2008, that number jumped to 12. In 2010 that number jumped to 16. In 2012 we know that number is now 18 teams that are losing money. Do you see a pattern? Now realize regardless of those figures (provided by Forbes) the players want their share of the pot to continue to increase yearly. See the big issue?

Second major issue, you don't consider the teams that already have to operate under and internal cap lower then the NHL cap figure in order to try an make bank. Last year 7 teams operated 10 million dollars below the cap ceiling in order to cut costs. 12 teams operated 5 million below the ceiling. Of those 12 teams only Ottawa (operated $12,646,621 below cap ceiling, operating income of 2.1mill) and Colorado (operated $14,898,928 below cap ceiling, operating income of 6.1mill) made money. If you're happy with an NHL such as we had pre-2004 (and now have again), where certain teams afford all the talent while other teams can't afford to keep their own players then these numbers should make you extremely happy. I personally don't want that, but it seems to be what you're advocating here?

As for running out of owners. Yes, the news that LA has been for sale for 3 years is rumor, but these guys don't exactly list their teams for sale on Craigslist. Leiweke was confirmed as trying to sell a minority share in the Kings back in 2008. Also, when I mentioned "viable" in conjunction with "owners" it was to exclude folks like Jim Balsillie in the whole Phoenix debacle. He wasn't deemed viable by the board of governors and the direction RIM has taken the past year somewhat verifies their concerns. You ask why someone would lose money on Nashville, sell for a profit to local investors mitigating some of those losses, then buy Minnesota and pay 13mill to bring in two big name local players? It seems fairly obvious, but likely (a) because he wants to own an NHL team and (b) because he thought the potential for profit in Minnesota was greater then it was in Nashville, which isn't much of a leap considering Nashville loses money every year even though they consistently contend. Minnesota loses less money per season, has better attendance, and an on ice product that could be improved. It would also explain why he decided to bring in two local all-stars to build around. I'm spit balling on that one, but I can't get into his head to find out why exactly he did it. If I had to guess based on what Leipold has said in the past, it's possible I'm not that far off. Certainly closer then "he likes to lose money" I'd hope.

I'm honestly not sure how I should argue your idea that owners are at least OK with losing money, other then to say "hey look, it's a lockout!"? As to why they shell out big on cap circumventing contracts, likely because competitive teams make money, better players make a team more competitive, and the best players want (and will get) their money from someone. I know the suggestion on the other side is that all 30 owners collectively agree not to pay the players those sums, No doubt a reason most owners are big proponents of maximum contract lengths being part of the new CBA.

Again, I appreciate the work you've gone through to try and prop up your opinion, but the very real fact is that right now the NHL is not profitable for the majority of owners. The biggest reason for that is that player salaries are out of control. While it's nice to say "well don't spend so much on salaries then and you can turn a bigger profit", and doing our best at ignoring the ramifications on the quality of the over all on ice product that strategy would have, if they don't spend the money a team like the Rangers or Leafs will, they'll lose out on the better players and their teams competitiveness will suffer. Fans don't like to spend tons of money on non competitive teams outside of Toronto.

We aren't talking about screwing over NHL players here, 8-9mill should still be considered a reasonable maximum salary for a guy who plays hockey... no? Surely they could eek out some kind of meager existence on that salary, I know it would be tough, but can we not chalk it up to the sacrifices one has to make for the betterment of the sport? Sure that means a guy like Crosby may be only able to buy fifteen Ferrari 599 GTO Coupe's this year instead of twenty, and one multimillion dollar home instead of three or four but he'd scrape by. OK, that last bit is overly sarcastic and I apologize, but I just couldn't resist. As AOF stated, the money these guys makes is absolutely filthy and still would be if those figures were cut in half even.


Last edited by Kaoz: 11-16-2012 at 10:26 AM.
Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:19 AM
  #192
chuckdobbins
Moderator
 
chuckdobbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
1995 it was January 20th

IMO, the smallest season they could play is 44 games.

4 games vs the division = 16
2 games vs the conference = 28
I know you already corrected yourself, but this is what I was thinking as well. 6 games against the division and 2 for the other 10 in the conference. 44 games. Isn't this essentially what they said they were looking to do if they started on 12/1? 44 games isn't ideal, but I think that's the absolute least amount of games to consider it a legitimate season IMO.

If and when they get started, I wonder if this is going to impact the playoff intensity. You'd basically be entering the playoffs at the equivalent to the half way point of a normal season, so theoretically guys would be less fatigued and dinged up. I suppose they'll all know that going into the season though, so regular season games would be more heavily contested as well. Now that I think of it, they might actually be just as beat up in the playoffs as they normally are.

Definitely just talked myself through that one

chuckdobbins is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:22 AM
  #193
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckdobbins View Post
I know you already corrected yourself, but this is what I was thinking as well. 6 games against the division and 2 for the other 10 in the conference. 44 games. Isn't this essentially what they said they were looking to do if they started on 12/1? 44 games isn't ideal, but I think that's the absolute least amount of games to consider it a legitimate season IMO.

If and when they get started, I wonder if this is going to impact the playoff intensity. You'd basically be entering the playoffs at the equivalent to the half way point of a normal season, so theoretically guys would be less fatigued and dinged up. I suppose they'll all know that going into the season though, so regular season games would be more heavily contested as well. Now that I think of it, they might actually be just as beat up in the playoffs as they normally are.

Definitely just talked myself through that one
Yeah, I would think any season remaining would have to play more than half the games. 42+ or just call the whole thing off IMO.

Dogberry is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:38 AM
  #194
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 500
Get ride of all star break, no interconference games, extend season past mid April and you can fit in more than 44 games starting Christmas

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:00 AM
  #195
Dwatson783
@dwatson783
 
Dwatson783's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
What's sad is that there are more talks happening here than between the sides.

I'm ready to call the B's and ask for them to cancel my season seats and return what I've paid as there are no negotiations going on in good faith at this point.

Dwatson783 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:04 AM
  #196
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,178
vCash: 50
I would be fine with a 50 game season starting on January 1st. I just need something

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:24 AM
  #197
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I would be fine with a 50 game season starting on January 1st. I just need something
That and there will still be a cup

If there is a season, the playoffs would be very interesting because so many teams would be healthier than usual

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:28 AM
  #198
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightofBoston View Post
That and there will still be a cup

If there is a season, the playoffs would be very interesting because so many teams would be healthier than usual
Toronto might actually make the playoffs... they seem to be built for 40 game stretches.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:31 AM
  #200
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Toronto might actually make the playoffs... they seem to be built for 40 game stretches.
Bruins Toronto

KnightofBoston 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 10:19 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.