HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Paul Kelly Weighs in on Lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2012, 09:10 AM
  #1
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Paul Kelly Weighs in on Lockout

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...#disqus_thread

Quote:
specially with the Canadian television deal coming up in 2015,” Kelly said. “I really think it’s time the owners and the players start talking about, ‘OK, how do we build our business?’ The lockout is going to get resolved at some point, and in my view, a $3.3 billion business could easily approach being a $5 billion business within a year or two if they add two certain revenue-generating teams and get out of this cycle of work stoppages and lockouts and labor interruptions.”

Quote:
“If you had a 10-year deal and it took you 53 or 54 percent of revenues in the first three years to meet those existing obligations, then you make up for it somewhere in the middle of the deal,” Kelly said. “Maybe you go 53 percent for a couple of years, then you bring it to 50, then maybe you swing it to 48 percent for a couple of years and players and general managers know they have four or five years to plan for that and then you bring it back up to the 50 percent level by the end of the term. With expanding revenues, even at 48 or 50 percent in those years, players are going to do fine.”

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:16 AM
  #2
SpokedLightning
Overpaid 4th Liner
 
SpokedLightning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 6,764
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
Didn't read the article yet but from the quotes it seems to make way too much sense.

edit: read it and still makes sense.


Last edited by SpokedLightning: 10-30-2012 at 10:14 AM.
SpokedLightning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:01 AM
  #3
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
I don't like it. Feels like a band aid to a problem. This would just defer the act of dealing with the problem to the future.

But most of all, it would further water down the product. Already far too many teams. Would never happen, but a 24 team league would be ideal in my mind. Bubble players getting by on the fourth line would be pushed out of the league. Quality of play increased. More skill to the game. Less low talent guys whose sole purpose is to clog lanes, block shots, dump the puck in etc. also, simply cut out the six teams losing the most money, profitability increases accross the league.

Obviously would never happen, but doesn't mean it wouldn't the the ideal solution.

Kalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:11 AM
  #4
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
I don't like it. Feels like a band aid to a problem. This would just defer the act of dealing with the problem to the future.

But most of all, it would further water down the product. Already far too many teams. Would never happen, but a 24 team league would be ideal in my mind. Bubble players getting by on the fourth line would be pushed out of the league. Quality of play increased. More skill to the game. Less low talent guys whose sole purpose is to clog lanes, block shots, dump the puck in etc. also, simply cut out the six teams losing the most money, profitability increases accross the league.

Obviously would never happen, but doesn't mean it wouldn't the the ideal solution.
Also a decrease in scoring and fights.

IMO, the league is playing with its highest talent level since the original 6. Compared to the high scoring 1980s where you had 24 teams drawing players from mainly Canada. Yet everyone seems to like those days, right?

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:22 AM
  #5
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Yeah, the talent pool these days is much deeper. 4th liners from the 80's would be in the ECHL these days. I think adding two teams would be a complete non-issue in terms of player depth.

Dogberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 11:48 AM
  #6
Ruzicka38
Oh man
 
Ruzicka38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hopedale
Country: United States
Posts: 1,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
Yeah, the talent pool these days is much deeper. 4th liners from the 80's would be in the ECHL these days. I think adding two teams would be a complete non-issue in terms of player depth.
Did he mean add two new teams or just turn revenue losers (PHOENIX, Florida, Columbus, etc) into revenue generators? I think subbing the negative value of Phoenix for the guaranteed income of Quebec City would be a good start. Bettman is stupid though. He keeps hoping someone will but his money bleeding franchise. I wish he would retire.

Ruzicka38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 12:11 PM
  #7
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruzicka38 View Post
Did he mean add two new teams or just turn revenue losers (PHOENIX, Florida, Columbus, etc) into revenue generators? I think subbing the negative value of Phoenix for the guaranteed income of Quebec City would be a good start. Bettman is stupid though. He keeps hoping someone will but his money bleeding franchise. I wish he would retire.
He's specifically talking about expansion... adding new teams.

Quote:
Not that anybody is asking, since he was kicked to the curb by his own dysfunctional constituents three years ago, but former NHL Players’ Association executive director Paul Kelly has some thoughts on what might ease the logjam. And it has to do with expansion, specifically to suburban Toronto (Markham) and Quebec City. As Kelly sees it, making expansion a part of the conversation when it comes to the new collective bargaining agreement could bring both sides closer to realizing their goals.

Dogberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 12:44 PM
  #8
MTaylorJ1
Registered User
 
MTaylorJ1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
He's specifically talking about expansion... adding new teams.
Add Markham-QC. Move Phoenix to Seattle.
4 divisions of 8.
Divisional playoffs. Top 2 in each division get byes. Next 4 have a best of 3 to move on. Game 3 of the "Wildcard" round would take place the night before Game 1.

Leaves you with 3 new markets more likely to succeed.
1 less failing market (that is likely never going to succeed)
Owners collect expansion fees
NHLPA adds new jobs
NBC keeps the same number of significant US TV markets with teams
Additional 8 playoff teams keep likely all but a very few fanbases interested until the very end.
8 playoff byes rewards better regular season play and the wildcards playing back to back adds another obstacle towards teams being mediocre on the way in.

MTaylorJ1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:09 PM
  #9
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruzicka38 View Post
Did he mean add two new teams or just turn revenue losers (PHOENIX, Florida, Columbus, etc) into revenue generators? I think subbing the negative value of Phoenix for the guaranteed income of Quebec City would be a good start. Bettman is stupid though. He keeps hoping someone will but his money bleeding franchise. I wish he would retire.
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


Last edited by Morris Wanchuk: 10-30-2012 at 01:24 PM.
Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:14 PM
  #10
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,494
vCash: 500
I think expansion is a good idea, there's a lot of Canadians up there that don't have a close team. Just look at what happened with Winnipeg

Now if we can just get the owners to spend smart initially (and I'd personally like to see the cap floor reduced in the first few years of the CBA, even if the ceiling is at 70 in year one.

Really hope they can get a deal done soon but it seems like the players are also willing to lose a curling - which is insane considering their share will be reduced regardless in the end.

I wonder how players like chara feel when he isn't getting any younger

I think we'll have hockey by the winter class and a shortened season.

KnightofBoston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:21 PM
  #11
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Love moving Phoenix to Seattle. Wouldn't give up on the idea of reexpanding into Phoenix sometime a couple decades from now when the slate was wiped clean and other regional teams were drawing deeper support. A lot happened in Phoenix to kill that franchise that has little to nothing to do with the fact that it happens to be in the Southwest. Similarly mismanaged teams in "hockey markets" might have done just as poorly at the gate. But right now you need to move the team and wipe the slate.

Besides, name me one passionate rivalry in the current Northwest Division. Even the Battle of Alberta is pretty tepid these days. I bet that the Phoenix team is good enough to create an instant rivalry between Seattle and the Canucks that would be worth something as the years roll by. Any time you have a rivalry between a Canadian team and an American team, that rivalry tends to stick around and help expand the sport.

And Seattle is so bereft of sports rivals right now -- in any sport -- that a strong rivalry with the entitled Canucks fans, and a good chance to knock that overconfident fanbase on its seat a few times a year, might be the best thing you could possibly do to get a sports franchise working in that town.


Last edited by Dojji*: 10-30-2012 at 01:26 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:45 PM
  #12
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Where I expand teams is in places that can not just draw people who like to watch a good sports game, but also can bring a rivalry with an established, relatively successful market.

Creating a rivalry with an established team will help fill the expansion franchise's barn, will draw the interest of casual fans giving them key games to decide to maybe tune into, watch, and fall in love with the sport over, and will give the media of the new market's town a reason to talk about the NHL and hockey. It will create an easily understood narrative for fans to climb aboard to watch, and the passion of a rivalry makes the hockey experience far more intense and visceral, and that's where it does its best work in selling itself. Also in time once the new rival is on its feet, the cross town support becomes mutual, as they try to invade their rival's barn -- you basically wind up with two franchises stronger than the original would have been.

That said, here's where I look at possible markets that would create a strong rivalry right away, and are hockey markets that could support a team in their own right.

Markham: A cross town rivalry within Toronto is probably overdue. If MLSE is willing to countenance it, the market could bear a second TOR franchise fairly well I think. And it would put the Leafs on notice that mediocricy might not be enough to draw fans anymore, and that might be worth something in its own right.

Houston: The Dallas Stars are a rare example of a successful NHL transplant into the Southwest. However, in terms of its prestige in the league, Dallas is kind of there. It has a few local rivalries, but nothing like what would happen if another Texas team entered the scene. Houston always seems to be up for a game against Dallas, so creating that opportunity within the NHL is just another extension of that, and would take advantage of money fans are already spending in other sports.

Seattle: I've gotten into this upthread. Besides Portland, Seattle's only real regional rival as a city is Vancouver. And Vancouver and Seattle currently don't have any common sports venues to act out that rivalry. An NHL franchise in Seattle would be a chance for Seattle fans to actually experience a true full-blooded rivalry with a passionate and powerful fanbase for probably the first time in their sports history. Once they get over the shock and get sick of Canucks fans taking over their barn every rivalry night, I'd bet they're up for the challenge. If they are, and they can build a good roster, that rivalry could go a long, long way to strengthening the NHL's presence in the Northwest.

If I need a fourth team, I go for QC and its obvious rivalry with the Habs. The problem with QC is that the market is tiny, so rivalries aren't as rewarding as otherwise. The purpose of a good rivalry in the other markets is to capture the imaginations of casual sports fans, maintain fan interest during bland seasons, and get the town talking about rivalry games as a way to sell the NHL brand. QC is already sold. I'd expect QC to gate well, but gate is a lot smaller a part of team revenue than fans seem to be convinced it is, and in any other way the QC market is going to come up second-rate at best and with no growth potential. Compare that to what happens if you get Houston or Seattle excited about hockey. Those teams could spend to the cap in a year when the fans turn out in force and if it gets to be a habit they could wind up being considered among the big American markets, much like some of their counterparts are in other sports. That isn't going to happen in QC, the most you'll see there is a team that survives quite nicely, thank you.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:52 PM
  #13
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
I like Kelly alot, but I think expansion is a short-sighted approach, and a repeat of a large reason why the NHL is so unbalanced from a revenue perspective.

The NHL ownership has been quick in the past to line their pockets with expansion dollars. However, they have not thought through the revenue sharing aspect, and the current revenue sharing system is fraught with problems.

At the start of the negotiations, the PA had it right IMO -- that the league needs to fix its revenue sharing problem before addressing what the players were going to lose in percentages.

Expanding to make a quick buck will just push the same problems down the road, but to a larger extend with teams in places like Houston or Seattle.

Ludwig Fell Down is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 02:18 PM
  #14
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
I like Kelly alot, but I think expansion is a short-sighted approach, and a repeat of a large reason why the NHL is so unbalanced from a revenue perspective.

The NHL ownership has been quick in the past to line their pockets with expansion dollars. However, they have not thought through the revenue sharing aspect, and the current revenue sharing system is fraught with problems.

At the start of the negotiations, the PA had it right IMO -- that the league needs to fix its revenue sharing problem before addressing what the players were going to lose in percentages.

Expanding to make a quick buck will just push the same problems down the road, but to a larger extend with teams in places like Houston or Seattle.
I want you to elaborate that last point because I think you're lumping in those two markets with relative failures like Phoenix and I believe that to be blatantly unfair.

Seattle and Houston are established big-city sports markets that have proven in the past to have plenty of disposable sports dollars to spend if the team is good. They more closely resemble Dallas in that respect than they do any of the more infamous American markets. Both towns have a clear ability to field competitive teams in multiple sports. Both would, moreover, have rivalries with existing successful NHL franchises to help stabilize them in ways that Phoenix isn't.

Compare what those two towns tend to do in other sports to what Miami and Phoenix tend to do in the same sports. Miami and Phoenix tend to be midmarket at best, and tend to spend their way into a deep hole then have to spend years digging out of it. T he Diamondbacks and the Marlins both have done that within the last decade -- I believe the Diamondbacks are STILL paying out some deferred money for their rush to the title in 2001 and we all know that whenever the Marlins spend big on a player, that player is not finishing his contract with that team.

Seattle and Houston are more robust by far, easily in the upper middle of revenue in every other league in which they have a team, and if the fans do come out in numbers either has the potential to become a big market and spend to the cap for a few years in a row. And the weaker of those two markets (Seattle) is the one with better ties to hockey, a certain proximity to Canada, and has seen Lord Stanley up close and personal like, even if it was nearly a century ago. If they really settle in they could rival established big NHL markets for talent and financial depth pretty easily.


Last edited by Dojji*: 10-30-2012 at 02:24 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 03:53 PM
  #15
SPB2776
Registered User
 
SPB2776's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
The second the NHLPA replaced Kelly with Fehr, I knew there would be a lockout. Kelly cares about the game. That is only obvious when you hear him speak about it.
He is far too reasonable to be dealing with the NHL

SPB2776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 04:36 PM
  #16
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Besides, name me one passionate rivalry in the current Northwest Division. Even the Battle of Alberta is pretty tepid these days.
Pretty obvious that you've never been out here.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:01 PM
  #17
JOKER 192
Registered User
 
JOKER 192's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Montreal,Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,484
vCash: 500
Im not sure Quebec City can support a team .It's a real small city of only half a million.In the long run I think it woul struggle.

When the Nordiques were around most of thier seats were filled by Montrealers looking for a game.Getting seats in Montreal isn't easy and getting good seats is almost impossible unless you can spend that much for a game.($1000.00).

Then there is one factor that played a big part in all of this is the recovery of the Canadian dollar.That to can change quickly, as things were in the 90's I invisioned even teams like the Canadians having to go down when the dollar was at 65 cents US. Canadian teams were not profitable .Sure they are now but that can change just as quickly as it did in the past.Canada's strong dollar has more to do with the rise of third world econimies and mostly the U.S housing melt down. Betteman isn't all in in Quebec an I can see why .

JOKER 192 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:12 PM
  #18
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Pretty obvious that you've never been out here.
Ya, really, wtf?

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:18 PM
  #19
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Pretty obvious that you've never been out here.
Or seen a game on TV?

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:38 PM
  #20
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
I want you to elaborate that last point because I think you're lumping in those two markets with relative failures like Phoenix and I believe that to be blatantly unfair.

Seattle and Houston are established big-city sports markets that have proven in the past to have plenty of disposable sports dollars to spend if the team is good. They more closely resemble Dallas in that respect than they do any of the more infamous American markets. Both towns have a clear ability to field competitive teams in multiple sports. Both would, moreover, have rivalries with existing successful NHL franchises to help stabilize them in ways that Phoenix isn't.

Compare what those two towns tend to do in other sports to what Miami and Phoenix tend to do in the same sports. Miami and Phoenix tend to be midmarket at best, and tend to spend their way into a deep hole then have to spend years digging out of it. T he Diamondbacks and the Marlins both have done that within the last decade -- I believe the Diamondbacks are STILL paying out some deferred money for their rush to the title in 2001 and we all know that whenever the Marlins spend big on a player, that player is not finishing his contract with that team.

Seattle and Houston are more robust by far, easily in the upper middle of revenue in every other league in which they have a team, and if the fans do come out in numbers either has the potential to become a big market and spend to the cap for a few years in a row. And the weaker of those two markets (Seattle) is the one with better ties to hockey, a certain proximity to Canada, and has seen Lord Stanley up close and personal like, even if it was nearly a century ago. If they really settle in they could rival established big NHL markets for talent and financial depth pretty easily.
Dojji, I have two areas of concern. First, I'm not convinced that either market is viable -- better than Phoenix, sure, but not "successful" as I would define it. You mentioned that these citys have disposable income to spend on sports "when good." With greater expansion, there will be more middling teams, and markets that are only viable if the team is successful, IMO, are not places that I woudl jump to expand do. Could hockey be successful in Seattle and Houston? Sure. But what happens if the owner doesn't have deep pockets and the team is average? There are two more teams that probably will be in the bottom third in revenue. I don't see either Houston or Seattle offering a big TV contract, or other non gate-driven revenue.

Second, to the extent that these could be viable market, I think the league right now has at 4 teams that would benefit by relocation -- Florida, Phoenix and Long Island / Brooklyn and Columbus. Expand by two more teams and that will limit relo possibilites, and I think it is more logical that the league shore up its existing franchises rather than take the quick expansion bucks.

(As an aside, I think Brooklyn would be a great market if they had an arena suited for hockey.)

Ludwig Fell Down is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 12:49 AM
  #21
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
Dojji, I have two areas of concern. First, I'm not convinced that either market is viable -- better than Phoenix, sure, but not "successful" as I would define it. You mentioned that these citys have disposable income to spend on sports "when good." With greater expansion, there will be more middling teams, and markets that are only viable if the team is successful, IMO, are not places that I woudl jump to expand do. Could hockey be successful in Seattle and Houston? Sure. But what happens if the owner doesn't have deep pockets and the team is average? There are two more teams that probably will be in the bottom third in revenue. I don't see either Houston or Seattle offering a big TV contract, or other non gate-driven revenue.

Second, to the extent that these could be viable market, I think the league right now has at 4 teams that would benefit by relocation -- Florida, Phoenix and Long Island / Brooklyn and Columbus. Expand by two more teams and that will limit relo possibilites, and I think it is more logical that the league shore up its existing franchises rather than take the quick expansion bucks.

(As an aside, I think Brooklyn would be a great market if they had an arena suited for hockey.)
With names like Steve Ballmer and the Nordstroms expressing interest, the depth of ownership's pockets is pretty much the last of Seattle's concerns.

Dogberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 01:04 AM
  #22
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
Dojji, I have two areas of concern. First, I'm not convinced that either market is viable -- better than Phoenix, sure, but not "successful" as I would define it. You mentioned that these citys have disposable income to spend on sports "when good." With greater expansion, there will be more middling teams, and markets that are only viable if the team is successful, IMO, are not places that I woudl jump to expand do. Could hockey be successful in Seattle and Houston? Sure. But what happens if the owner doesn't have deep pockets and the team is average? There are two more teams that probably will be in the bottom third in revenue. I don't see either Houston or Seattle offering a big TV contract, or other non gate-driven revenue.

Second, to the extent that these could be viable market, I think the league right now has at 4 teams that would benefit by relocation -- Florida, Phoenix and Long Island / Brooklyn and Columbus. Expand by two more teams and that will limit relo possibilites, and I think it is more logical that the league shore up its existing franchises rather than take the quick expansion bucks.

(As an aside, I think Brooklyn would be a great market if they had an arena suited for hockey.)
With names like Steve Ballmer and the Nordstroms expressing interest, the depth of ownership's pockets is pretty much the last of Seattle's concerns.

Dogberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 01:46 AM
  #23
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
With names like Steve Ballmer and the Nordstroms expressing interest, the depth of ownership's pockets is pretty much the last of Seattle's concerns.

Plus it would be great to see Seattle win the Stanley Cup again after all those years. It would be even better if they did it in 2017 the 100th anniversary.

Orrthebest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 05:09 PM
  #24
bb_fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: boston
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
Yeah, the talent pool these days is much deeper. 4th liners from the 80's would be in the ECHL these days. I think adding two teams would be a complete non-issue in terms of player depth.
If thats the case why do we have consistently crappy teams?

I think the bottom lines have a deep talent pool to... but the top end players... nope.

bb_fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 05:14 PM
  #25
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb_fan View Post
If thats the case why do we have consistently crappy teams?

I think the bottom lines have a deep talent pool to... but the top end players... nope.
Because the consistently crappy teams are run by bozos like Howson, Snow, etc.

Dogberry 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 07:20 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.