HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Which teams have the most to lose from a lockout next year ?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2003, 07:57 PM
  #1
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Which teams have the most to lose from a lockout next year ?

In the event of a work stoppage next year, which teams have the most - and least - to lose, purely in terms of hockey success ?

These are just random thoughts, not a rigorous analysis of each team.

Detroit will lose out. Hull, Chelios and Hasek will probably retire. If play resumes for the 2005-2006 season, Yzerman will be 40 and Shanahan 36. Meanwhile, Lidstrom has talked about returning to Sweden. 2004 might be their last chance for a four-peat.

Philadelphia is going to lose out on some of their older players' last productive (?) years, in the cases of Desjardins, Leclair, Roenick and Primeau. Those players have histories of injuries, and will be considerably less effective in two years time. The Flyers have lots going for them because of Clarke's solid asset management but a lockout would probably chop off a few vets from the top of the payroll.

Vancouver will see Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ohlund, Jovanovski and Morrison's prime years go to waste, as well as crucial development years for Henrik and Daniel Sedin.

At the other end, I think Montréal will come out OK. The Canadiens have a shocking dearth of hockey-playing talent, and missing out on the 2004-2005 season would probably just save them another embarassing season. Meanwhile though, their potential gamebreakers like Higgins and Kastitsyn could pursue their development in other leagues, almost unaffected. By the time play resumes, a good chunk of Montréal's current garbage would have been cleared out, and the likes of Higgins, Kastitsyn and Perezhogin would be ready to make their entry.

Kirk Muller* is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 08:06 PM
  #2
X8oD
Registered User
 
X8oD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 612 Warf Ave.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,195
vCash: 500
Detroit isnt losing out on anything. Lock out or not, Hasek, Chelios, yzerman and Hull will not be a wing next year.

Lidstrom has said he would be going to sweden after every contract. The lock out would likely make that a reality this time. But more power to him, its not like he hasnt been worth the years he played here.

shanahan, bah, lower salary or he can go.

all or nothing this year. I guess you can say its this way because of a lock out..... But you could also say, if there was no lock out, last year was probably It. They are here one more year because they know this is it in the NHL as we know it.

X8oD is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 08:14 PM
  #3
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Whether we like it or not the teams losing out most if a season is lost to a lockout are the teams turning a profit under the current CBA.That would be the POV of those that vote on whether there is a lockout or not.In reality it is only their opinions that count.And of course their votes.

leaflover is offline  
Old
11-14-2003, 08:18 PM
  #4
topshelf331
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stl
Country: United States
Posts: 2,199
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to topshelf331 Send a message via Yahoo to topshelf331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
In the event of a work stoppage next year, which teams have the most - and least - to lose, purely in terms of hockey success ?

These are just random thoughts, not a rigorous analysis of each team.

Detroit will lose out. Hull, Chelios and Hasek will probably retire. If play resumes for the 2005-2006 season, Yzerman will be 40 and Shanahan 36. Meanwhile, Lidstrom has talked about returning to Sweden. 2004 might be their last chance for a four-peat.
I agree, but i bet one or more will return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller

Vancouver will see Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ohlund, Jovanovski and Morrison's prime years go to waste, as well as crucial development years for Henrik and Daniel Sedin.
They are still young enough to still be well into their prime when play resumes. Although i agree 1 season would dent their career potential. Especially the way scoring is down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
At the other end, I think Montréal will come out OK. The Canadiens have a shocking dearth of hockey-playing talent, and missing out on the 2004-2005 season would probably just save them another embarassing season. Meanwhile though, their potential gamebreakers like Higgins and Kastitsyn could pursue their development in other leagues, almost unaffected. By the time play resumes, a good chunk of Montréal's current garbage would have been cleared out, and the likes of Higgins, Kastitsyn and Perezhogin would be ready to make their entry.
It could also hurt their developemental years also.

Other teams that may be seriously affected, are those with financial limitations. Like pittsburgh and nashville. Maybe ottawa and buffalo. But im not sure how they are sitting now that they have new owners.

And teams that are young with a limited fan base.

Teams like Philly and detroit that lose a few old timers will be secure becasue of their fan base and large market. They might have a bad year or 2. But they have good prospects just like any team, and the market to replenish through free agency.

topshelf331 is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 04:35 AM
  #5
LaVal
Registered User
 
LaVal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
Vancouver will see Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ohlund, Jovanovski and Morrison's prime years go to waste, as well as crucial development years for Henrik and Daniel Sedin.
not to mention we could potentially lose Naslund forever after the lockout (bolting to Sweden)

LaVal is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 08:39 AM
  #6
Impossibles
Registered User
 
Impossibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Langley, BC
Country: British Antarctic Territory
Posts: 6,446
vCash: 500
Don't forget Nashville and Florida

Fans there might forget what Hockey is all together and then NOBODY would go to their games.

Impossibles is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 08:43 AM
  #7
King of Kelvington
Registered User
 
King of Kelvington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,157
vCash: 500
**** the players and owners.........the fans lose out, plan and simple. :mad:

King of Kelvington is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 10:04 AM
  #8
Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Toronto's team isn't that young either and thus could be in the same boat as Philly and Detroit with players like Roberts, Nieuwendyk and Belfour

Kevin Forbes is online now  
Old
11-15-2003, 10:27 AM
  #9
Rand
Registered User
 
Rand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
I'd say that Toronto and Philladelphia both stand to lose tremendously, both have a number of their best players within the last few years of their career... when your getting into ages 37+ there is no telling when their skills may begin to degrade drastically.

Philly has a few talented younger players, but most are still a few years away from their potential.

Every additional year hurts Detroit significantly, but I'm betting their bound to lose at least a few of their top players after this year regardless of a lockout.

__________________
Welcome to Leafs Nation, leave your common sense at the door.
Rand is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 10:32 AM
  #10
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Me thinks with the retirement of all the geezers in Toronto, we may have a shot at Mr. Crosby in 2005. Not sure how the lottery process works, but this team'll be pretty weak.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 10:33 AM
  #11
thestonedkoala
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
If you think Minnesota stumbled out of the gate this year, wait until after the lockout. They will look like what they did in year 1.

 
Old
11-15-2003, 10:37 AM
  #12
Mack
Registered User
 
Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,586
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mack
Detroit.

but its not any team or owner or coach that will suffer the most. it will be the fans

Mack is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:01 AM
  #13
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go pierre hedin
Me thinks with the retirement of all the geezers in Toronto, we may have a shot at Mr. Crosby in 2005. Not sure how the lottery process works, but this team'll be pretty weak.
That's an interesting thought. Even if play continues though, I don't think the Leafs would be that bad in 2005 if Belfour stays and Sundin, Mogilny keep playing. In any case, 2005-2006 could be pretty bad.

Kirk Muller* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:05 AM
  #14
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Mogilny's contract is up after this season, but it doesn't look like he'll be heading back to Europe. I think he'll go back to California where he lives... not sure if he'll ever return to Russia.

Belfour will probably retire, Nieuwendyk and Roberts as well.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:11 AM
  #15
Mack
Registered User
 
Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,586
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mack
Quote:
Originally Posted by go pierre hedin
Mogilny's contract is up after this season, but it doesn't look like he'll be heading back to Europe. I think he'll go back to California where he lives... not sure if he'll ever return to Russia.

Belfour will probably retire, and Roberts as well.

Lets say it is for the whole season

Gone:
Mogilny
Roberts
Renberg (took him forever to even play this year)
Reichle
Berg
Tucker (I think is finally going to be traded)
Belfour
Nieuwendyk (possibly)
Marchment (id keep him)

ouch....
defense gets better thou imo.
add Carlo, Pierre, Ian

Kaberle, McCabe
Carlo, Klee
Pierre, Marchment

Mack is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:15 AM
  #16
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,547
vCash: 500
So far all I have seen is the comments on the most to lose in terms of losing players.
If there is an extended lockout, the following teams will lose a lot.

1. Any NHL team that makes a good profit. Detroit, Colorado will lose all those profits and will have to pay rent and so forth with no games. so they go from profit to loss.

2. Any NHL team that needs to play games in order to meet its obligations. These teams might be lost if the lockout is long enough.

The teams that have nothing to lose or more accurately less to lose are the half or more of the teams in the NHL that will actually lose less money by cancelling the season and paying their arena rents and payments to the bank and such than they would if they played the season. These teams are financially solid enough to meet their obligations without revenue for the foreseeable future and have no desire to play another hockey game until business is conducted in a way in which they can at least break even. There are enough of those teams to control the process.

txpd is online now  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:15 AM
  #17
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go pierre hedin
Mogilny's contract is up after this season, but it doesn't look like he'll be heading back to Europe. I think he'll go back to California where he lives... not sure if he'll ever return to Russia.

Belfour will probably retire, Nieuwendyk and Roberts as well.
OK, so that places the Leafs in the same position as the Red Wings, as described by X8oD. A work stoppage could save the Leafs from a very poor season, but at the same time, I don't think this would be reflected in the draft order. So the Leafs could end up drafting in 2005 in the same spot as they will in 2004 (~20th), whereas they would be drafting in the bottom 10 if the season was played out. Two ways to look at it I guess.

Kirk Muller* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:15 AM
  #18
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
This team's going to feel the hurt from all those years of crappy drafting real soon.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:16 AM
  #19
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
OK, so that places the Leafs in the same position as the Red Wings, as described by X8oD. A work stoppage could save the Leafs from a very poor season, but at the same time, I don't think this would be reflected in the draft order. So the Leafs could end up drafting in 2005 in the same spot as they will in 2004 (~20th), whereas they would be drafting in the bottom 10 if the season was played out. Two ways to look at it I guess.
That would mean that whoever gets the #1 pick in 2004 gets the #1 pick in 2005... which doesn't make any sense.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:22 AM
  #20
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
So far all I have seen is the comments on the most to lose in terms of losing players.
That's because my question was "which teams have the most - and least - to lose, purely in terms of hockey success ?

The points you bring up are interesting as well.

Kirk Muller* is offline  
Old
11-15-2003, 11:24 AM
  #21
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go pierre hedin
That would mean that whoever gets the #1 pick in 2004 gets the #1 pick in 2005... which doesn't make any sense.
Not necessarily, but I do think the order in 2005 will be weighted in some measure on that in 2004, or at least on the final standings of 2004, in which case teams that expect a big drop off in 2004-2005 would probably lose out at the draft.

Kirk Muller* 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 09:09 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.