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.

The Southeast division franchises, and their futures

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2004, 04:28 PM
  #26
I am Jack's Fish
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to I am Jack's Fish
Move or contract all teams under the NHL financial assistance plan.

I am looking at you, Calgary and Edmonton.

I am Jack's Fish is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 04:52 PM
  #27
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,884
vCash: 500
10485 10391 9879 13245 15377

Anyone care to guess what those numbers are?

If you guessed attendance numbers you're right.

The numbers are from the great hockey hotbed of Ottawa their first 5 seasons in the league.

triggrman is online now  
Old
03-15-2004, 04:55 PM
  #28
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Nice find!

I'm sure the excuses will start to roll in for them though

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 05:02 PM
  #29
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Nice find!

I'm sure the excuses will start to roll in for them though
Yeh, like the ones that say Winnipeg had great atttendance (13K) but Southern teams with the same numbers don't support their teams.

triggrman is online now  
Old
03-15-2004, 06:37 PM
  #30
Superfluous U
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: At a Stone Prison on a Hill
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Fischel
Move or contract all teams under the NHL financial assistance plan.

I am looking at you, Calgary and Edmonton.
You know they need 13k season tickets to qualify for that, right?

Superfluous U is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 07:06 PM
  #31
Swedish Bolt Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win it again
Posts: 1,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Yeh, like the ones that say Winnipeg had great atttendance (13K) but Southern teams with the same numbers don't support their teams.

So typical so typical i am sure the Anti southern team maffia will spin this one as well.

You never hear a pip out of the maffia when real markets have pathetic attendance and you will never hear the end of it that those new markets are garbage they cant sell 20k tickets at facevalue every night

Hiya i saw earlier this year a legit LONGTIME playoff team with long traditions offering buy 1 get 1 free deal it was St Louis Blues earlier this season guess St Louis isnt a good market anymore

Swedish Bolt Fan is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 02:43 AM
  #32
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Why not let them rant about the southern teams? We know the reasons behind most of that bias, and even at the best of times that reasoning is pretty thin. What's the harm in letting them prattle on about it, besides the fact that it is annoying and smacks of that rather bad bias (or dare I even say the "j" word)?

Ever since a team came to Atlanta, I've tried time and again to tell people that this will work if given the time to. 9 out of 10 times I get the same type of reaction, basically telling me that I'm so very wrong. In one ear and out the other. After five years, I'm more than a bit tired of trying to explain this. And I'm sure the Lightning and Panther fans are much more tired than I am. We're screaming into the wind on this one, few if any will hear and see it the way we do.

I could probably go into an aside here, saying that it will probably take about 20 years before hockey becomes fully entrenched in the sports culture in these various southern regions because it has to compete with other major sports that already have a rather large history in that particular area. I could try to explain this in greater detail, but it wouldn't matter much. The perception many people have won't be broken by any reason I can give.

Let them think what they want. I've stated my case ad nauseam, as have so many others, with little effect. I just want to enjoy the game as much as I can, especially now.

cws is offline  
Old
03-19-2004, 02:29 AM
  #33
Spezza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa <-> Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
10485 10391 9879 13245 15377

Anyone care to guess what those numbers are?

If you guessed attendance numbers you're right.

The numbers are from the great hockey hotbed of Ottawa their first 5 seasons in the league.
And what building did they play untill Jan of 1996 ?

Thats right..... the civic centre which held how many people?

Thats right..... 10500

So assuming your figures are accurate:

92-93 (Civic Centre):10485
93-94 (Civic Centre):10391
94-95 (Civic Centre):9879
95-96 (Civic Centre/Corel Centre 50/50ish):13245
96-97 (Corel Centre):15377
97-98 (Corel Centre):16730 (13 sellouts)

Now we can go into the where and the why on the new building, but those are the facts. If you want to make a case for Hockey in the Southeast, thats all fine and well. I have no problem with it, but this particular arguement doesn't carry much weight when you consider the magical factor of the building that a team plays in.

Spezza is offline  
Old
03-19-2004, 04:06 AM
  #34
evman150*
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spezza
And what building did they play untill Jan of 1996 ?

Thats right..... the civic centre which held how many people?

Thats right..... 10500

So assuming your figures are accurate:

92-93 (Civic Centre):10485
93-94 (Civic Centre):10391
94-95 (Civic Centre):9879
95-96 (Civic Centre/Corel Centre 50/50ish):13245
96-97 (Corel Centre):15377
97-98 (Corel Centre):16730 (13 sellouts)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
I'm sure the excuses will start to roll in for them though
OWNED!!!

:p

evman150* is offline  
Old
03-19-2004, 04:43 PM
  #35
Spezza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa <-> Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
OWNED!!!

:p
Presenting the facts is making excuses

Or am I 'Owned' because I didn't quote his post



Last edited by Spezza: 03-19-2004 at 04:50 PM.
Spezza is offline  
Old
03-19-2004, 11:05 PM
  #36
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
He's referring to me not you.

You're lucky I like you evman!

It's a better excuse than I thought it would be, that's for sure.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-19-2004, 11:36 PM
  #37
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41,819
vCash: 500
the southeast division is handicapped by this particular season by having a new team winning the division after a VERY long stretch of being terrible. attendance is increasing but not at the same rate as the teams improvement. one long standing team went into the trash heep and is rebuilding from last place. the other 3 are teams in new locations with a couple of years of playoff qualifying between them.
low budget teams that are losing. They all have good reasons for low attendance.

BUT....
22 Boston - 14,833
23 New Jersey - 14,819
24 Washington - 14,739
25 Phoenix - 14,056
26 Chicago - 13,305
27 NY Islanders - 13,216

an original six team in the hunt for the best record in the conference, the defending cup champs, another original six team, and a NY market team with a history or 5 stanley cups. I understand what washington's problem is. they have been out of it since October. What is Boston, NJ, Chicago and NYI's problem?

txpd is offline  
Old
03-26-2004, 12:09 PM
  #38
kickice
Registered User
 
kickice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, NY
Country: Wales
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kickice
I think part of NJ Devils problem is that they play in a bit of a no-mans land, rather than being a city's team. Also they are very very close to New York City, which can't help, with so many pro teams around the area. And no matter how bad the Rangers are, they still get a lot of fans in the building and have a large fan base of many years standing. Hard for a team like the Devils, located so close to NYC, to cut into that.

Maybe they will build a bigger fan base if/when they move from the Meadowlands?

I have NO IDEA what the issue with Boston is, anyone shed any light? I saw these figures a few weeks ago and I couldn't believe Boston's attendances. An original 6 team doing great this season, I don't get it.

kickice is offline  
Old
03-26-2004, 03:07 PM
  #39
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,884
vCash: 500
The fact still remains you have to give these teams time to grow.

triggrman is online now  
Old
03-26-2004, 03:42 PM
  #40
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickice
I think part of NJ Devils problem is that they play in a bit of a no-mans land, rather than being a city's team. Also they are very very close to New York City, which can't help, with so many pro teams around the area. And no matter how bad the Rangers are, they still get a lot of fans in the building and have a large fan base of many years standing. Hard for a team like the Devils, located so close to NYC, to cut into that.

Maybe they will build a bigger fan base if/when they move from the Meadowlands?

I have NO IDEA what the issue with Boston is, anyone shed any light? I saw these figures a few weeks ago and I couldn't believe Boston's attendances. An original 6 team doing great this season, I don't get it.
New Jersey has a fairly high ticket price, which explains the lower amount of seats. The other issues you've brought up are valid, and do affect the level of interest in a team like New Jersey.

Boston's struggles has a lot do with the relationship between the fans and the owners. Boston has long held the reputation as one of the cheaper teams in the league, and they have pissed off a lot of fans by never taking that final push to be a cup contender. By taking, what appears to be solid fiscal moves on paper, like walking away from RFA decisions (Kristich, Berard), trading superstars that get too expensive (Guerin, Allison), they've developed a reputation as not being committed to winning.

The irony is, most of their moves, they are a more competitive franchise because of it, but that perception of cheapness costs them money. It's a damned if you, damned if you don't scenario for a lot of teams when it comes to these decisions. Pay through the nose to retain your players, or face the wrath of fans who hate to see their favourite players leave.

discostu is offline  
Old
03-26-2004, 04:48 PM
  #41
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
New Jersey has a fairly high ticket price, which explains the lower amount of seats. The other issues you've brought up are valid, and do affect the level of interest in a team like New Jersey.

Boston's struggles has a lot do with the relationship between the fans and the owners. Boston has long held the reputation as one of the cheaper teams in the league, and they have pissed off a lot of fans by never taking that final push to be a cup contender. By taking, what appears to be solid fiscal moves on paper, like walking away from RFA decisions (Kristich, Berard), trading superstars that get too expensive (Guerin, Allison), they've developed a reputation as not being committed to winning.

The irony is, most of their moves, they are a more competitive franchise because of it, but that perception of cheapness costs them money. It's a damned if you, damned if you don't scenario for a lot of teams when it comes to these decisions. Pay through the nose to retain your players, or face the wrath of fans who hate to see their favourite players leave.
Stu doesn't quite have the facts right. It was Washington who let Khristich leave after an arbitration ruling. Boston did not trade Bill Guerin. He left as a UFA.

Boston has a reputation as a cheap team. Which keeps away some fans.

They also have a high ticket price relative to many markets. I imagine their revenue at the gate is larger than several of the teams with higher attendance. So be careful looking at raw attendance figures.

Boston has had a very good scouting staff and been able to produce some very good players in recent history. Their business model is not one of winning hockey games. It is one of maximizing profits. If a player is going to be expensive and unlikely to make up his worth at the gate you let him walk. Doesn't matter if it hurts your product on the ice - just as long as it doesnt hurt the product financially.

Looking at the 3 cost driven moves Boston made that Stu correctly selected. We see that Boston was likely wrong with Berard. He likely is worth the money they refused him. We see that keeping Guerin would have improved the team on the ice, but $9 mill a year is out of line with his value. We see that trading Allison is a major success largely because of his injuries which have kept him out all season so any return is better than a player who doesnt play. And the return included Glen Murray, so they very well may have won the trade outright even if Allison remained healthy.

Boston is recycling players when they get to expensive and drafting well to produce more young talent. The second point differentiates them from a team like the Edmonton Oilers who are merely recycling talent and drafting poorly. Boston shows that you can be a competitive team while maximizing profits. The have exactly the same model for how their franchise should be run as the Edmonton Oilers except they have a larger market and a much more successful scouting staff. Ironically, when Edmonton makes a move recycling players it is a sign that the NHL is financially troubled. But when Boston does the same thing it doesn't
garner the same response.

And further when the New York Rangers do it - its proof positive that you cannot buy a Stanley Cup winning team. You must develop a large portion of it in house.

That is the best thing about hockey under the current CBA. Being rich does not guarantee a good team.

CH is offline  
Old
03-26-2004, 05:06 PM
  #42
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
What teams are doing well, and then ask why they are doing well, I think that will explain a lot.

The teams with the deepest roots in the league (Toronto, Detroit, etc) are probably doing well. Big suprise they are also contenders. Take out that and why are they doing well? What are the reasons that other teams are drawing attendance or ratings?

The league as a whole is seeing a plummet in standings and ratings, so it's easy to look at the bottom feeders and point at them, but it's a league wide problem.

No clue what can turn around the league, because I have no clue what they are willing to do, or if they have correctly identified the problems.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-26-2004, 07:03 PM
  #43
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Stu doesn't quite have the facts right. It was Washington who let Khristich leave after an arbitration ruling. Boston did not trade Bill Guerin. He left as a UFA.
You might want to check your facts......Without question Boston let Khristich walk after he won his arbitration.....

Mothra is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 12:28 AM
  #44
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,097
vCash: 500
Here is the problem with the we should contract teams and the Predators should move to Winnipeg or the Thrashers would do better in Halifax or the Panthers would draw more fans in Yellowknife type of mentality. The only argument for the elimination of southern teams is attendance. Other factors should be taken into consideration. Luxury suite sales is number one. Pepsi, Coca cola, Tyson foods, Wal-Mart, FedEx, Jack Daniels, Gaylord Entertainment, and several other multibillion dollar corporations are headquartered in the South. Spending $250,000 to a couple million on luxury suites is not a big deal to these companies. Those suites are not used some nights which lowers attendance numbers. Also attendance is not always a reflection of tickets sold. If the Predators sell 16000 tickets to a game and only 13000 people show up then everyone says we aren't supporting the team, but yet the Preds don't give the 3000 fans that did not show up their money back either. Plus look at the population of the southern cities and the growth rate for the last 20 years as opposed to other parts of the country. What's better to have 100,000 fans in a city of 150,000 with a low or negative growth rate, of to have 30,000 fans in a city of 1.5 million and growing each day. The potential of having 300,000 fans in 20 years is huge. The south is a market with a huge upside if given time. Plus with this becoming a more global game when there was only 20 teams or so and all of the players came from North America. Now there are thirty teams with player from all over the world. If contraction was to happen who is going to lose their job first? A Canadian tough guy or a skilled Russian winger. The talent pool is larger therefore more teams are need to fill rosters. Plus it was asinine to have 16 teams in the playoffs with 21 teams in the league. It cheapens the league to have teams with losing records in the Playoffs.


Last edited by Gnashville: 03-27-2004 at 01:05 AM.
Gnashville is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 09:40 AM
  #45
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
And further when the New York Rangers do it - its proof positive that you cannot buy a Stanley Cup winning team. You must develop a large portion of it in house.
The Rangers losing isn't proof of that, it's one isolated case. The same way that you can't say that the Red Wings success proves you can always buy success.

Pure incompentence always beats out a large budget.

As for the other points, someone else already pointed out that Boston did indeed let Kristich walk. It's my mistake on Guerin, I should have pointed out it was UFA, but it's also worth noting that Boston made no attempt to sign Guerin, even though he did indicate he was willing to take less than his worth on the open market.

But the original point remains, these moves, while being smart hockey decisions, and improving the team in many ways, still pissed off a lot of fans, and it has comes at a price. Not retaining a star player because he's too expensive can come to a great expense to a team in terms of public relations.

discostu is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 10:40 AM
  #46
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
The Rangers losing isn't proof of that, it's one isolated case. The same way that you can't say that the Red Wings success proves you can always buy success.
The only way to have success in this CBA is to produce a good young core either by draft or trade. You cannot buy it.

I think all the teams in the NHL over the last several years have proven this.

Detroit produced a core before they bought players. The Rangers and Washington missed that step.

CH is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 11:01 AM
  #47
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Attendance figures are over-rated. Some teams give away thousands of tickets, I've read. The big issue is corporate and government support. Luxury suites, advertising. Tax breaks. These are the things that turn teams on. Average-Joe fan support is important, but I don't believe it's the most important factor.

ceber is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 11:03 AM
  #48
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
The only way to have success in this CBA is to produce a good young core either by draft or trade. You cannot buy it.

I think all the teams in the NHL over the last several years have proven this.

Detroit produced a core before they bought players. The Rangers and Washington missed that step.
I could also say that all the teams that have won the cup have done so by spending significantly above the league average. With the same logic employed, I can make the statement that the only way to win the cup is to spend money.

You can't look at it in isolation. To win, you must draft well, and you must be able to spend to supplement your team when you need to. Good drafting, strong player development, solid coaching, and plus the ability to support a higher payroll in your competitive years are all necessary ingredients to winning.

discostu is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 12:12 PM
  #49
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
I could also say that all the teams that have won the cup have done so by spending significantly above the league average. With the same logic employed, I can make the statement that the only way to win the cup is to spend money.

You can't look at it in isolation. To win, you must draft well, and you must be able to spend to supplement your team when you need to. Good drafting, strong player development, solid coaching, and plus the ability to support a higher payroll in your competitive years are all necessary ingredients to winning.

Good players cost money to keep. But the point that you keep missing is that in order to build a winning team in the NHL you have to develop a large portion of those players in house. If you go out and buy the best available usually old players that money can buy you will not win the cup. You cannot get a good enough team that way under the current CBA

CH is offline  
Old
03-27-2004, 12:25 PM
  #50
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Good players cost money to keep. But the point that you keep missing is that in order to build a winning team in the NHL you have to develop a large portion of those players in house. If you go out and buy the best available usually old players that money can buy you will not win the cup. You cannot get a good enough team that way under the current CBA
I'm the one missing the point? I'm not the one claiming that winning is based on one single aspect. My post was pretty short, so it shouldn't be too hard to re-read. I said winning is a combination of factors, including drafting, player development and coaching, which are all neccesary to building a core within. In addition, a team also must have the financial resources to supplement that core to take their team that next step.

discostu 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 04:39 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.