how do you know when its spring?

cause the leafs are out

pa rum pum!

dont lie, i know you're in stitches over that one.
- Dozzer

Ok here is the counter one. When do you know it's the end of spring?

When you have a riot in Vancouver

Boom there goes the dynamite

I'm not sure what they're counting as "an NHL player", but there were over 1000 players on NHL rosters last year.
- prock

ok, yeah, however only 690 x 82 = 56,580 man games are available is what i meant.

Interesting. What are you listening to? Fan 590? What show?

The business side of things fascinates me.
- prock

FAN590, yesterday, just after 9 am.

You can listen to it if you would like:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/jeff_blair_show/

ok, yeah, however only 690 x 82 = 56,580 man games are available is what i meant.
- Dozzer

Yeah. I assumed when people were asking about what % of players have signed in Europe, they meant of the full number.

Semantics anyway. It's a small % that make their way across to Europe, be it 10% or 15%.

FAN590, yesterday, just after 9 am.

You can listen to it if you would like:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/jeff_blair_show/
- Atomic Wedgie

I might do that later. Sounds like an interesting segment.

Look what I just found on the innerwebs!



Ha ha ha - check it out!

It's a picture of a guy wearing a funny suit, and someone has photoshopped a Leafs logo on it!

Bwa ha ha ha ha, what a sick, sick burn!

Have you ever seen this before? It's awesome!

Take that, Leafs fans!
- Atomic Wedgie

Now this is original..NOT

- Atomic Wedgie

I always knew that Scooby-Doo was a Leafs fan!

TSN is reporting that today's talks wrapped up with no progress made. Surprise, surprise.

Maybe not watered down but defiantly not rich in the talent pool. I agree with the fact that Europeans have changed the game and made it better than it ever was thanks to pioneers of the sport and US hockey has consistently improved and made the Canada US rivalry so much better. Training in every league is better. Can you argue that this league wouldn't be better if it had 3 or 4 teams less that consistently lose money every year and don't draw a fan base? Watered down is a bad way to put it but a teams that lose money don't make for a better league when they have to be supported by others and give a lot of players jobs who arguably shouldn't be in the NHL. This lockout is not just about money and has to be a turning point in the NHL. This league has to evolve for a better future for fans, players and owners alike.
- thundachunk

I can easily argue that.

Sorry, my friend, but I can whip your arse arguing that.

The Leafs are the most successful franchise on the ledger, yet they are the only team in the entire league that didn't make the playoffs since the last lockout.

The Phoenix Coyotes are an embarrassment on the business side, yet they are an excellent on ice product, who have made the playoffs the last few years.

The New Jersey Devils are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, yet they made it to the Stanley Cup finals last year.

The TV ratings for the LA Kings are consistently lower than for infomercials (I am not making that up), yet they won the Stanley Cup last year.

The Florida Panthers will give anyone with a valid Florida State i.d. (driver's license, etc.), yet they made the playoffs last year.

TSN is reporting that today's talks wrapped up with no progress made. Surprise, surprise.
- Aliaksandrhn

Cue the cancellation announcement of the first two weeks of the regular season in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

I can easily argue that.

Sorry, my friend, but I can whip your arse arguing that.

The Leafs are the most successful franchise on the ledger, yet they are the only team in the entire league that didn't make the playoffs since the last lockout.

The Phoenix Coyotes are an embarrassment on the business side, yet they are an excellent on ice product, who have made the playoffs the last few years.

The New Jersey Devils are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, yet they made it to the Stanley Cup finals last year.

The TV ratings for the LA Kings are consistently lower than for infomercials (I am not making that up), yet they won the Stanley Cup last year.

The Florida Panthers will give anyone with a valid Florida State i.d. (driver's license, etc.), yet they made the playoffs last year.
- Atomic Wedgie

Interesting points, but what are you saying?

Interesting points, but what are you saying?
- braidan

That the notion that the league would be better off if it folded 3-4 teams isn't a good one.

That financial troubles of NHL franchises have no effect on on-ice performance, or the overall quality of the NHL product.

That fans have to quit worrying that the Coyotes are a mess; each team will still play 82 games, and if you are a Leafs or Habs fan, you will end up feeling crushing disappointment.

Interesting points, but what are you saying?
- braidan

I think you’re most likely being sarcastic, but it’s true, the on-ice product that the NHL puts out there these days is a very good product. It has it’s problems obviously (diving seems to be making it’s way in too much, fighting and rough play has become a side show part of the game, instead of an actual part of play, etc), but the actual game today is a much better game than it was 20 years ago. People say it’s watered down…. I don’t think the talent level has ever been so high.

That the notion that the league would be better off if it folded 3-4 teams isn't a good one.

That financial troubles of NHL franchises have no effect on on-ice performance, or the overall quality of the NHL product.

That fans have to quit worrying that the Coyotes are a mess; each team will still play 82 games, and if you are a Leafs or Habs fan, you will end up feeling crushing disappointment.
- Atomic Wedgie

Look at the ledger sheet and not the scoresheet.
If there were fewer teams losing money than maybe the CBA stays as is for a few more years.
One of the sticking points is revenue sharing and who should pay for it, what if...you didn't have to share revenue because most if not all teams were healthy.
Some of the teams you pointed out have a good on ice product because OTHER teams are paying for it, hence the problem.

I think you’re most likely being sarcastic, but it’s true, the on-ice product that the NHL puts out there these days is a very good product. It has it’s problems obviously (diving seems to be making it’s way in too much, fighting and rough play has become a side show part of the game, instead of an actual part of play, etc), but the actual game today is a much better game than it was 20 years ago. People say it’s watered down…. I don’t think the talent level has ever been so high.
- prock

The on ice product is fine, but the bottom line is not.

That the notion that the league would be better off if it folded 3-4 teams isn't a good one.

That financial troubles of NHL franchises have no effect on on-ice performance, or the overall quality of the NHL product.

That fans have to quit worrying that the Coyotes are a mess; each team will still play 82 games, and if you are a Leafs or Habs fan, you will end up feeling crushing disappointment.
- Atomic Wedgie

If they move, they move. Is it for the good of the league??? I don’t know. Hard to say for me. I think, done right, it can potentially survive there. But the idea has been executed miserably. Either way, whether they’re losing money or making money (particulary in a salary capped NHL), It’s not stopping them from putting together decent, entertaining teams.

The on ice product is fine, but the bottom line is not.
- braidan

Yeah. And that’s for owners and the NHLPA to sort out. Which is what they’re trying to do.

It’s not that it can’t be fine, financially, as well. It’s that it isn’t under the current agreements.

Look at the ledger sheet and not the scoresheet.
If there were fewer teams losing money than maybe the CBA stays as is for a few more years.
One of the sticking points is revenue sharing and who should pay for it, what if...you didn't have to share revenue because most if not all teams were healthy.
Some of the teams you pointed out have a good on ice product because OTHER teams are paying for it, hence the problem.
- braidan

Okay. So cut out a few teams, or move them from Phoenix to Hamilton, make them all profitable, and everything is great, right?

Don’t be so sure. I don’t think that’s great for either side, for many reasons.

NHL & NHLPA are destroying hockey. So, everytime cba expired, there will be lockout?

Why I support replacement player.

As a hockey fan from VA we are a right to work state.

If the owners lowered ticket price it will be easier to go see the CAPS

Every year players come and go in the NHL and no one cares. So what, in 5 years how many of the 700 plus players will still be in the NHL. They say their protecting the future players. I don’t buy it one bit. If they don’t want to play in the NHL let them stay in the KHL or whatever they want to play. Just stay there and don’t come back.

They need to stop the cap floor, that’s what’s killing the NHL. The cap goes up and so does the floor. You will see a lot of player crying like OV, but in the long run. He is just a player who makes tons of money, and is crying poor me.

Ask Chris Bourque if he would cross the line. He is dying to play in the NHL, and there’s a lot of other player dying to get their shot. Since when do players think they are owed the right to play in the NHL?

A union is to help common people in the work place. NHL players aren’t common people. If the NHLPA thinks they are all powerful. Let the replacement players come in and in a few years. OV, and most of the 700 plus players will be long forgotten.

So bring on the replacement player and let play some hockey. Just lower the price of the tickets and people will show up. The NHL will drop a few pegs and in a few years. They will be right back to where they were.

Bring up the whole Hershey Bears team. That is where the future lays anyways. We can call the 700 plus players “the lost generation of cry baby players”.

I worked hard to get where I am, and the owners of my company can take it away just like that. Its call lay off.

I got it, the NHL can just lay off all 700 plus player. Then hire new ones. That it

Attention, Attention.
THE NHL JUST LAYED OFF ALL 700 PLUS CRY BABY PLAYERS
The NHL teams are having full tryouts.
Do you have GAME! Come check out the NEW NHL.
P.S. I don’t like bettman, he’s a worm at best.

Okay. So cut out a few teams, or move them from Phoenix to Hamilton, make them all profitable, and everything is great, right?

Don’t be so sure. I don’t think that’s great for either side, for many reasons.
- prock

There are teams which have positive revenues and help to increase league revenues, but yet they have losses so there revenue isn't enough.
If the cap floor is still too high for them what else can be done?
Maybe the team needs to be moved.
What if at 50-50 these teams still lose money? should teams give 50% to the players and 5% to other teams? Would you like to pay so your competition can bid against you for assets?

Look at the ledger sheet and not the scoresheet.
If there were fewer teams losing money than maybe the CBA stays as is for a few more years.
One of the sticking points is revenue sharing and who should pay for it, what if...you didn't have to share revenue because most if not all teams were healthy.
Some of the teams you pointed out have a good on ice product because OTHER teams are paying for it, hence the problem.
- braidan

Why do fans need to look at the ledger sheet at all?

As I have indicated above, it makes absolutely no difference to the on-ice product.

I don't care if the Panthers or Blue Jackets or Coyotes are losing money hand over fist - that's the owners' problem, not mine.

I only care about hockey. And the product right now is great.

You may want to argue that without the financially-strapped franchises, we wouldn't be in a lockout, but I'd argue that the NFL has buckets of cash, and they still have labour woes from time to time.

and the nhl goes kablooie
- numbear

There are teams which have positive revenues and help to increase league revenues, but yet they have losses so there revenue isn't enough.
If the cap floor is still too high for them what else can be done?
Maybe the team needs to be moved.
What if at 50-50 these teams still lose money? should teams give 50% to the players and 5% to other teams? Would you like to pay so your competition can bid against you for assets?
- braidan

No one WANTS to pay other franchises. But these aren’t your 30 normal business entities. We’re not even talking your normal 30 franchises. The success of each and every franchise is somewhat tied to the success of the other 29. And MUCH moreso than any other franchise set up. And when each franchise is making their portion of gate revenue, keep in mind, there is a team on the other side of the ice partly responsible for that. Teams that are paying out revenue sharing would never agreed to it, if it weren’t in the best interests of the league, and at least partly responsible for making the volume of money that they’re dealing with twice as much as they were 10 years ago.

Okay. So cut out a few teams, or move them from Phoenix to Hamilton, make them all profitable, and everything is great, right?

Don’t be so sure. I don’t think that’s great for either side, for many reasons.
- prock

I've often wondered if moving a team to Hamilton or London would be in the best interests of the game of hockey.

Put a team in London, it would probably hurt 4-5 OHL franchises.