You can figure anything you want about me. That's really a silly and irrelevant statement. I'm not surprised that your moving towards making this personal. I'll stick to the relevant subject.

Just because a product is a great product, doesn't mean it's automatically going to sell. There has to be a market for that product in the area that it's being offered in. Take a good team like Phoenix and put them in a top Hockey city. What do you think would happen? You could put the best team in the League in Phoenix. Doesn't mean it will take off and be a successful franchise. I'm puzzled in how I have to explain the simplest of things.
- MJL

So, now it is the CITY (market) that makes the team successful.

Wait a minute, I thought you said it was the players?

We're both puzzled now then because I am puzzled how you expect to make a point when you unwittingly provide your own arguements against it.

The world would be a much better place if you were a criminal defense attorney, although we would need more jails

... off to bed. You have a good night.

So, now it is the CITY (market) that makes the team successful.

Wait a minute, I thought you said it was the players?

We're both puzzled now then because I am puzzled how you expect to make a point when you unwittingly provide your own arguements against it.

The world would be a much better place if you were a criminal defense attorney, although we would need more jails

... off to bed. You have a good night.
- Aetherial

No, your inaccurate. This is just your spin on what was said. Again more personal comments. I have no need to go there.

Here's an example that illustrates my point. I could make the best Snow tire on the market. But how good is my business going to do if I open up a store to sell those tires in Miami Fla. Not very good. Does that mean I don't have a good product? Now close that store and open one up in a Northern climate in Canada. Chances are my business will do much better. Like I said, take that good Phoenix team and put them in a good Hockey City that will support it.

Either way, customer aren't going to come in because I built a real nice store or pay the bills of the business. They'll be coming in due to being interested in the product.

Again I'd be more then happy to discuss and clarify any point I've made.

You have a good night also.

Your vagina's must be sore from all this.

phoenix is one of the biggest cities in north america. i dont see why hockey cant grow there.

phoenix is one of the biggest cities in north america. i dont see why hockey cant grow there.
- joshs

Retirement communities usually prefer bingo over most things. Bettman's grandmother can't support an NHL team alone.

OK, granted, that was a bit of a defensive lapse. But that unicorn is definitely teaching the younger kids something. It might even be suggesting a recipe for protein shakes.
- Aetherial

He's a pylon

Don't kid yourself. Both the League and the NHLPA know that the fans are going no where. As soon as Hockey starts, they'll be right back as a whole. That's part of the issue. They don't fear backlash from the fans. Any talk of fans walking away is just emotions of the moment. When it starts back, true love of the game brings them right back. And all is forgotten.
- MJL

Meh, i'm at pretty much the same point as I was with MLB when they cancelled the season......and I loved baseball. There are much bigger, better, and more important things in life than sports..... When I do crave sports, there are other options.

I'm actually looking to ditch my hockey tickets and pick up football tickets. Steeper ticket price but far fewer games to attend.

More evidence that ESPN doesn't know jack sh!t when it comes to hockey...

Here is Greenberg's Top 25 Under 25 (ESPN Insider), with No. 1 Mr. Toews repeating in that spot:

1. C Jonathan Toews, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
2. C Steven Stamkos, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
3. C Logan Couture, San Jose Sharks, 23
4. C Jordan Staal, Carolina Hurricanes, 24
5. C John Tavares, New York Islanders, 22
6. RW Patrick Kane, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
7. LW Taylor Hall, Edmonton Oilers, 21
8. D Drew Doughty, Los Angeles Kings,
9. D Erik Karlsson, Ottawa Senators, 22
10. LW Brad Marchand, Boston Bruins, 24
11. D Alex Pietrangelo, St. Louis Blues, 23
12. C Tyler Seguin, Boston Bruins, 21
13. LW Jamie Benn, Dallas Stars, 23
14. LW David Perron, St. Louis Blues, 24
15. RW Jeff Skinner, Carolina Hurricanes, 20
16. D Victor Hedman, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
17. LW Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins, 24
18. C Sam Gagner, Edmonton Oilers, 23
19. C Evander Kane, Winnipeg Jets, 21
20. D Kevin Shattenkirk, St. Louis Blues, 24
21. C Jordan Eberle, Edmonton Oilers, 22
22. C Patrik Berglund, St. Louis Blues, 24
23. G Semyon Varlamov, Colorado Avalanche, 24
24. D Tyler Myers, Buffalo Sabres, 22
25. LW Wayne Simmonds, Philadelphia Flyers, 24

- Stamkos isn't #1?
- Couture at #3?
- J. Staal at #4?
- Marchand cracks the top 10?
- Gagner ranked higher than Eberle?
- Eberle at #21?
- Varlamov is on this list?

No: Landeskog / Henrique / Nugent-Hopkins / Pacioretty / Hodgson / Ekman-Larsson / Backstrom / Duchene / NO GIROUX!?!?!?

As I was saying last week, ESPN is a (frank)in' joke when it comes to hockey!

Case closed.
- As_I_See_It

No McDonagh either lol.

Maybe this lockout will go on forever and we'll never get to know how good Hodgson could have been.........

phoenix is one of the biggest cities in north america. i dont see why hockey cant grow there.
- joshs

Limited ice rinks for kids to skate and snow/ice is the last thing on peoples mind.

No McDonagh either lol.
- Moshe52792

No Jordan eberle he's as good or better then half of them

No Jordan eberle he's as good or better then half of them
- Snagglepuss

Look again guy

Start hiring replacements that will get an offer.

More evidence that ESPN doesn't know jack sh!t when it comes to hockey...

Here is Greenberg's Top 25 Under 25 (ESPN Insider), with No. 1 Mr. Toews repeating in that spot:

1. C Jonathan Toews, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
2. C Steven Stamkos, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
3. C Logan Couture, San Jose Sharks, 23
4. C Jordan Staal, Carolina Hurricanes, 24
5. C John Tavares, New York Islanders, 22
6. RW Patrick Kane, Chicago Blackhawks, 24
7. LW Taylor Hall, Edmonton Oilers, 21
8. D Drew Doughty, Los Angeles Kings,
9. D Erik Karlsson, Ottawa Senators, 22
10. LW Brad Marchand, Boston Bruins, 24
11. D Alex Pietrangelo, St. Louis Blues, 23
12. C Tyler Seguin, Boston Bruins, 21
13. LW Jamie Benn, Dallas Stars, 23
14. LW David Perron, St. Louis Blues, 24
15. RW Jeff Skinner, Carolina Hurricanes, 20
16. D Victor Hedman, Tampa Bay Lightning, 22
17. LW Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins, 24
18. C Sam Gagner, Edmonton Oilers, 23
19. C Evander Kane, Winnipeg Jets, 21
20. D Kevin Shattenkirk, St. Louis Blues, 24
21. C Jordan Eberle, Edmonton Oilers, 22
22. C Patrik Berglund, St. Louis Blues, 24
23. G Semyon Varlamov, Colorado Avalanche, 24
24. D Tyler Myers, Buffalo Sabres, 22
25. LW Wayne Simmonds, Philadelphia Flyers, 24

- Stamkos isn't #1?
- Couture at #3?
- J. Staal at #4?
- Marchand cracks the top 10?
- Gagner ranked higher than Eberle?
- Eberle at #21?
- Varlamov is on this list?

No: Landeskog / Henrique / Nugent-Hopkins / Pacioretty / Hodgson / Ekman-Larsson / Backstrom / Duchene / NO GIROUX!?!?!?

As I was saying last week, ESPN is a (frank)in' joke when it comes to hockey!

Case closed.
- As_I_See_It

This list is very amusing, but what's more amusing is that you're paying money to read it on espn.com. If you hadn't paid any money you would have seen Toews at #1 and Stamkos at #2, realized the whole article would be bullsh!t and moved on.

The players do have a good deal. I don't know anyone who thinks they don't. But they are getting paid due to the unique skill set they have. The players as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for bad business decisions made by the Owners in who they choose to sign to a contract and for how much.

It's not a normal employer/employee relationship.
- MJL

Agreed, I don't believe anyone thinks the NHL should take the brunt of the bad decisions that owners make. I do believe once again that owners in some markets are forced to make these bad decisions to better their teams. The fact remains that we really have a league of 10/10/10. 10 make money 10 don't and 10 sometimes can make money. Neither the owners or players want to play in a 20 team league. The players don't want that because 33% of their jobs would be gone. The league doesn't want that because 20 teams that are either iffy or lose money actually are a contributing factor to big TV contracts that NBC provides. The players need to come to a point where they start talking the same numbers and principles that the expired CBA framework provides. They clearly are the ones who have not negotiated in good faith during this whole process. Is it unreasonable for the players to think that a 50 / 50 split is not fair, considering they take no risk in the business? I personally believe they should take less the 50, but ultimately that is more than likely where will come to. Until they make a proposal that begins to get to this point... and they haven't made one yet..... we will continue to miss Hockey.

Agreed, I don't believe anyone thinks the NHL should take the brunt of the bad decisions that owners make. I do believe once again that owners in some markets are forced to make these bad decisions to better their teams. The fact remains that we really have a league of 10/10/10. 10 make money 10 don't and 10 sometimes can make money. Neither the owners or players want to play in a 20 team league. The players don't want that because 33% of their jobs would be gone. The league doesn't want that because 20 teams that are either iffy or lose money actually are a contributing factor to big TV contracts that NBC provides. The players need to come to a point where they start talking the same numbers and principles that the expired CBA framework provides. They clearly are the ones who have not negotiated in good faith during this whole process. Is it unreasonable for the players to think that a 50 / 50 split is not fair, considering they take no risk in the business? I personally believe they should take less the 50, but ultimately that is more than likely where will come to. Until they make a proposal that begins to get to this point... and they haven't made one yet..... we will continue to miss Hockey.
- TSTER

There is where we part ways. I disagree completely that the players have not negotiated in good faith. They are the only side that has agreed to give anything up. I personally beleive that it is a mistake to beleive that the players don't think that 50/50 split is fair. What I think is that the players don't feel they should move to a 50/50 split, unless ownership is willing to do their part in helping out the situation. And to this point they haven't. Otherwise we have the same exact situation of the last CBA. The cap will continue to rise, and player cost will escalate right back up. In my opinion, I agree 100% with the NHLPA that the ball is in the League's court, and it is they are the ones who have to take the next step. If and when the League does, if the players don't move towards that 50/50 split significantly. Then I will have a huge problem with the players. But at this point, in my opinion. The League starting with their initial insulting offer, has not negotiated in good faith.