Antsmarching.org Forums

Antsmarching.org Forums (http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/index.php)
-   The Tailgate (http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   The NHL Thread (http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/showthread.php?t=324692)

Rebecca De Mornay 05-31-2011 02:29 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Who knew there weren't a lot of hockey fans in Atlanta?

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 02:31 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by schreiber89 (Post 12633155)
Who knew there weren't a lot of hockey fans in Atlanta?

I still feel for the few fans that are there. I can't imagine getting your team taken away like that. First the ownership group didn't do crap and then this. Great day for Winnipeg though.

bradshaw06 05-31-2011 02:31 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by schreiber89 (Post 12633155)
Who knew there weren't a lot of hockey fans in Atlanta?

Thrashers fans get blamed for these factors, but the people of Winnipeg get a pass on the same circumstances that lead to the Jets leaving in the first place.

joepsu0985 05-31-2011 02:59 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I thought it was a done deal that Nashville will be moving to the SE?

uro55 05-31-2011 02:59 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
This is just all kinds of funny:lol

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl-wp6063

kev87lads 05-31-2011 03:01 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Who knew that I went to my first (and I suppose last) Thrashers game this past season while they were playing out on their farewell tour? Go me. And what a game, a 3-0 Loss to the Blue Jackets....

DMBCubs25 05-31-2011 03:10 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Lets Go Bruins!

Rebecca De Mornay 05-31-2011 03:21 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kev87lads (Post 12633306)
Who knew that I went to my first (and I suppose last) Thrashers game this past season while they were playing out on their farewell tour? Go me. And what a game, a 3-0 Loss to the Blue Jackets....

:lol I actually watched that game on TV believe it or not

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 03:25 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by joepsu0985 (Post 12633295)
I thought it was a done deal that Nashville will be moving to the SE?

Nope. It was all speculation. I've read articles of people who KNOW it will be Detroit or KNOW it will be the Jackets or KNOW it will be the Preds. There are arguments either way for all the teams.

Detroit moving puts another good team in the East and whether they would play in the SE or realign somehow the SE would add another good team and would have the Caps, TBL and whoever there instead of just the Caps. But them moving hurts some in the West in attendance.

The Preds make sense in the SE, even if they are in the central timezone but they have rivalries with Detroit and Chicago that they won't want to lose.

Columbus makes sense in terms of location but that's about it. They'd play in the SE most likely so instead of seeing Detroit 3x and Chicago 3x they get to see the Panthers 3x and Carolina 3x. No one would care to see them either.

THEN there is also the possibility of the Coyotes still being moved. If Quebec's arena is starting to being built then the Coyotes move East next year and the whole conversation is pointless.

Rebecca De Mornay 05-31-2011 03:27 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I think TMoore is Gary Bettman

Tim is just his pen name

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 03:46 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
If I was Gary Bettman I'd be telling you hockey is alive and well in Florida and Phoenix. Forget the fact that they were 22nd and 29th in attendance and that FLA has sold off all their talent in every year since the lockout. I'm sure Panthers fans are pleased to see Luongo, Ballard and Horton in the Cup Finals. And that Phoenix will get an owner even though we still haven't found one in two years who wants to spend their own money to buy the team. Except for Jim Ballsille who was going to pay well over market value for this worthless franchise. If I was him I also wouldn't have given an argument for each team moving to the East. I would make no comment, tip-toe around the issue and when the decision was made would go on about how it as the right decision and it will workout great.:lol

Edit: I also take major offense that you would think I would run a league that badly.

uro55 05-31-2011 03:57 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
The fact that they won't let Jim Ballsille buy a team is one of the things wrong with the NHL.

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:00 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uro55 (Post 12633553)
The fact that they won't let Jim Ballsille buy a team is one of the things wrong with the NHL.

He fucked that up. I think he'd be a great owner. Has the money and has the passion for hockey. But he tried to bully his way in with Nashville and especially with PHX. True North had been talking with the NHL since 2007 and kept their mouth shut and look where it got them.

DrewD55 05-31-2011 04:03 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Why Bettman ever thought a team would work in Atlanta is beyond me. This is the second time a team has fled the city for Canada (the Calgary Flames were the first). It also looks pretty bad on him that for all the (misguided) effort to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and move in new ownership in Tampa, he did nothing whatsoever to prevent this, even though Sun Belt expansion was his baby since he came into the Commissioner's Office (not that it was really worthwhile to make the effort--the Thrashers lost something like $130 million). I'm happy about the news, although it's a shame it happened so late. The thought of Southeast Division teams traveling to Winnipeg 4 times a year and the rest of the East doing it twice is an ugly one.

fonzz41 05-31-2011 04:03 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by schreiber89 (Post 12633418)
I think TMoore is Gary Bettman

Tim is just his pen name

Ouch. :D

uro55 05-31-2011 04:08 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633565)
He fucked that up. I think he'd be a great owner. Has the money and has the passion for hockey. But he tried to bully his way in with Nashville and especially with PHX. True North had been talking with the NHL since 2007 and kept their mouth shut and look where it got them.

I agree that he did, but the NHL is just as much to blame IMO. It should have been a match made in heaven.

Either way a team back in Canada makes me :bounce

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:09 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12633580)
Why Bettman ever thought a team would work in Atlanta is beyond me. This is the second time a team has fled the city for Canada (the Calgary Flames were the first). It also looks pretty bad on him that for all the (misguided) effort to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and move in new ownership in Tampa, he did nothing whatsoever to prevent this, even though Sun Belt expansion was his baby since he came into the Commissioner's Office (not that it was really worthwhile to make the effort--the Thrashers lost something like $130 million). I'm happy about the news, although it's a shame it happened so late. The thought of Southeast Division teams traveling to Winnipeg 4 times a year and the rest of the East doing it twice is an ugly one.

To be fair the sun belt wasn't all him. Coyotes, Canes, Preds and Thrash were his. But yeah I agree all kinds of F-ups along the way. I think it got to a point where no one wanted the Thrashers and he couldn't turn away an ownership group like True North anymore.

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:13 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uro55 (Post 12633608)
I agree that he did, but the NHL is just as much to blame IMO. It should have been a match made in heaven.

Either way a team back in Canada makes me :bounce

It would be. Looking at all the bad owners they've had over the last 10 years or so it really would be. I also think Hamilton isn't a place they want to go. If he wants to look a little further south and out of TO's and Buffalo's territory I think they'd look at it. I don't know if it would hurt Buffalo but the NHL seems to think it would.

Everything being equal (having ownership and decent arenas) I think relocation cities are Quebec, Seattle, Hartford, Kansas City (sadly), and then Southern Ontario.

uro55 05-31-2011 04:19 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633634)
It would be. Looking at all the bad owners they've had over the last 10 years or so it really would be. I also think Hamilton isn't a place they want to go. If he wants to look a little further south and out of TO's and Buffalo's territory I think they'd look at it. I don't know if it would hurt Buffalo but the NHL seems to think it would.

Everything being equal (having ownership and decent arenas) I think relocation cities are Quebec, Seattle, Hartford, Kansas City (sadly), and then Southern Ontario.

See I disagree, I'm originally from Toronto/Southern Ontario. And I'm 1000% convinced that a team would not only do well, but THRIVE!

DrewD55 05-31-2011 04:20 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633634)
It would be. Looking at all the bad owners they've had over the last 10 years or so it really would be. I also think Hamilton isn't a place they want to go. If he wants to look a little further south and out of TO's and Buffalo's territory I think they'd look at it. I don't know if it would hurt Buffalo but the NHL seems to think it would.

Everything being equal (having ownership and decent arenas) I think relocation cities are Quebec, Seattle, Hartford, Kansas City (sadly), and then Southern Ontario.

It may, and it may not. On the one-hand, saving hockey fans from Southern Ontario who can't get Leafs tickets from having to drive down to Buffalo, which many of them do, could drive down attendance in Buffalo. On the other hand, Buffalo has one of the most passionate fan bases in the NHL, their merchandise has been a top seller for the last 6 years, and they've got one of the best owners in the league in Alan Pegula, who will do anything he can to keep the team competitive and fans in the seats.

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:22 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uro55 (Post 12633666)
See I disagree, I'm originally from Toronto/Southern Ontario. And I'm 1000% convinced that a team would not only do well, but THRIVE!

I'll take your word for it. I'd love to see more teams pack their arenas and have the energy the Canadian markets do. I just think Hamilton/Southern Ontario might be the last on the list of locations because of Mr. Blackberry. :rolleyes

DrewD55 05-31-2011 04:26 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633683)
I'll take your word for it. I'd love to see more teams pack their arenas and have the energy the Canadian markets do. I just think Hamilton/Southern Ontario might be the last on the list of locations because of Mr. Blackberry. :rolleyes

As far as a new hockey team succeeding in Canada, at this point, I don't see it as a problem in the least. The biggest reason, I think, that teams like Quebec and Winnipeg left was the weakness of the Canadian dollar at the time, the rising salaries in pre-cap days, and the opportunity for more immediate profits in the States. These days, that's really not a factor. The dollars are almost equal, a salary cap is in place to minimize costs, and there's no shortage of Canadians who want to see NHL hockey. Winnipeg was not struggling to draw fans when they left, and they won't be when they come back. If Bettman really cares about having profitable teams in a profitable league, moving another team to Canada, wherever it might be, is the smart thing, rather than sticking with Sun Belt franchises struggling to keep afloat.

~Crashintome89~ 05-31-2011 04:31 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by schreiber89 (Post 12633418)
I think TMoore is Gary Bettman

Tim is just his pen name

Then in that case, I have no problem saying he has one new ugly looking baby.

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:40 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12633697)
As far as a new hockey team succeeding in Canada, at this point, I don't see it as a problem in the least. The biggest reason, I think, that teams like Quebec and Winnipeg left was the weakness of the Canadian dollar at the time, the rising salaries in pre-cap days, and the opportunity for more immediate profits in the States. These days, that's really not a factor. The dollars are almost equal, a salary cap is in place to minimize costs, and there's no shortage of Canadians who want to see NHL hockey. Winnipeg was not struggling to draw fans when they left, and they won't be when they come back. If Bettman really cares about having profitable teams in a profitable league, moving another team to Canada, wherever it might be, is the smart thing, rather than sticking with Sun Belt franchises struggling to keep afloat.

I agree. The NHL still has some issues to deal with, PHX and FLA and maybe NYI and CBJ. They need to look at the big picture. If profits league wide have gone up each year with some of those teams bleeding money, what would it be if you cut those teams loose?

TMoore4075 05-31-2011 04:42 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12633714)
Then in that case, I have no problem saying he has one new ugly looking baby.

I have the cutest baby in the world and you know it.

DrewD55 05-31-2011 04:56 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633756)
I agree. The NHL still has some issues to deal with, PHX and FLA and maybe NYI and CBJ. They need to look at the big picture. If profits league wide have gone up each year with some of those teams bleeding money, what would it be if you cut those teams loose?

I stand by what I said, but ESPN did just publish this column by Scott Burnside that offers some interesting counterarguments:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/column...ott&id=6611534

The Pegula mess that he refers to concerns Pegula being outbid, but that the higher bidder wanted to move the team (probably to Hamilton, ON, actually), which, given the Sabres' profitability in Buffalo, the NHL owners probably wouldn't have approved of anyways, so I'm not quite sure how it fits into the story, but take of it what you will.

ETA: I do note that Pegula's first name is Terry, not Alan, as I said in my earlier post. Don't know why I thought it was Alan.

bonzo48280 05-31-2011 06:34 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Nothing but good news today if you ask me. This strengthens the league greatly just by moving one team.

As far as realignment I say it's between Columbus and Nashville. Both of them would be looking for ways to save money, and travel would be a good place to start, plus Nashville moving to the Southwest makes perfect sense. I also can't speak for Detroit, but Chicago does not have a rivalry with Nashville. I would put Detroit, Vancouver, St Louis, Calgary, San Jose and Minnesota all as better rivalries than Nashville. They just play in our division.

Also, I thought we would hear the new cap today? That's what I've been waiting for.

fonzz41 05-31-2011 07:18 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633761)
I have the cutest baby in the world and you know it.

I respectfully submit 3rd cutest ;)

~Crashintome89~ 05-31-2011 08:32 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I just really can't imagine the Red Wings in the Eastern Conference. I'm trying to find some sort of credible argument without going the "I'm so afraid of them, please keep them away" route.

ZacBrown 05-31-2011 08:52 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
This was the best day of my life!!! Words cannot describe how I feel today. Go Jets Go

bonzo48280 05-31-2011 09:13 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZacBrown (Post 12634457)
This was the best day of my life!!! Words cannot describe how I feel today. Go Jets Go

holy shit. a resident Jets fan now....and it's Zac Brown! This is great.

bonzo48280 05-31-2011 09:14 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12634387)
I just really can't imagine the Red Wings in the Eastern Conference. I'm trying to find some sort of credible argument without going the "I'm so afraid of them, please keep them away" route.

Would they win the East every year? Yes.

I don't want to play them in the Stanley Cup finals ever, ever. Not even a chance of that. Keep them here.

~Crashintome89~ 05-31-2011 10:05 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12634531)
Would they win the East every year? Yes.

I don't want to play them in the Stanley Cup finals ever, ever. Not even a chance of that. Keep them here.

I don't think they would win the East every year but they would certainly put a dent in Crosby and Ovechkin's chances at Stanley Cup glory.

bonzo48280 05-31-2011 10:48 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12634651)
I don't think they would win the East every year but they would certainly put a dent in Crosby and Ovechkin's chances at Stanley Cup glory.

I'm a little sarcastic but yeah that's my point. Western Conference > Eastern Conference last 3 seasons.

~Crashintome89~ 05-31-2011 10:51 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12634788)
I'm a little sarcastic but yeah that's my point. Western Conference > Eastern Conference last 3 seasons.

Oh, I'm sorry. You'll have to excuse me, I don't read douchebaggery. ;)

jackisback24 05-31-2011 11:22 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Bruins!:hug

bradshaw06 05-31-2011 11:23 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
The Pens are going to K.C. :lorraine:lorraine:lorraine

http://www.1835movement.com/PensNation/?p=2272

For a preseason game blol.

bonzo48280 05-31-2011 11:30 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12634806)
Oh, I'm sorry. You'll have to excuse me, I don't read douchebaggery. ;)

oh snap. there it is

~Crashintome89~ 05-31-2011 11:48 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl-wp6146

First, it's about time.

Second, I love this guy. I wrote to him when I was younger and we had a short correspondence before he went to Carolina. The guy is absolute class and Panthers fans (blolol, what like three of them?) are going to love his style.

DmBand801 06-01-2011 12:01 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12633407)
Detroit moving puts another good team in the East and whether they would play in the SE or realign somehow the SE would add another good team and would have the Caps, TBL and whoever there instead of just the Caps. But them moving hurts some in the West in attendance.

Based on what I read, IF Detroit moved to the East, it's likely that they would be put in the Northeast division, while moving Boston to the Atlantic, and Pittsburgh to the Southeast.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 12:06 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DmBand801 (Post 12635198)
Based on what I read, IF Detroit moved to the East, it's likely that they would be put in the Northeast division, while moving Boston to the Atlantic, and Pittsburgh to the Southeast.

I really think it is just going to be Nashville moving to the Southeast. That just makes the most sense to me.

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 12:14 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DmBand801 (Post 12635198)
Based on what I read, IF Detroit moved to the East, it's likely that they would be put in the Northeast division, while moving Boston to the Atlantic, and Pittsburgh to the Southeast.

Boston to the Atlantic makes no sense. The Montreal Bruins rivalry is the biggest rivalry in hockey.

DmBand801 06-01-2011 12:23 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12635282)
Boston to the Atlantic makes no sense. The Montreal Bruins rivalry is the biggest rivalry in hockey.

You're also blowing up the Penguins-Flyers rivalry by doing that. Who knows what is actually going to happen, but it is fun to speculate in the meantime.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 12:41 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Obviously the best situation rivalry wise is Minnesota to the Central Winnepeg to the Northwest and Nashville to the Southeast

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 12:42 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12635434)
Obviously the best situation rivalry wise is Minnesota to the Central Winnepeg to the Northwest and Nashville to the Southeast

This makes by far the most sense. This should be the obvious change, I mean it's not exactly rocket science.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 09:01 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZacBrown (Post 12634457)
This was the best day of my life!!! Words cannot describe how I feel today. Go Jets Go

Congrats man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12634109)
Nothing but good news today if you ask me. This strengthens the league greatly just by moving one team.

As far as realignment I say it's between Columbus and Nashville. Both of them would be looking for ways to save money, and travel would be a good place to start, plus Nashville moving to the Southwest makes perfect sense. I also can't speak for Detroit, but Chicago does not have a rivalry with Nashville. I would put Detroit, Vancouver, St Louis, Calgary, San Jose and Minnesota all as better rivalries than Nashville. They just play in our division.

Also, I thought we would hear the new cap today? That's what I've been waiting for.

Cap isn't announced until the BoG meeting or around that time so end of June.

As far as Nash being a rival I think it's the same way for you that I see the Hawks right now. I don't look at the Hawks as a rival right now because of two years in which neither team challenged the other for the div. title. For Preds fans they probably look at the Hawks as a rival because that's what they are shooting for. But for you it's not that big of a rival.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fonzz41 (Post 12634228)
I respectfully submit 3rd cutest ;)

Three-way tie.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12634387)
I just really can't imagine the Red Wings in the Eastern Conference. I'm trying to find some sort of credible argument without going the "I'm so afraid of them, please keep them away" route.

It would be weird just because I never see those teams on a regular basis but I would kill to have the easy schedule.
Quote:

Originally Posted by DmBand801 (Post 12635198)
Based on what I read, IF Detroit moved to the East, it's likely that they would be put in the Northeast division, while moving Boston to the Atlantic, and Pittsburgh to the Southeast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmBand801 (Post 12635326)
You're also blowing up the Penguins-Flyers rivalry by doing that. Who knows what is actually going to happen, but it is fun to speculate in the meantime.

I've read that too. And while it would break up the Habs-Bruins div. rivalry they would still play each other 4 times same for Pens-Flyers. BUT for the Pens I've said it before I think, imagine the huge boner that NBC would get. "Crosby-Ovie 6 times a year! What teams do they play for again?"

BUT also by delaying the realignment and having a while to talk about it they could get rid of the 6 divisions and go back to 4. LeBrun said they will take a look at the whole picture of conference alignment now. So if that were the case if Detroit did move they could align things to not break up some of the rivals.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12635229)
I really think it is just going to be Nashville moving to the Southeast. That just makes the most sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12635434)
Obviously the best situation rivalry wise is Minnesota to the Central Winnepeg to the Northwest and Nashville to the Southeast

It actually would be Dallas I think going to the central. Minny at least belongs in the NE while Dallas sure doesn't belong in the Pacific. And there is talk about a possible regional rivalry with the Wild and the "Jets." So whatever central team goes east, Winnipeg in the NE, Avs to the Pacific and Dallas to the Central. That's my guess now, if they do stay with the 6 divisions.

As I said before Nashville makes sense geographically but you've got those fans looking forward to seeing Detroit and Chicago now you'll have them see the Canes and Panthers? If I was a Preds fan I'd be like "Wow...thanks." The Jackets, while they'd lose Detroit coming to town are useless right now so I could see them replacing the Thrashers.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 09:41 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12635282)
Boston to the Atlantic makes no sense. The Montreal Bruins rivalry is the biggest rivalry in hockey.

I was just thinking, if the Coyotes move to Quebec City, Boston might be on their way to the Atlantic anyways. Montreal/Quebec would take priority over Montreal/Boston.

fonzz41 06-01-2011 12:51 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Good luck, Kev:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6612747

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 12:58 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12636076)
I was just thinking, if the Coyotes move to Quebec City, Boston might be on their way to the Atlantic anyways. Montreal/Quebec would take priority over Montreal/Boston.

I think that'd be a good opportunity to get Buffalo out of the Northeast. They really don't have a rivalry with anyone in the division.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 01:16 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fonzz41 (Post 12636662)

He's gonna need it. Lets hope that franchise doesn't continue to stink and drive another good young coach out.

Also there is a God:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=367566

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 01:20 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12636776)
He's gonna need it. Lets hope that franchise doesn't continue to stink and drive another good young coach out.

Also there is a God:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=367566

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup No more bitching about how the Bruins never get suspensions because Campbell's kid is on the team.

lockman21 06-01-2011 01:22 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Was just going to post about Campbell. Thank God.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 01:26 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12636800)
:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup No more bitching about how the Bruins never get suspensions because Campbell's kid is on the team.

That doesn't bother me. Hopefully no more 1 game for this but 5 games for something similar. Come on Shanny we need consistency.

uro55 06-01-2011 01:31 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
The Jets and the Wild HAVE to be in the same division.

DrewD55 06-01-2011 02:08 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12636690)
I think that'd be a good opportunity to get Buffalo out of the Northeast. They really don't have a rivalry with anyone in the division.

Oh, WOW, am I going to have to disagree with you, there. Sabres have been in roughly the same division since they came into the league in 1970, and they have HUGE rivalries with the Bruins and Canadiens, who have always been there since Buffalo came in (and have developed a pretty good one with Ottawa in the last 10 years). The Toronto rivalry is nothing to sneeze at, either, just because of the proximity of the two cities. Even back when Toronto was (inexplicably) in the Clarence Campbell (how's that for back in the day?) Conference, the spark between Sabres and Leafs fans the one time a year they met back in The Aud (R.I.P.) was outrageous (in part because Leafs fans without season tickets can't get into their arena, but it was nuts either way). Since they've been realigned into the current lineup, the Sabres-Leafs games are top-notch and sold out on both sides of the border.

Besides which, where the hell do the Sabres belong outside of the Northeast? It's right where they are. The best move is to swap Winnipeg and Nashville, which is geographically in the Southeast anyways.

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 02:16 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12637042)
Oh, WOW, am I going to have to disagree with you, there. Sabres have been in roughly the same division since they came into the league in 1970, and they have HUGE rivalries with the Bruins and Canadiens, who have always been there since Buffalo came in (and have developed a pretty good one with Ottawa in the last 10 years). The Toronto rivalry is nothing to sneeze at, either, just because of the proximity of the two cities. Even back when Toronto was (inexplicably) in the Clarence Campbell (how's that for back in the day?) Conference, the spark between Sabres and Leafs fans the one time a year they met back in The Aud (R.I.P.) was outrageous (in part because Leafs fans without season tickets can't get into their arena, but it was nuts either way). Since they've been realigned into the current lineup, the Sabres-Leafs games are top-notch and sold out on both sides of the border.

Besides which, where the hell do the Sabres belong outside of the Northeast? It's right where they are. The best move is to swap Winnipeg and Nashville, which is geographically in the Southeast anyways.

I'm a Bruins fan and I don't know a single Bruins fan that acknowledges any sort of rivalry with the Sabres. The Bruins are a much more integral part to the Northeast division than the Sabres are, and the Sabres going to the Atlantic makes much more sense than the Bruins going to the Atlantic.

DrewD55 06-01-2011 02:31 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12637073)
I'm a Bruins fan and I don't know a single Bruins fan that acknowledges any sort of rivalry with the Sabres. The Bruins are a much more integral part to the Northeast division than the Sabres are, and the Sabres going to the Atlantic makes much more sense than the Bruins going to the Atlantic.

Fair enough, but there are plenty of Sabres fans who would argue with you the other way, going back to the beginning of the franchise. I know you and the Canadiens are Original 6 and whatnot, but the Sabres have been playing the Bruins 6-8 times each year, not counting the playoffs, so there's a serious recognition in Western New York. The Bruins are a team whose games we take seriously.

That aside, I don't think either team should move. You've got a team in the Southeast moving to Canada's midwest (Winnipeg Whatevers), and a team playing in the Central Division that's geographically in the American South (Nashville) that could easily swap Divisions and Conferences.

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 02:34 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12637141)
Fair enough, but there are plenty of Sabres fans who would argue with you the other way, going back to the beginning of the franchise. I know you and the Canadiens are Original 6 and whatnot, but the Sabres have been playing the Bruins 6-8 times each year, not counting the playoffs, so there's a serious recognition in Western New York. The Bruins are a team whose games we take seriously.

That aside, I don't think either team should move. You've got a team in the Southeast moving to Canada's midwest (Winnipeg Whatevers), and a team playing in the Central division that's geographically in the American South (Nashville) that could easily swap Divisions and Conferences.

He was referring to if Quebec gets a team back. If that happens they'd have to go to the Northeast and I'd think Buffalo would be the odd man out in that situation. I just think they'd be the one moved before the Bruins.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 02:44 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Chicago beat reporter asked on twitter why we hate Vancouver so much. Here were the results: http://blogs.suntimes.com/blackhawks..._off_on_t.html

Rebecca De Mornay 06-01-2011 02:46 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I really don't think Nashville is the team to move. They had much more success last year than CBJ. If I were the NHL I wouldn't want to start messing with things that are working

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 02:47 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I'd love to see Bieksa try his typical shit against the Bruins. Odds are someone will be on the ice to tune him up if he decides to try some shit like he's been doing all playoffs long.

Rebecca De Mornay 06-01-2011 02:47 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12637141)
Fair enough, but there are plenty of Sabres fans who would argue with you the other way, going back to the beginning of the franchise. I know you and the Canadiens are Original 6 and whatnot, but the Sabres have been playing the Bruins 6-8 times each year, not counting the playoffs, so there's a serious recognition in Western New York. The Bruins are a team whose games we take seriously.

That aside, I don't think either team should move. You've got a team in the Southeast moving to Canada's midwest (Winnipeg Whatevers), and a team playing in the Central Division that's geographically in the American South (Nashville) that could easily swap Divisions and Conferences.

Not living in Western New York I don't think of the Bruins as that big of a rivalry. Sure people pay attention because it's Boston and they've had some battles the last couple seasons.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 02:50 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12637227)
I'd love to see Bieksa try his typical shit against the Bruins. Odds are someone will be on the ice to tune him up if he decides to try some shit like he's been doing all playoffs long.

I sure hope so, that guy is the definition of shit head

dduncan6er 06-01-2011 02:55 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12637247)
I sure hope so, that guy is the definition of shit head

The sad part is that he's not even the biggest shit head on his team. I think Torres takes the cake on that one.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 02:59 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12637268)
The sad part is that he's not even the biggest shit head on his team. I think Torres takes the cake on that one.

when their Captain said after winning in OT of Game 7 that the Hawks didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs, that pretty much summed up the whole team.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 03:21 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
All these arguments about divisions is exactly why they should seriously consider going back to two divisions per conference. Other than putting a banner up there is no point in 3 divisions anymore. Maybe even, god forbid, work on a schedule that every team from the west visits every team in the east and vice versa during a season. Would be nice to see.

mr.MikeD 06-01-2011 03:24 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12637214)
Chicago beat reporter asked on twitter why we hate Vancouver so much. Here were the results: http://blogs.suntimes.com/blackhawks..._off_on_t.html

haha.

of course the real reason is:
'we have played against them a lot in the playoffs, and really hate them this year because they beat us"

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 03:50 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/0...aying-goodbye/

Dramageek 06-01-2011 03:58 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12637415)
All these arguments about divisions is exactly why they should seriously consider going back to two divisions per conference. Other than putting a banner up there is no point in 3 divisions anymore. Maybe even, god forbid, work on a schedule that every team from the west visits every team in the east and vice versa during a season. Would be nice to see.

This, and give them their old names. Bring back the Patrick Division!

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 04:07 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dramageek (Post 12637615)
This, and give them their old names. Bring back the Patrick Division!

That would be awesome. There is a tradition and history that the NHL has that the other sports don't. Show it off. You can't tell me fans only watch because the conferences are called East/West instead of Campbell/Prince of Whales.

kev87lads 06-01-2011 04:12 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fonzz41 (Post 12636662)

Thanks man.

Dramageek 06-01-2011 04:13 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12637638)
That would be awesome. There is a tradition and history that the NHL has that the other sports don't. Show it off. You can't tell me fans only watch because the conferences are called East/West instead of Campbell/Prince of Whales.

Exactly!:thumbsup I always liked those names and liked how they were unique to the tradition of the NHL. The names of conferences/divisions don't necessarily need to be based on geography. See the MLB. Besides, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Wales Conference teams are in the east and the Campbell conference teams are in the west.

DrewD55 06-01-2011 04:24 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dramageek (Post 12637615)
This, and give them their old names. Bring back the Patrick Division!

I wonder how many people still remember these as the Conferences from back in the day. Frankly, as much as I hold Gary Bettman responsible for a lot of the league's problems, particularly the Sun Belt expansion, changing the conferences and divisions to a more user-friendly format is one of the better things he's done (not that I don't miss the weird, anachronistic names that no one who hadn't been following hockey for at least 50 years would remember), but this is one that's he's probably played the right way. Seriously, what the hell does the Clarence of Campbell Conference mean to anyone. Canada might be the better future market, but there has to be some sort of mainstream market, and those old names? Not gonna cut it. As it is, the names of the old divisions and conferences are still the names of the trophies the winning teams of those categories wins. I'll take that, if it doesn't mean alienating a television market.

~Crashintome89~ 06-01-2011 04:32 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12637703)
I wonder how many people still remember these as the Conferences from back in the day. Frankly, as much as I hold Gary Bettman responsible for a lot of the league's problems, particularly the Sun Belt expansion, changing the conferences and divisions to a more user-friendly format is one of the better things he's done (not that I don't miss the weird, anachronistic names that no one who hadn't been following hockey for at least 50 years would remember), but this is one that's he's probably played the right way. Seriously, what the hell does the Clarence of Campbell Conference mean to anyone. Canada might be the better future market, but there has to be some sort of mainstream market, and those old names? Not gonna cut it. As it is, the names of the old divisions and conferences are still the names of the trophies the winning teams of those categories wins. I'll take that, if it doesn't mean alienating a television market.

I concur completely. The old division names were very confusing.

And really, after so many years what is the point of going back to them? Ask anyone about the Atlantic divison you think of Flyers-Rangers, Rangers-Devils, Pens-Flyers.

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 04:34 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewD55 (Post 12637703)
I wonder how many people still remember these as the Conferences from back in the day. Frankly, as much as I hold Gary Bettman responsible for a lot of the league's problems, particularly the Sun Belt expansion, changing the conferences and divisions to a more user-friendly format is one of the better things he's done (not that I don't miss the weird, anachronistic names that no one who hadn't been following hockey for at least 50 years would remember), but this is one that's he's probably played the right way. Seriously, what the hell does the Clarence of Campbell Conference mean to anyone. Canada might be the better future market, but there has to be some sort of mainstream market, and those old names? Not gonna cut it. As it is, the names of the old divisions and conferences are still the names of the trophies the winning teams of those categories wins. I'll take that, if it doesn't mean alienating a television market.

See I thought it was stupid. It had character. I can't imagine someone in 1993 watching a game and saying "The Red wings are in the Campbell Conference? WTF is that? Where is that?" And then that same person a year later saying "The Red Wings are in the Western Conference?! Alright let's go Wings!" If someone is watching because of the name of a division please make them go away. I can't imagine if the NBA went to different names people would stop watching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Crashintome89~ (Post 12637724)
I concur completely. The old division names were very confusing.

And really, after so many years what is the point of going back to them? Ask anyone about the Atlantic divison you think of Flyers-Rangers, Rangers-Devils, Pens-Flyers.

I see the second argument about why not to go back now but I disagree about the change.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 04:41 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
eh, I don't care for the Divisions anyway. It was cool when we won the central last year, but it didn't matter because San Jose won the conference (and that didn't matter because we swept them ;) )

jackisback24 06-01-2011 04:43 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Bruins!!!

TMoore4075 06-01-2011 04:46 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzo48280 (Post 12637768)
eh, I don't care for the Divisions anyway. It was cool when we won the central last year, but it didn't matter because San Jose won the conference (and that didn't matter because we swept them ;) )

We could say screw it all together and go way back to an all league playoff. Seed the teams 1-16.

Dramageek 06-01-2011 04:56 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I always liked the old names as one of the unique quirks of the NHL. I certainly understand the arguments against them and was being mildly facetious about advocating their return. Conference/Division names based on geography certainly make following the league more accessible to a mainstream audience. On the whole though, I agree with TMoore, names of conferences/divisions have little to do with attracting a wider audience, so the change was stupid in the first place.

tarheel997 06-01-2011 09:38 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
canucks come out flying, boston pushing back. should be a good series. nucks in 6

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 09:49 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I just hate the Canucks so much. I hate watching them play.

uro55 06-01-2011 09:52 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
A Canadian team wins, or an original 6 team wins. That's all good in my book:)

~Crashintome89~ 06-01-2011 09:52 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Let's stick with this season's thread for the SCF, guys.

bonzo48280 06-01-2011 10:03 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
damn...i have done that a few times. i meant to put that in the correct thread haha

TMoore4075 06-02-2011 08:42 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
From Bettman's State of the League yesterday he had this to say about realignment:

"On other issues, Bettman said no decision has been made on league realignment following the announcement the Atlanta Thrashers will relocate to Winnipeg next season.

Atlanta played in the Southeast Division of the Eastern Conference. Winnipeg will remain in the Southeast Division for next year.

"I think we'll wind up moving towards a slightly more balanced schedule to accommodate the variety of issues I've heard so far from clubs," Bettman said."

I'm very curious about what that would entail.

TMoore4075 06-02-2011 10:26 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Also in 3.5 hours Winnipeg sold almost 2,000 season tickets and that was only to current Manitoba Moose season ticket holders. Once the public can start buying on Saturday they'll fly. 13,000 won't be that tough imo.

TMoore4075 06-02-2011 04:17 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
From Bob McKenzie "With the ownership situation in DAL not likely to be settled until later in summer, DAL will not be making contract offer to Brad Richards." I bet they wish they had traded him now.

dduncan6er 06-02-2011 04:20 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
He'd look great in black and gold next year.

DrewD55 06-02-2011 04:29 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dramageek (Post 12637822)
I always liked the old names as one of the unique quirks of the NHL. I certainly understand the arguments against them and was being mildly facetious about advocating their return. Conference/Division names based on geography certainly make following the league more accessible to a mainstream audience. On the whole though, I agree with TMoore, names of conferences/divisions have little to do with attracting a wider audience, so the change was stupid in the first place.

I miss the names, too--the Sabres still have Adams Division and Prince of Wales Conference Champion banners hung in the rafters--which I think rocks (and I always love it when Chris Berman uses the term "Norris Division", usually in reference to the old NFC division where the Vikings and Packers play), but changing them was a good idea. It might not be the biggest reason for expanded popularity of the NHL, but it certainly made it more user-friendly to the general public, which I'm fine with.

TMoore4075 06-02-2011 04:34 PM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12641350)
He'd look great in black and gold next year.

Cause the Bruins don't have enough centers? I think he'll be a Leaf or a Ranger.

dduncan6er 06-03-2011 09:31 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12641414)
Cause the Bruins don't have enough centers? I think he'll be a Leaf or a Ranger.

You can never have enough centers. We could move either Peverley or Kelly and keep Seguin on the wing. I'd love to see what a combination of Seguin and Richards could do next year.

Rebecca De Mornay 06-03-2011 09:33 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12641350)
He'd look great in black and gold next year.

He'd look even better in Blue and Gold - Man do I really want the Sabres to sign him

dduncan6er 06-03-2011 09:35 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
How much cap room do they have for next year?

Rebecca De Mornay 06-03-2011 09:37 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
I think they have like 18 million in cap space - plenty to make a big move or a few big moves

dduncan6er 06-03-2011 09:42 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Yea that's definitely a good amount of money. Bruins should have a bit with Ryder and Kaberle coming off the books, and I wouldn't be surprised if Savard announces his retirement after the finals are over. So the Bruins will have some money to throw around.

TMoore4075 06-03-2011 10:05 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12643707)
Yea that's definitely a good amount of money. Bruins should have a bit with Ryder and Kaberle coming off the books, and I wouldn't be surprised if Savard announces his retirement after the finals are over. So the Bruins will have some money to throw around.

Wings have the money too if they sign one of the cheaper FA defensemen. Not gonna happen but hey. I really believe TO, would give Kessel someone legit, or NYR cause they spend money but also it would be good money spent unlike on Drury plus Torts was his coach in TB. There was a report that he didn't really want the big market with the attention but he might not have a choice. The teams that would need or want him and have money are the more high pressure markets.

dduncan6er 06-03-2011 10:11 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12643761)
Wings have the money too if they sign one of the cheaper FA defensemen. Not gonna happen but hey. I really believe TO, would give Kessel someone legit, or NYR cause they spend money but also it would be good money spent unlike on Drury plus Torts was his coach in TB. There was a report that he didn't really want the big market with the attention but he might not have a choice. The teams that would need or want him and have money are the more high pressure markets.

Yeah and those are the teams that will want to pay him. My only concern is that if the Bruins get him the contract will be too long. All of these teams going into a bidding war will not only drive up the salary but the years as well, and I believe he's already 32 or 33. I could be slightly off on his age though.

TMoore4075 06-03-2011 10:14 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dduncan6er (Post 12643772)
Yeah and those are the teams that will want to pay him. My only concern is that if the Bruins get him the contract will be too long. All of these teams going into a bidding war will not only drive up the salary but the years as well, and I believe he's already 32 or 33. I could be slightly off on his age though.

Yeah well the length thing will be interesting this year. It's the first year of the new rules. They can't give him a 10 year deal with a lower cap number like before. If they sign him to a 10 year deal his average cap number is only the average until he turns 40. So if they pay him $600k for years where he's 41 and 42 it won't bring down the cap number. That might come into play.

dduncan6er 06-03-2011 10:16 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMoore4075 (Post 12643788)
Yeah well the length thing will be interesting this year. It's the first year of the new rules. They can't give him a 10 year deal with a lower cap number like before. If they sign him to a 10 year deal his average cap number is only the average until he turns 40. So if they pay him $600k for years where he's 41 and 42 it won't bring down the cap number. That might come into play.

That's true. The NHL salary cap is ridiculously confusing. I'm sure if I sat down and put some effort into understanding it I could, but I just don't have the time anymore. :lol

Rebecca De Mornay 06-03-2011 10:18 AM

Re: NHL 2011/2012 Thread
 
:lol I don't understand it either so I just let Tim explain it to me


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest is owned by antsmarching.org.