Quote:
Originally Posted by Bron Yr Aur
That's not why it's ludicrous.
It's ludicrous because:
1. NHL revenues are growing. The NHL is basically a collection of businesses. Nobody contracts their business when the corporation is making more money than ever. OK, maybe you could move some franchises from areas where attendance is poor, but that isn't a viable argument for contraction.
2. You think the players union would ever accept any idea that cuts down on NHL player jobs? Give me a break. OK, if they had to do so to keep the NHL up and running, but as we know, the NHL is doing just fine.
So yes, without acknowledging the obvious reasons that contraction is ridiculous, it is hard to take you seriously.
|
First, I clearly stated that it was never going to happen. So I am not really sure what you are arguing for. I was stating what I would realistically like to see happen, not what I think will happen.
Second, the league is always in dangers of several teams operating at a loss. Arizona, Florida and Carolina come to mind. In the not too distant past Pittsburgh and Buffalo were in some trouble too.
Hell, I even remember there being talk about New Jersey needing to be moved before they won the cup in 1995. Okay so this is a long time ago...but still, bad markets are in danger unless they have success to back them up.
My reasoning is that
most teams right now do have their 3-4 big players and then a lot of fill-in players. It is not like watching soccer where you can have amazing teams from top-bottom like Barca, Real or Bayern. The closest I have seen to that recently was the 2002 Red Wings who were amazing pretty much from top-bottom.
I mean, Michael Roszival (Sp?) was a disaster on the New York Rangers and we moved him. He is a stanley cup champion on the Hawks. Is it really that he just fit in better there? Or is it maybe just a reality that there are shitty players on every team in the league, cup champs or not.
In the end, the league is not exactly shit the way it is either. Been a pretty good product on the ice over the past 4-5 years. Just wondering if it could be better. I am also biased because I am willing to try anything that may change the tides so the Rangers win a Cup every 10-20 years instead of every 54.