The official 2007-08 NHL Season discussion thread.

Post by **Shadd666** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:47 pm

Loosie: I see your point, understand and respect it, but... Mats knows he's aged and have very few seasons ahead of him. He also knows that the Leafs have very few talent and nearly no young talent to rebuild with. So if he really loves the team, the real sacrifice would have been to waive off his no-trade clause, helping the Leafs to fall down in the rankings, and therefore get a high pick in the draft. Plus, the trade itself would have provided nice picks and prospects. Then, coming July 1st, when his current contract expires, he signs back to Toronto.

Toronto would have missed the playoffs, like they'll really do. But they would have had a few youngsters to build something around for the future. Mats knew it. Everyone was talking about it, so he couldn't ignore it. But he decided to not waive his no-trade clause anyway. That's why i say he didn't want to help his team, preferring his life in Toronto rather than a few months in a hotel somewhere else. It sounds selfish to me. Which is the exact contrary of what a captain has to be. A captain is here to help his team and make sacrifices for the team. If spending a few months out of the team to help rebuilding when there's nothing to expect from the current season is possible, it's a well-worthy sacrifice. We all know how it ended...

Post by **Danny** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:43 pm

That's why the North American system of rewarding teams with the best talent just for losing sucks. Make a lottery with all 30 teams after every season and stop rewarding losers. Stop that tanking rubbish. Teams are supposed to play 100% for 82 games at least, even if it's just for those who pay big money to watch their stars live.

Kudos to Mats for what he did, and don't be so quick to judge him, you never know what happened behind the scenes and where they would end up trading him to. It is not only about getting some prospects and draft picks, it's also about pride, if the Bruins were in the same situation I know I would prefer the captain to stay with the team rather than see him traded to Toronto, Montreal or something. A franchise should not collapse just because they miss out on 2-3 prospects/picks.

btw as much fun as Toronto getting neither a Playoff spot nor a high pick is, to me it would be just as funny if the Caps missed it by one point or because of a tiebreaker or something. Brashear triple minor springs to mind.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:20 pm

Danny wrote:That's why the North American system of rewarding teams with the best talent just for losing sucks. Make a lottery with all 30 teams after every season and stop rewarding losers. Stop that tanking rubbish. Teams are supposed to play 100% for 82 games at least, even if it's just for those who pay big money to watch their stars live.

It's kind of funny, really. We're so paranoid about communism, yet, our sports leagues are probably the best known examples of communism. - Everyone is equal; everything is fair; everyone plays for the league; the league controls the teams; etc., etc.

Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with that... especially in the NHL. If they moved to the independent style of Europe, most teams would crash and burn in about five seconds, while the good hockey cities up north would dominate. Basically, all of the NHL would naturally shift to it's own market - up north on the ice(Ice hockey... on ice?

). But that would be bad, because if there's no ice-hockey on tropical beaches, bettman will shrivel-up like an Autumn leaf... and he's the one in charge.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:58 pm

Bah...the teams that lose deserve the picks. Who wants to watch Detoilet beat up on everyone every year, cause they buy everything. Sorry..but the system of the draft is the right way to go. Maybe we should weight it less toward the bottom feeder and give more of a chance to say 16 teams to win the lotto each year...but not much. I mean draft lotto winners have at least 2 times (pitt, Chi) not been the one who was the worst team in the league.

And both teams got pretty decent players if I recall correctly (Crosby, Kane)

And right now...both those teams have turned their fortunes around, heavily because of the draft lottery win, and the player they selected.

So to me...the lottery is working well. Real well.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:36 pm

The lottery where the Penguins won the right to pick Crosby was a joke!

They gave the teams who had consistently been bad for the last 5 years and gave them the potential to draft the next superstar. There wasn't even a season played that year! They were basing the lottery positions on how bad teams were before the strike and didn't factor in the development of all of those high draft picks they had been getting or the fact that the CBA had changed, which really made some teams able to rebuild quickly. I remember being so mad about how that played out. I'm still not happy about it.

Post by **Danny** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:36 pm

batdad wrote:Bah...the teams that lose deserve the picks. Who wants to watch Detoilet beat up on everyone every year, cause they buy everything. Sorry..but the system of the draft is the right way to go. Maybe we should weight it less toward the bottom feeder and give more of a chance to say 16 teams to win the lotto each year...but not much. I mean draft lotto winners have at least 2 times (pitt, Chi) not been the one who was the worst team in the league.

And both teams got pretty decent players if I recall correctly (Crosby, Kane)

And right now...both those teams have turned their fortunes around, heavily because of the draft lottery win, and the player they selected.

So to me...the lottery is working well. Real well.

If that was a response to my post then I think you missed the point a little bit. I don't mind the lottery, I just don't like the idea of rewarding tanking teams. In general, I don't like the attitude of rewarding mediocrity/subpar performances.
That doesn't mean that winners should get the top picks, and losers the worst, the draft should be completely independent from the results on the ice.

I don't agree that teams that suck deserve high picks. There's no reason why it has to be that way.
Chicago and Pittsburgh didn't turn it around, it was gifted to them. You could just as well raise the salary cap by 20% for teams that suck to allow them to sign more high profile UFAs. Seems like nonsense, in essence exactly the same thing as rewarding them with high picks. Those 2 teams doing better now is no argument FOR gifting losing teams the best talent around, it's a result OF it. Fair enough I believe the Pens got Crosby in the draft that had a 30 team lottery if I remember correctly, no ?

I think I've read something about that somewhere.

Anyway, this is coming from someone whose team didn't exactly do great on the ice in recent years either, but I still don't like the general idea behind it. Parity is way overrated. And the parity we have now is mostly due to the retarded system of 3 point games and again, rewarding losses. OT/SO suck

Ok by now I would get flamed if this was HFBoards so lets see how it goes

Post by **batdad** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:26 pm

NAh it was not really. Just a comment. But the following is in response to your point, which to some extent is valid in some areas...

I think Crosby was a 30 team lottery but basically nil chance for anyone after the bottom 10 before the strike.

Gifted? Not sure about that. pretty expensive to ice a hockey team, have no one come to the building, and not make money off the investment as an owner, and in fact lose money. The bottom teams are not gifted the pick, they are awarded the pick when the team loses alot, because well...if you have unhealtyh parts of your divisions in business you need to make em healthier. The NHL is one business, the teams are part of one business, not the actual businesses themselves. Boston is not separate from Vancouver. They are just a piece of the overall business. If Boston is unhealthy, Vancouver is not as healthy as it could be.

The league is the business, not the individual teams. The teams are like separate sections of the company itself...marketing, sales, office, etc etc...without one doing well...the health of the business drops off. So ... you need to have as many teams healthy as you can.

Pittsburgh and Chicago (just 2 of a few examples..Washington, Nashville, Columbus, Florida, Tampa are others) have been unhealthy over the years as have several others. Winning the lotto in Pitt (no matter how poorly the lottery was done..which I agree was not quite right), and Chicago (together with the passing of the grumpy old man, and the rebirth of the Hawks under Rocky) have changed the situations of those teams... Plus winning the lotto is not a guarantee your team will get more healthy. Sometimes 1st overall picks fail (DAigle)

But overall, the lottery is the right way to go. Noone can guarantee a tank to get the bottom in the standings will win the top pick, like it used to be with Pittsburgh and Mario. That being said widening the lotto to include a few more teams, say the bottom 15, and increasing the chances to get the top pick for the middle rubbish teams would not be a big problem. But still the bottom 5 should have the best chance to win it for sure.

THE LEAGUE IS THE BUSINESS, not the team. Detroit running away with the league, or any team, year after year after year..would kill the league now. It is not like it was in the past when Montreal was doing it, because back then..the league was small. The draft came in because finally people figured out that the BUSINESS was THE LEAGUE, not the TEAMS.

Colorado would not be a healthy franchise had they not had such a naff team in Quebec for like 10 year...if they had not won immediately it would have been another bad news scenario like the Rockies were.

You would have 2 franchises (or at least a select few) doing well, and 28 (at least the great majority) naff if everyone had the same opportunity at the top pick. Not good for the business, since the business is the league not the team.

And yeah you would get flamed for your parity comment. Parity is not overrated. The NBA is not getting much attention nowadays. Why? Because you have powerhouse teams and useless teams..too big a disparity.

NHL--parity is good for the league, and is not the problem with why it is not doing as well as it could. That goes to the league style being boring, and overcoached. Something has to be done about it for entertainment value. The league is trying, but failing. So the business of the league (of which the teams are divisions) is failing.
NFL--TOPS in the whole market of sports. Why? because every team can be competitive and things change from year to year. With the exception of course of the flipping Oakland/LA RAiders, Jets, and now Dolphins.
MLB-Would be up with NFL, it it were not for their drug issues. Really, it would.

Again, if you look at things from the individual team perspective it can be difficult to rationalize the lottery. However, when you look at it from the view that the league is the business...competing with the NBA, NFL, MLB and MLS for entertainment $, you have to be sure that each individual part of your business (each team) has a reasonable chance to succeed.

What the teams do with their parts is up to them. Sometimes the people running the divison (team) are poor, and must be changed, sometimes the staff (players) suck and must be changed. But all in all, for the NHL to be healthy all teams must be provided EQUAL opportunity to succeed. And yes that means weak areas of the business must be propped up.

Post by **Danny** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:46 pm

Ok I understand your reasoning from a business point of view, it makes all sense. Then I guess we just have different principles about the whole thing. Yours might be more pragmatic, again strictly from the business point of view. I guess I have a problem with the league being the big company and the respective teams its branches. I'm not saying it is the wrong way to go, or the right one, I do not have enough knowledge to judge that, it just goes against my principles from the point of view of a sports fan.

About parity, I do not think we will like it as much in 5-10 years. Surely everyone appreciates tight races involving multiple teams for playoff spots, seeds, but there are limits. As with everything in life, there can be too much of it. Especially since this parity is created artificially and not because the middle of the pack teams got better. It's like the government intervening into economy, creating the impression everything is fine and dandy while in reality it is not.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:53 pm

It's really hard to enforce total parity. Look at the NFL. That league was all about parity. Everyone said you'd never see another dynasty. Then the Patriots ruined that theory (not counting the fact that they blew it in the Super Bowl).

Post by **batdad** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:06 pm

Everyone wants their team to win, all the time. No question, living in Vancouver I would be much happier if the Nucks were a powerhouse. Not even because I love the Canucks, cause I do not...but others do..and they would be more fun to be around when the team wins.

That being said, I really enjoy laughing at all the rubbish that goes on. For instance the doom/gloom right now because Lebongo is going to be with his wife while she gives birth to his child. Of course he is...so would anyone else. It makes sense. Plus, the team should have just won a game or two earlier in the season and it would not be an issue.

Patriots still have not ruined the theory. They are the exception. The exception that keeps what Danny is saying in the last post from happening. The league is still very competitive. It is not like the Pats ran all over everyone. Parity is a general thing to me..every team is given the opportunity to compete. What they do with the tools, pieces of the business..is up to the staff they hire as players, coaches, managers, ushers, bathroom cleaners. Withtout the draft system...the one with the most money wins. Not the way to go.

In the short term a dynasty is an okay thing...if it were to last 10 years...the league would die. Tiger in golf is the example. So far all is good, but if he were to win every tournament all the time...eventually pro golf would die.

In the long term...bad news. If for 2 seasons The Wings (example) went 82-0 and 16-0 the business of the NHL, and the league, and the entertainment would suffer. and then..no league.

Just saying..the lottery helps keep this from happening.

That is all I am saying.

Loosie · Post by **Loosie** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:28 pm

I must say I do like the lottery system, but I also agree that it should be extended beyond the last 5 teams.

If there was a system in place where the teams that didn't make the playoffs all had a shot at the #1 pick, I think we'd have a very different landscape coem trade deadline day. No more sell-offs or anything like that. Sure teams will still be looking to load up, but you won't have situations like in Toronto were the media are trying to bury the Captain because he wants to remain the Captain.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:47 pm

I think both Danny and batdad are right. It just depends on where the league is that we're talking about.

For Europe, Danny is right. Fans in Europe have the passion to stand behind their team at all times, because a team in Europe isn't another Starbucks... instead, it's the friendly community coffee shop where people love to go. So they'll do what they can to keep it around.

But for North America(mostly the U.S.), batdad is right. We don't have a community coffee shop. We have a big-ass corporation-run Starbucks that's there simply to leech as much money from that city as it can. As a result, fans have no attachment, and thus have no trouble looking for a new team and sport if one doesn't satisfy. This is where parity is essential. The corporation(the NHL) has to keep each branch going strong or else the whole corporation will be dragged down.

And as a side note, this is where bettman's incompetence is so frustrating. He keeps putting stores in cities that won't shop for what he's selling. And on top of that, he's not doing anything about his stores that aren't selling well.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:55 pm

Sure he is...he gets the top stores to give money to the bad stores, as long as the bad stores do not horrible.

And that is a great point about European sports vs North American. As I typed I was thinking, but Europe does not work this way...really.

But I never put that in because

1 Was not sure how to word it.
2. Thought it would distract from my point, and well...I hate losing...

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:14 am

You're mostly right B. Stinson, sports fans in Europe are mostly coffee shop communities

And with a very high passion for the team. That's the great part of it.

The annoying part of it is that you always have the same 2-3 teams who win the championships, no matter which sport you're looking at. And they generally dominate for long decades. As people don't like to cheer for loosers, they sometimes (not always though) end to cheer their local team to support a bigger team that have a high chance to win. That's way more merchandise sales for those big clubs, leading to more money and therefore a bigger domination for the decade to come, as everything runs mostly on money in Europe. If you don't have a lot of money, you can't buy the top guys, and therefore you can't win. Sure, having a lot of money doesn't guarantee the title, but you must be a financial powerhouse to win on a regular basis.

And that's exactly why i like NA sports and leagues!

The competition is way more tight between top teams and weak teams. And those weak teams can be turned to something way bigger in some years with the right management. Weak teams are given the tools to improve with the draft. Then it's up to the teams to use those tools well. Having the top overall pick doesn't guarantee future success, just like money doesn't guarantee the win in Europe. But everyone has its chance to build a winning team. Picks to rebuild, FAs to strengthen, deadline acquisitions to become a powerhouse. So in the end, everyone has its chance, but still need to make the good choices to benefit from those chances. And how is it called when everyone as its chance? Fair.

Then, there's the entertainment issue mentionned in the posts above that have a way bigger part in NA that it has in Europe. Love it or hate it, but you've got to live with it. Point blank.

And yeah, that's why Bettman is totally incompetent. His business inhability is prodigious, but he's asked to be capable. Embarassing for the NHL... The league would better hire MacMahon... He's an assh*le, but at least he knows how to run a business and make it entertaining![/wrestling joke]

Post by **Danny** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:41 am

To come back to the action on the ice, that's 10 goals in 2 games for the Bs against the Leafs, who have been put to sleep officially now.

Without Savard as well, trade him, obviously he's holding Murray and Kessel back

Tampa has taken the lead against the Caps, that would be huge for the Bruins. (And the Flyers as well I guess

)

Post by **Danny** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:40 am

Now of course both Caps and Sabres just had to win in OT/SO.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:49 am

And Batdad's boy Lucic won the 7th Player Award!

Post by **Danny** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:40 am

He left the game early tonight, I think with 10 minutes to go. I don't even wanna check the injury update page tomorrow...

Post by **batdad** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:47 am

rubbish, I hope Milan is okay. Of course he won something. He should have won MVP...

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:16 pm

I had a feeling he would win the 7th Player (For those who don't know, it's the award Boston fans vote on that's given to the player who performs above and beyond expectations. It's not meant to go to stars. Of course, the fans have gotten it wrong a few times). Cam Neely was doing his weekly talk on the radio morning show I listen to. They asked him who he liked for the 7th Player and he responded with "Lucic" and gave a bunch of reasons. With it being the same day as when the award is given out, Bruins upper management already knew who won the award. So if he said anyone else, it would've been dishonest.

Post by **Shadd666** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:21 pm

It seems like Saku Koivu's season is over, isn't it?

Tough battle at every level in both conferences (except for Detroit)... This will be a very interesting finish!

Post by **CatchUp** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:18 pm

Shadd666 wrote:It seems like Saku Koivu's season is over, isn't it?

No way! He'll suit up for the playoffs. Maybe not first round, depending on who we end up playing, but Saku is a battler. He will play when the season is on the line.

Oh yeah, and since I haven't been around much at all this season, let me say this:

HABS RULE!!! HABS RULE!!! HABS RULE!!!

Loosie · Post by **Loosie** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:29 pm

I realize this is the Leafs fan in me coming out...but I'd love to see the Sens continue thier spiral and completely miss out on the playoff.

GO CAPS GO!!

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:23 pm

Here's hoping the Bruins keep surging forward into the playoffs!

They've got some good karma going their way. A bunch of the players (including Kessel, Lucic and Bergeron) just shaved their heads for a cancer charity.

Read the article here.

If you go back out to the main page of BostonBruins.com you can click on story # 2. That has a link to a gallery (it's a javascript thing, otherwise I would just post a link myself) of pictures of Phil Kessel before and after the shaving. He looked like a troll doll before he got buzzed!

Loosie · Post by **Loosie** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:42 pm

I'm not too impressed...HE DIDN'T BIC IT!