It's Gone! 2004-2006 NHL Offseason and Lockout Thread

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

OK. So just for something to do, let me play devil's advocate. Assuming that your support for the owners extends to a league-wide salary cap:

- Why should the NHL, a league driven almost exclusively by gameday and local revenues (as opposed to national TV deals like the NFL), have artificially equal salary structures?

Precisely FOR that reason. Without a cap and a redistribution of some wealth, the rich will continue to get richer while the poor get poorer. The league doesn't generate the TV revenue to support the current salary structure. The players want to get paid like they play football or baseball or basketball except the revenue isn't there to support the salaries. Owners have proven time and time again (in all sports) that they can't restrain themselves with salaries.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

- Why should Toronto or Detroit, who sell out every night, have to be limited to the same payroll as a team that can't even get fans out to watch the games?

To ensure some form of parity in the league. How does it help the league when it's the same teams in later rounds of the playoffs every year? No, a high payroll doesn't ensure victory but it heavily tilts things in your favor.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

- And if they are limited to, say, a $30M cap, where does all those extra millions in revenue go? To the other teams that can barely stay afloat? Straight into the owner's pocket? Don't say "cheaper ticket prices" because we know that won't happen.

I don't think it goes anywhere. I don't think you can spread stuff out becase the TV money isn't there unless they weigh the tv $ more heavily towards smaller markets but I doubt that will happen. I think that a hard cap will have to be enough to help balance things out. A luxury tax is a joke, it doesn't do anything just look at MLB.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

- Are you prepared for the inevitable byproduct of a cap: huge player turnover on a regular basis? Are you prepared to see teams cut their best players and have little to no year-to-year identy? I live in Ottawa, where the core of the team has stayed together for over five years and the fans love the guys. No way that happens in a cap world.

Yes it will, you are forgetting the way teams basically own players until they are 29 (or whatever the FA age gets changed to). The way the system is setup now with tender offers and min offers to retain players rights until they reach FA age, it won't be that bad. The vets will move around more than they do now but I think that's a worthwhile sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Don't get me wrong, I think the owners have a stronger case than the players. It's just that the more you look at it, the NFL-model really doesn't apply here. Apples and oranges.

I know you're playing devils advocate and no the situations aren't the same (because of TV) but I see no reason why a NFL system wouldn't work in the NHL and I think it's the best way to go. The Sabres lose millions and MILLIONS a year. The only reason they didn't leave was because Golisano and his billions stepped in thank god. The Sabres and many other small market teams simply can't compete on a consistent business in the current system. Yes, they may have the perfect season (99, or the Flames this year) but why should fans of those teams have to suffer for years and years to just have a shot once every decade?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

As a Leaf fan paying $200 for a pair of tickets, I'll gladly see that some of that money go to Edmonton or Minnesota or Calgary because I know that the markets will support them with a little bit of help. I'm hesitant to do the same for the Altantas and Nashvilles of the world, and I'm very hesitant to see all that money go right into the bottom line of the teacher's pension fund while they shrug and say "sorry, guess we're not allowed to spend it".

Let's be honest. You pay $200 for a pair of tickets because that is the Leafs can charge and know they will still sell out. The Sabres on the other hand are selling tickets below what they should to get fans in there. They can't raise ticket prices to generate revenue to get better players so they can't raise prices because their product isn't as good because they can't generate revenue.

Complaining about Leaf prices is like complaining about Yankee ticket prices. They can charge whatever they want and people will still flock there.

[Maple Leafs]

Hey Chubby, good points for the most part. The only one I'd take issue with is this:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Yes it will, you are forgetting the way teams basically own players until they are 29 (or whatever the FA age gets changed to). The way the system is setup now with tender offers and min offers to retain players rights until they reach FA age, it won't be that bad. The vets will move around more than they do now but I think that's a worthwhile sacrifice.

I'm not forgetting the current system, I just don't see any way that a salary cap gets implemented without major concessions from the owners, and that would include drastically lowering the FA age. I realize we're talking in hypotheticals here, but I don't think it's even worth discussing a cap without also factoring a very low FA age. Look at the NBA and NFL, and then try to think of a scenario where then NHLPA wouldn't insist of a FA age of around 25 or 26 if there was going to be a cap. Short of completely breaking the union (which may be Bettman's ultimate goal), I just don't see how it's possible.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Hey Chubby, good points for the most part. The only one I'd take issue with is this:

I'm not forgetting the current system, I just don't see any way that a salary cap gets implemented without major concessions from the owners, and that would include drastically lowering the FA age. I realize we're talking in hypotheticals here, but I don't think it's even worth discussing a cap without also factoring a very low FA age. Look at the NBA and NFL, and then try to think of a scenario where then NHLPA wouldn't insist of a FA age of around 25 or 26 if there was going to be a cap. Short of completely breaking the union (which may be Bettman's ultimate goal), I just don't see how it's possible.

Hey I agree. This is what is going to make it so difficult to reach a deal. Whether the rumors about the proposed offer from the NHLPA are true or not, they are going to want a much lower FA age. BUT, at $30 mil cap what are those new FA's going to get on the market? I think that's a tradeoff I would make if I were the owners.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I think that's a tradeoff I would make if I were the owners.

Which is why it's going to be so hard to get the PA to agree to a deal.

By the way, I just don't see the $30M figure flying. I realize that's the number that's out there, but I'd question how realistic (and how fair) it really is.

For one thing, from what I can find for last year only five teams are below the $30M right now. Compare that to 14 teams being at $40M+, with seven at $60M+. It seems like even if you believe in the cap concept, setting it so low would be extremely unfair to the players.

Beyond that, the NHL has annual revenues of about $2 billion. Thirty teams at $30M would be only $900M in salaries, or 45%. The NHL itself has claimed that it wants to be in the same range as the other sports, which is roughly 60-65%. Now obviously revenues will go down after a long strike, but we also know that many teams will also spend less than the cap. If you look at a rough percentage of 60%, that gives you $1.2B for salaries among thirty teams.

Add those two points together and it sure looks like a $40M cap is more realistic.

[Chubby]

the problem with those figures is they are highly skewed by the large market teams. I'd have to go look through some Golisano/Regier interviews but I think they said around 80% of revenue went to salary for the Sabres (maybe it was Quinn on the radio). Hell, $30 mil would be like 5% of Leaf revenues

Of course only 5 teams are below it right now, the market is SO overpriced it's silly. The large makret teams have ratched up the overall market for all players by bidding against themselves for the top players. I agree that a $40 mil cap is more realistic which may be why the initail bargaining point is $30 mil

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

the problem with those figures is they are highly skewed by the large market teams. I'd have to go look through some Golisano/Regier interviews but I think they said around 80% of revenue went to salary for the Sabres (maybe it was Quinn on the radio). Hell, $30 mil would be like 5% of Leaf revenues

Yes, but the key is that the owners want to tie it to a percentage of overall revenue. So skewed or not, if you're going to spend 60% of your $2B, that's about $40M a team unless the owners are projecting massive losses in revenue after a lockout.

Remember, the revenue part of the equation is skewed too. Teams like Detroit and Toronto bring in far more revenue than the other teams. They're the ones doing all the heavy-lifting in terms of bring in the money, which is why fans in those cities will be the first to get restless when they don't get to watch hockey for a year or two because Nashville can't compete.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

- Are you prepared for the inevitable byproduct of a cap: huge player turnover on a regular basis? Are you prepared to see teams cut their best players and have little to no year-to-year identy?

This isn't happening already? The Oilers have difficulty holding on to any good players, and the Flames have to decimate their supporting players just to keep Iggy in the fold year after year. If it happens to the small market teams, you might as well make it fair and force it upon the big market teams as well.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Yes, but the key is that the owners want to tie it to a percentage of overall revenue. So skewed or not, if you're going to spend 60% of your $2B, that's about $40M a team unless the owners are projecting massive losses in revenue after a lockout.

Remember, the revenue part of the equation is skewed too. Teams like Detroit and Toronto bring in far more revenue than the other teams. They're the ones doing all the heavy-lifting in terms of bring in the money, which is why fans in those cities will be the first to get restless when they don't get to watch hockey for a year or two because Nashville can't compete.

That's dumb if they want it tied up in overall revenue.

I know they do, that's what I was trying to say above. I agree about Det and Tor fans getting unrestless 1st, as a Sabre fan I'd rather them burn a season and get a fair system in place than do something halfass just to get the games played again.

[bbor]

which of you guys is Bettman and which is Goodenow?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by klayman

This isn't happening already? The Oilers have difficulty holding on to any good players, and the Flames have to decimate their supporting players just to keep Iggy in the fold year after year. If it happens to the small market teams, you might as well make it fair and force it upon the big market teams as well.

I'm not an expert on the NHL by any means, but here in Colorado we've seen drastic turnovers in each of the last 3 or 4 years. Blake, Forsberg, Sakik, Foote, Hejduk, Tanguay. The "core" has been there, but everything is always changing around them.

I'm not saying we are like Calgary and can barely afford one or two stars, but there is a LONG list of Avalanche that have went onto other places via FA and trades over the past four or five years. Some EXCELLANT players in that group.

I also understand that with a hard cap, that "core" would certainly have to be broken apart. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with that. I'm an Avs fan and I got sick of us winning the division every year. I've been pulling for Vancouver to win the damned thing ever sinse Bourqe got his title. (until Bertuzzi, now I wish someone else had broken the Avs streak)

Besides, as teams learn to work the cap, they can keep their players. It's already happening in football, where teams are starting to keep their core guys for a long time. (The Rams, if Warner had continued to play well, could have easily won 3 or 4 titles in a five year period. Every starter was locked up to long term, relatively cap friendly deals. The Chiefs, if they would have been intelligent with their draft picks and FA signings, could easily have put themselves in contention for three or four Super Bowl trips with their core.

It's all about learning to work the cap. It can be done.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Ragone

can the nhl really make ahl squads not train/play players with nhl contracts and not allow the minor league squad to pay the wages?

If they can.. thats akin to say General Motors saying.. alright.. you can strike.. but we are shutting down the parts plants and laying off 3k people because of it (which does usually happen)

my understanding is that nhl contracted players with more than 50 career NHL games wont be able to play. under 50 games (and non-NHL contracted players) would play.

no idea if that's right, or where I saw it. maybe a local paper (AHL team in Manchester). maybe it was a dream - I bet I didn't have sex in THAT one for sure.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not an expert on the NHL by any means, but here in Colorado we've seen drastic turnovers in each of the last 3 or 4 years. Blake, Forsberg, Sakik, Foote, Hejduk, Tanguay. The "core" has been there, but everything is always changing around them.

I'm not saying we are like Calgary and can barely afford one or two stars, but there is a LONG list of Avalanche that have went onto other places via FA and trades over the past four or five years. Some EXCELLANT players in that group.

not the same though. most of those deals weren't financially related - they were to get in better/different talent mixes. Drury, for example, was shipped out to get in Derek Morris...who was later dealt to bring in Vannanen and Chris Gratton.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

not the same though. most of those deals weren't financially related - they were to get in better/different talent mixes. Drury, for example, was shipped out to get in Derek Morris...who was later dealt to bring in Vannanen and Chris Gratton.

Chris Gratton HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wait.......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Chris Gratton HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wait.......... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wish I could laugh about it.

[TroyF]

DD,

No, it isn't the same and I said as such. I was just pointing out turnover in the NHL is fairly high in most cities right now. Sometimes financial, sometimes cleaning house. Whatever the reasons, it's not like many of us who watch teh NHL are going to go into shock with a high turnover rate. It's been happening anyway. The only difference would be everyone would be doing it for the same reasons.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I'd rather them burn a season and get a fair system in place than do something halfass just to get the games played again.

I think we'd all agree that that's the worst-case scenario. If the system work, then shut up and play the games. If it doesn't work, do what it takes to fix it. Just don't take away our season only to wind up with the same problems all over again (like they did in '94).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I wish I could laugh about it.

Ossi kicks ass in EHM at least After putting up with Gratton's underachieving ass in Buffalo, I'm astounded teams keep trading for him.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by TroyF

DD,

No, it isn't the same and I said as such. I was just pointing out turnover in the NHL is fairly high in most cities right now. Sometimes financial, sometimes cleaning house. Whatever the reasons, it's not like many of us who watch teh NHL are going to go into shock with a high turnover rate. It's been happening anyway. The only difference would be everyone would be doing it for the same reasons.

ah - I totally missed the context of the post. I get it now.
sorry.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Ossi kicks ass in EHM at least After putting up with Gratton's underachieving ass in Buffalo, I'm astounded teams keep trading for him.

Ossi was great in playoffs. Glad to have him on team. just hate to see them give up Morris and a nice prospect (Keith Ballard) to get him.
Gratton was a waste - he wasn't needed.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

no idea if that's right, or where I saw it. maybe a local paper (AHL team in Manchester). maybe it was a dream - I bet I didn't have sex in THAT one for sure.

Thats what I heard is going to happen here with the St. John's Maple Leafs.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, it isn't the same and I said as such. I was just pointing out turnover in the NHL is fairly high in most cities right now. Sometimes financial, sometimes cleaning house. Whatever the reasons, it's not like many of us who watch teh NHL are going to go into shock with a high turnover rate. It's been happening anyway. The only difference would be everyone would be doing it for the same reasons.

I do think it will be different, though. Yes, turnover is already high. But that's because of trades. See how fans feel when it's just a case of guys getting released.

As an example, you'd mentioned Iginla. In a cap world, chances are the Flames don't trade Niewendyk for Iginla (or Fleury for Regher). They just release them in a cap move. Trades are a big part of roster management in the NHL. They won't be (as much) after a cap, much like in the NFL and NBA.

Does that mean a cap is the wrong move? No. Just that there will be an adjustment period for fans, especially those who don't already follow the NFL/NBA and don't really understand what a cap does to a league.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I do think it will be different, though. Yes, turnover is already high. But that's because of trades. See how fans feel when it's just a case of guys getting released.

As an example, you'd mentioned Iginla. In a cap world, chances are the Flames don't trade Niewendyk for Iginla (or Fleury for Regher). They just release them in a cap move. Trades are a big part of roster management in the NHL. They won't be (as much) after a cap, much like in the NFL and NBA.

Does that mean a cap is the wrong move? No. Just that there will be an adjustment period for fans, especially those who don't already follow the NFL/NBA and don't really understand what a cap does to a league.

I dont know, the reason there are no trades and all cuts in the NFL is because of the large signing bonuses that are accelerated (and the bonuses are hige because the contracts aren't guarenteed). Player's just don't get cut willy nilly in the NBA, I think it would be more like that (how teams deal with the cap, not the cap itself)

[Cards4ever]

A 40 million dollar cap?! Oh no! The Leafs won't be able to have a $6 million dollar 3rd line D-man!

[Karim]

Why should the NHL, a league driven almost exclusively by gameday and local revenues (as opposed to national TV deals like the NFL), have artificially equal salary structures?

We know that the large markets will have the resources to be competitive under any system so my concern is strictly for the small market. I want the Flames to have a legitimate shot at signing a Peter Forsberg, for example, when he becomes a free agent. I don't want to see Buffalo have to trade Sidney Crosby just as he becomes the greatest star since Gretsky. I don't want to see Pittsburgh have to play "games" with Marc-Andre Fleury worried that if he gets in 25 games they'll have to dish out millions. Limiting how much a team can spend is not a panacea but it creates opportunities for competitive balance that otherwise wouldn't be there. It also enables smaller teams to retain players they've developed because there won't be inflationary pressure due to unrestricted free agency. Conroy may be resigned at his current salary because there isn't a team out there that can offer him $1 million more due to a lack of cap room. The fact that there won't be much of a TV contract and that the league is gate-driven really doesn't change this in my mind, other than the size of the cap.

Why should Toronto or Detroit, who sell out every night, have to be limited to the same payroll as a team that can't even get fans out to watch the games?

This is hard to answer and the only thing I can think of is that there should be no such expectation. If a team is not supported, maybe the owners have a right to demand relocation. But just because a team can outspend 20 other teams, doesn't mean it should. I know I'm being altruistic when I talk of a league-wide partnership but the NFL understands the importance of everyone making money.

And if they are limited to, say, a $30M cap, where does all those extra millions in revenue go? To the other teams that can barely stay afloat? Straight into the owner's pocket? Don't say "cheaper ticket prices" because we know that won't happen.

I think here we have to make an attempt to balance interests. Owners have a right to make a profit and we can't force them to reinvest in a team when salaries are inflationary beyond existing revenue streams. However, with a cap, the owner takes the team as a "public trust"; I can't see why the league can't enforce a salary floor to ensure no $5 million payrolls. The NFL has revenue sharing and there is no obvious public outcry by the owners in supporting the Chargers or Cardinals. The reason is because everyone is making money due to recognition that the league is successful through partnership. So, if Carolina can stay black with a salary cap, hard work on developing a local fan base, and corporate marketing initiatives, some revenue sharing should be heading there way. However, if they are consistently losing money due to lack of fan support even with salaries under control, then maybe ownership has a right to look at relocating the franchise. There are more medium and small-markets in the NHL than large markets.

Are you prepared for the inevitable byproduct of a cap: huge player turnover on a regular basis? Are you prepared to see teams cut their best players and have little to no year-to-year identy? I live in Ottawa, where the core of the team has stayed together for over five years and the fans love the guys. No way that happens in a cap world.

Yes because for me it's about the logo on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back. I'm interested in Stanley Cup championships coming to my city, not having popular player x stay here his entire career. However, it's quite likely that a core of 8-10 popular players would remain a long time with the team.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Short of completely breaking the union (which may be Bettman's ultimate goal), I just don't see how it's possible.

We're heading in that direction and didn't the NFL break the players' union? How else would someone playing NFL football agree on non-guaranteed contracts?

[Tekneek]

The NHL does not really have that high of a turnover rate. Not the NHL roster. The organization may, but not the NHL active roster.

The NFL has become far less interesting to me since the union was broken. No dynasties. It's hard, or even impossible, to keep a team together for very long. If people think the NHL is boring now, just wait until 1/2 or 3/4 of a team is new every season. It will be incredibly boring, and a different team will win the Stanley Cup just about every year. A huge part of NHL history has been the dynasties, such that they have even had sections of the Official NHL Guide & Record Book dedicated to them. While it may make financial sense to never have a dynasty again, it is quite boring from a fan perspective.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The NHL does not really have that high of a turnover rate. Not the NHL roster. The organization may, but not the NHL active roster.

The NFL has become far less interesting to me since the union was broken. No dynasties. It's hard, or even impossible, to keep a team together for very long. If people think the NHL is boring now, just wait until 1/2 or 3/4 of a team is new every season. It will be incredibly boring, and a different team will win the Stanley Cup just about every year. A huge part of NHL history has been the dynasties, such that they have even had sections of the Official NHL Guide & Record Book dedicated to them. While it may make financial sense to never have a dynasty again, it is quite boring from a fan perspective.

When are you saying the union was broken? 84? (or whenever the strike/scabs played?)

[Johnny93g]

I miss hockey already

[Karim]

More thrilling news...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040609.wnhll10/BNStory/Sports/
"Somehow people think the players will be intimidated by a lockout," (agent Rich Winters) said. "Well, some of these guys are so glad to get back to their hometowns and get a year off of the bad coaching and brutality of the NHL. They're looking forward to it."

Winters is one of my favourite people in the whole wide world...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040611.wbrunt12/BNStory/Sports/
Bill Daly, an NHL vice-president and the league's chief legal counsel. Brian Burke, the former Vancouver Canucks general manager and a former NHL VP for hockey operations. The names are being kicked around, along with the suggestion that a coup isn't entirely out of the question.

Burke would be the ideal NHL Commissioner but with Bettman having veto power over any new CBA and only needing the support of 8 owners to proceed, I don't see a coup as very likely.

[Karim]

dola,

Good article from Larry Brooks...
http://www.nypost.com/sports/22960.htm

This is wrong on so many levels...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=e...&a=0&t=&prev=1

[Karim]

double dola,

Damnit, I'll keep this thread alive single-handedly if I have to!

R.J. Umberger, former 1st round pick of the Canucks who was traded to the Rangers, signed today with Philadelphia for the rookie maximum.

Philly also resigned Primeau, an UFA, for $17 million/4 years.

[Maple Leafs]

"Ownership in hockey should be asking the leadership for a vision. What's the future? But they're not saying 'Let's hold those people accountable.' They're saying 'Let's lower salaries to the level where the people who got us here can continue running the game with no vision.' How long are they going to continue to drink the cost-certainty Kool-Aid in order to prop up franchises that maybe shouldn't exist."

This is what bugs me. The players (and in this case, the agents) always talk like this. "It's not our fault, it's the owners. All they have to do is stop handing out the big dollars and everything will be fine."

One problem with that: the owners tried that a few times in baseball, and they got slapped with the dreaded "collusion" judgment. Granted that was a somewhat extreme case, but basically the players wants to blame the owners for not working together, then scream bloody murder when they actually do start looking out for the good of the league.

[klayman]

The players are never at fault. Remember back in the 50's when the owners used to screw them.

I think us fans should form a union. The NHLFA. You can only buy tickets if you are part of the union. You can only buy NHL direct TV if you are part of the union. Then I'd like to see what the players and the owners would do when WE go on strike.

[Simms]

Originally Posted by klayman

I think us fans should form a union. The NHLFA. You can only buy tickets if you are part of the union. You can only buy NHL direct TV if you are part of the union. Then I'd like to see what the players and the owners would do when WE go on strike.

While its vision is not exactly the same as yours, the NHLFA actually exists:

http://www.nhlfa.com

You sign up, and they send you a couple of surveys a year. The two guys that run it actually got an audience with Bettman at the All-Star game a couple of years ago, and his response was basically, "show me a membership of 75,000, and I'll take you seriously." I think they had about 20k then...not sure what they're at now, but it's a worthy cause, so join up and spread the word.

I actually feel bad for not having posted this before now....truth be told, I don't think of them very often. Usually only the 2-3 times a year I get an e-mail from them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

This is what bugs me. The players (and in this case, the agents) always talk like this. "It's not our fault, it's the owners. All they have to do is stop handing out the big dollars and everything will be fine."

One problem with that: the owners tried that a few times in baseball, and they got slapped with the dreaded "collusion" judgment. Granted that was a somewhat extreme case, but basically the players wants to blame the owners for not working together, then scream bloody murder when they actually do start looking out for the good of the league.

I don't know how closely you follow MLB, ML, but try listening to any clips you can from the radio or whatnot from 2002. In KC, they tried to pin down the players rep (Jason Grimsley) and a few other of the players with that exact question and then you just get the "well, we're not telling them how to run their business" type lines that, as a fan, just sound like sheer lunacy to me. Real "pass the kool aid" type lines but the scary thing is that if you listened, they actually believed it.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Simms

While its vision is not exactly the same as yours, the NHLFA actually exists:

http://www.nhlfa.com

You sign up, and they send you a couple of surveys a year. The two guys that run it actually got an audience with Bettman at the All-Star game a couple of years ago, and his response was basically, "show me a membership of 75,000, and I'll take you seriously." I think they had about 20k then...not sure what they're at now, but it's a worthy cause, so join up and spread the word.

I actually feel bad for not having posted this before now....truth be told, I don't think of them very often. Usually only the 2-3 times a year I get an e-mail from them.

I joined up. What the hey.

SI

[Karim]

I joined the NHLFA a long time ago but I don't think they're really a force at all. They're still around 21k members.

Anyway, I can't believe the NHL bought this domain name and setup the website. It's all you really need to know on how long this one's going to be...
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/

[bbor]

I'm sick of summer.

Are training camps opening soon?

[Karim]

Carolina in financial trouble...
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/h...-7423440c.html
"Comerica has sought as collateral personal guarantees from the Karmanos family; stock of Karmanos' software company; arenas valued at $70 million to $80 million in Florida and Michigan; the Canes franchise, valued at more than $100 million by Forbes magazine in 2003; $40 million in revenue over 20 years for the RBC arena naming rights; the arena lease and other assets of the organization."

[Karim]

Originally Posted by bbor

I'm sick of summer.

Are training camps opening soon?

The Flames just held their prospect camp. Phaneuf was a men among boys... Krahn hurt his knee AGAIN which makes it doubtful he'll ever be a NHL goaltender... Regehr's brother is not going to make the NHL... Our Russian prospects are still in Europe and with the lack of an IIHF transfer agreement in place, really makes you wonder the benefit of drafting Russians early if they're nothing more than projects... oh and the CBA hasn't been resolved.

[Cards4ever]

Originally Posted by bbor

I'm sick of summer.

Are training camps opening soon?

I'm sure you could rustle up some hockey if you look around! Model camp is going on for the U of M here.

Karim, Leopold was on KFAN this week after coming back from Calgary, he gave you guys major props, he loves playing there.

[Karim]

Cool. If he wants to, he'll be here a long time. He's played about a season and a half with Regehr as his defence partner and together they should form the backbone of the defence for the next several years. He's made amazing progress in a couple years and now I think the team would like to see a bit more offensively.

[bbor]

Originally Posted by Karim

Carolina in financial trouble...
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/h...-7423440c.html
"Comerica has sought as collateral personal guarantees from the Karmanos family; stock of Karmanos' software company; arenas valued at $70 million to $80 million in Florida and Michigan; the Canes franchise, valued at more than $100 million by Forbes magazine in 2003; $40 million in revenue over 20 years for the RBC arena naming rights; the arena lease and other assets of the organization."

No wonder they finally dumped Irbe and his 3 mil + a year salary.They were keeping this guy in the ECHL stricktly out of spite.He was traded for Futures to the Blue Jackets.

Ken Klee re-signs with the Leafs....for 2 years at 2 mil per year.

[Karim]

Are there any good hockey publications out there? I used to subscribe to the Hockey News but since it was based in Ontario by the time it got to Calgary, there no longer was much news and the features weren't worth the subscription fee. The internet does a pretty good job of coverage but is there a quality hockey magazine out there?

[sachmo71]

Wha? Klee get's 2 mil per? Guess the Leafs are hoping there is no cap.

[bbor]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Wha? Klee get's 2 mil per? Guess the Leafs are hoping there is no cap.

I thought that waas cheap?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by bbor

I thought that waas cheap?

Hmmm. I guess if he really brings something.

[Simms]

If Klee even brings 75% of what he brought last year, $2 mil is cheap. Nice deal for the Leafs, IMO.

[bbor]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Hmmm. I guess if he really brings something.

He's good enough to be playing on the USA WC team...If that means anything?