Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
grcenter47

Senators owner cheapshots Devils Brand of Hockey

77 posts in this topic

Funny this is right now some Ranger fan is probably reading this thread, posting links of it on some Rangers board, and saying "Duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh, see, da Debbies really are bawring, even dere own fans finally admit it!"

 

And yeah, the Devils are not an easy watch a lot of nights.  It seems like scoring a goal for them is SO hard.  Can't imagine what it's like to watch the Sabres most nights. 

 

Rangers fans would be the pot calling the kettle black - look at the two teams in the 2012 ECF. The Devils were the ones aggressively pushing the play and the Rangers were playing with six goalies. But when the Rangers played that way it was "gritty defense"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers fans would be the pot calling the kettle black - look at the two teams in the 2012 ECF. The Devils were the ones aggressively pushing the play and the Rangers were playing with six goalies. But when the Rangers played that way it was "gritty defense"

 

Also notice not a single Rags fan has stated about the Blackhawks winning "1/2 cup" this past spring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1. Didn't think to mention this, but imo most real fans are excited by their team, no matter what type of game they play. If Sens fans only want to watch scoring, they're not real fans. If the Sens are winning, the fans should be happy, and butts should be in seats. They're not, so Melnyk feels the need to bash someone else.

 

This isn't exactly right. Winning doesn't necessarily bring fans. NJ is a perfect example to that. I'd bet that if the Devils had a dynamic offense like Washington has had from 2008 on, it would have a major increase in attendance. Goals and exciting plays help bring in casual fans to the game and probably make die hard fans want to spend more on the team they already love.

 

The Sens were right there. From 1998 to 2004, they were a very solid hockey team under Jacques Martin. It had no star players and the success didn't translate into massive crowds. Martin's Sens teams were as boring as Lemaire's Devils. Then he goes out. Murray comes in. They open up their style. They feature the most dynamic line in the NHL, and scalpers made a fortune selling Sens tickets on the secondary market.

 

Winning can make fans happy, but it doesn't mean you want to spend hundreds of dollars on a boring product. 

Edited by devilsrule33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's on the bike in the top right? I can't make it out in my phone...

I think its Gio...

I like that Jagr is the sniper, should be Ryder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone else already said, haters gonna hate. I like when someone singles us out actually, gives me a chance to point out the success of the franchise :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rant against hypothetical Rangers fans aside, Devils games have been tedious to watch because the team hasn't been able to finish off plays and score goals. There's nothing boring fundamentally about what the Devils try to do in games (heavy forecheck, dictate pace of play, keep defense pinned in their own zone, stay responsible defensively) but yet the stereotypes of yesteryear remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't exactly right. Winning doesn't necessarily bring fans. NJ is a perfect example to that. I'd bet that if the Devils had a dynamic offense like Washington has had from 2008 on, it would have a major increase in attendance. Goals and exciting plays help bring in casual fans to the game and probably make die hard fans want to spend more on the team they already love.

 

The Sens were right there. From 1998 to 2004, they were a very solid hockey team under Jacques Martin. It had no star players and the success didn't translate into massive crowds. Martin's sens teams were as boring as Lemaire's Devils. Then he goes out. Murray comes in. They open up their style. They feature the most dynamic line in the NHL, and scalpers made a fortune selling Sens tickets on the secondary market.

 

Winning can make fans happy, but it doesn't mean you want to spend hundreds of dollars on a boring product. 

But Devils fans get a bad rap because of attendance, while we keep hearing how great Canadian hockey fans are. IMO if the Sens need to play entertaining hockey to fill their building, their market is no better than ours, yet we take sh!t for attendance all the time. Not saying that's changing, just, like everybody else on here, sick of the double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDB on the jetski makes me crack up. Whatta bafoon

classic, and who's that, Travis takin a selfie on the smartphone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

classic, and who's that, Travis takin a selfie on the smartphone?

by the looks of that long hair which is over due 7 months for a cut.. certainly resembles him alright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't exactly right. Winning doesn't necessarily bring fans. NJ is a perfect example to that. I'd bet that if the Devils had a dynamic offense like Washington has had from 2008 on, it would have a major increase in attendance. Goals and exciting plays help bring in casual fans to the game and probably make die hard fans want to spend more on the team they already love.

 

The Sens were right there. From 1998 to 2004, they were a very solid hockey team under Jacques Martin. It had no star players and the success didn't translate into massive crowds. Martin's Sens teams were as boring as Lemaire's Devils. Then he goes out. Murray comes in. They open up their style. They feature the most dynamic line in the NHL, and scalpers made a fortune selling Sens tickets on the secondary market.

 

Winning can make fans happy, but it doesn't mean you want to spend hundreds of dollars on a boring product. 

 

It had no star players?  It had Marian Hossa and Daniel Alfredsson.  Gimme a break - no star players.

 

While I do think the Devils would draw better with a more exciting style, I don't think it's as stark as you make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bothers me more that an owner made that comment.

 

..not me. Jealousy runs deep.

The truth is; if ANY team had a Head Coach who's style of play (would ultimately) change the league, HOF defensemen, and an all-world goalie playing in his prime.. make no mistake about it, they would've absolutely played the style of hockey that the Devils have played for so long. When you win 3 Championships, and have been to 5 Stanley Cup Finals over a 20-year span, you're going to have strong covetousness felt by your peers. It's clear 2003 still bothers Melnyk 11 years later. Boy that must suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love the Doc!!  Emerick tweeted this picture yesterday:

 

 

Bd_pW0-IcAAGRxa.jpg

 

 

You know that's a parody account, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, it's not what he said that bothers me as much as the fact that it's somehow totally acceptable for anyone, including an owner, to kick the Devils. If an owner or top personality came out and ripped the Rangers, Penguins, Kings, any of the NBC Teams, there would be a huge backlash including a segment on NBC Game of the Week denouncing it.

It seems that when it comes to the Devils, Isles, Phoenix, and maybe a couple of other teams, snarky backhanded comments from commentators are the norm. I remember Nashville was treated this way as well for a while, until they got the Smashville monicker. And of course I understand this is part of being a Devils fan. It just seems so unnecessary at times.

The current team is clearly boring many nights. There's no denying that. But the Devils have worn that label since 1995, even when leading the league in scoring with some top offensive lines and players, and having several HOF players on the team. I don't understand why a league that is trying to grow a product doesn't discourage that kind of labeling. Eh, it is what it is I guess.

That and the fact it's always the Devils getting busted on for it. Fifteen/twenty teams could be playing similar systems - successful ones at that like LA, Boston - and we'll always be the poster child for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had no star players?  It had Marian Hossa and Daniel Alfredsson.  Gimme a break - no star players.

 

While I do think the Devils would draw better with a more exciting style, I don't think it's as stark as you make it out to be.

 

I think by star players, he means marketable players that would get people, especially in American markets, into the arena that otherwise wouldn't really go.  People that like hockey will like watching Hossa and Alfredsson.  But the people who are sports fans, but not really hockey fans, don't care about guys like that.

 

At this point, the only way that the Devils are going to have consistently sold out games will be if they landed a nationally recognized superstar, or someone you would expect to be that, like Connor McDavid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of, I definitely saw some neutral zone trap hockey from Montreal in the first period, anyone notice that? At first I thought we were just terrible on the break, but it was definitely the Habs clogging up the neutral zone.

 

Needless to say, we figured it out by the time the second intermission was over and I'm glad we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by star players, he means marketable players that would get people, especially in American markets, into the arena that otherwise wouldn't really go.  People that like hockey will like watching Hossa and Alfredsson.  But the people who are sports fans, but not really hockey fans, don't care about guys like that.

 

At this point, the only way that the Devils are going to have consistently sold out games will be if they landed a nationally recognized superstar, or someone you would expect to be that, like Connor McDavid. 

 

How many players were there in the league like that in the time frame that dr33 picked?  Offhand I would say 0 - Jagr fell into irrelevance in Washington, players like Yzerman, Sakic, and Lemieux were slowing down, Lindros was constantly hurt, Kariya and Selanne weren't like their late 90s selves.  I'm probably forgetting a few guys but there was a significant gap between Gretzky/Lemieux and Ovechkin/Crosby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while there is truth to the statement, isn't it at least partially due to personnel??? we're pretty old and lack team speed. if we had more speed and skill, I like to think that the style of play would cater to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Any Devils fan that is whining about a lack of star power can happily go root for the team across the river - I won't miss them. That's the kind of fan that sits at a game and yells "SHOOT IT" for 60 minutes. B) Any penguins fan that whines about the Devils being boring has shown their bandwagon status - guarantee they weren't around pre-Crosby when the Penguins pretty much defined the term boring. C) Any fan that still harps on the "trap", as if half the teams in the league don't play a variation of it, is just parroting whatever idiot NBC had covering the game that day (besides Doc, of course) Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

This post is spot on. If you dont appreciate low scoring, defensive hockey, youre not a hockey fan as far as im concerned. Youre not a student of the game. If you love hockey, and have played it, you understand the beauty of that style of hockey. I take more offense to idiot Devils fans whining about the style we play than some nobody who owns a nothing franchise. Nobody gave a sh!t about how many goals were scored before the NHL decided theyd make more money if the game was generally more offensive. Brainwash successful. Edited by thecoffeecake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had no star players?  It had Marian Hossa and Daniel Alfredsson.  Gimme a break - no star players.

 

While I do think the Devils would draw better with a more exciting style, I don't think it's as stark as you make it out to be.

 

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Alfredsson was a very good player for the Sens under Martin, but he wasn't a reason to buy a ticket. He wasn't close to being the folk hero yet, either. Alfredsson was the whipping boy for all the Sens losses to Toronto.

 

Hossa was getting there and had one great season with the Sens before being dealt for Heatley. The Senators in 2005-2006 were like the greatest show on ice, especially compared to the days under Martin where Radek Bonk or Todd White were some of their best scorers.  It was close before the lockout (they did lead the league in scoring in 2003-2004), but they took it to another level after the lockout pretty much scoring 5 goals every 2nd home game.

 

Back to Melnyk. The guy is such a fool. He did a radio interview the other day where he said (I am paraphrasing) gone are the days of the Sens being a cap team. They tried that and it didn't succeed (he's full of a sh!t...he is broke and can't afford to be a cap team)...and that GMs that spend to the cap are idiots.

Edited by devilsrule33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every sport has a character owner.  Eugene Melnyk is that guy in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Alfredsson was a very good player for the Sens under Martin, but he wasn't a reason to buy a ticket. He wasn't close to being the folk hero yet, either. Alfredsson was the whipping boy for all the Sens loses to Toronto.

 

Hossa was getting there and had one great season with the Sens before being dealt for Heatley. The Senators in 2005-2006 were like the greatest show on ice, especially compared to the days under Martin where Radek Bonk or Todd White were some of their best scorers.  It was close before the lockout (they did lead the league in scoring in 2003-2004), but they took it to another level after the lockout pretty much scoring 5 goals every 2nd home game.

 

Back to Melnyk. The guy is such a fool. He did a radio interview the other day where he said (I am paraphrasing) gone are the days of the Sens being a cap team. They tried that and it didn't succeed (he's full of a sh!t...he is broke and can't afford to be a cap team)...and that GMs that spend to the cap are idiots.

 

In a way I can't blame Melnyk (even if he's a tool), whether he's got the money or not...the Senators signed Spezza, Heatley, and Alfredsson to nice, pricey contract extensions in 2007-08, and that kind of blew up on them.  (Tampa went through something similar).   

 

Re:  Alfredsson, Hossa, and others, yeah, I more remember Ottawa fans getting on them for so many one-and-dones and short playoff runs, than anything else (and I had forgotten about their losing to the Leafs four times in the playoffs...ouch).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I can't blame Melnyk (even if he's a tool), whether he's got the money or not...the Senators signed Spezza, Heatley, and Alfredsson to nice, pricey contract extensions in 2007-08, and that kind of blew up on them.  (Tampa went through something similar).   

 

Re:  Alfredsson, Hossa, and others, yeah, I more remember Ottawa fans getting on them for so many one-and-dones and short playoff runs, than anything else (and I had forgotten about their losing to the Leafs four times in the playoffs...ouch).

 

It was a combination of always losing to a team that bullied them (The Leafs had Domi, Tucker, Corson, Roberts) while the Sens were very euro-heavy and Alfredsson got the brunt of it being a European Captain and all. Lot of BS.

 

Melnyk can say what he wants, but they still tried and failed the free agent root (luckily for them not with long-term deals) with Kovalev (an absolute disaster) and Gonchar (mixed results). This was after they traded Heatley. It wasn't really a blow up, but just a new regime that had to replenish the farm system (they had absolutely no prospects around 2007).  But Melnyk's cheapness forced Alfredsson to leave, and if he put a bit more money into payroll, maybe they take that next step. Hard be successful at a very low internal cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0