Jump to content

PeteyNice

Members
  • Content Count

    4,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PeteyNice

  1. It's going to be Grand Larsson-y, I can feel it!
  2. It had no bearing on what came afterwards. There is no Butterfly Effect here. The next year they were mediocre and after that were average until Lemaire came along. Any impact MacLean's goal may have had was long gone by then. Remember, Stevens couldn't wait to get out of here. BTW, you sig is a joke as 27-41-12 hardly qualifies as winning.
  3. How do you figure that? The 88-89 they were 27-41-12. That isn't competitive. After that they hovered around .500 until Lemaire came. Bringing in Lemaire is what made this a competitive organization. It isn't like they stayed in NJ because of that.
  4. No, but if you asked them what they think of Ken Hitchcock I am sure you would get a negative response.
  5. Really? Jason Arnott disagrees. So does Jeff Friesen. If they had won the Cup in 88 you might have a point. Remember, they did not make the playoffs in 89. And after that they would sneak in with a low seed and get blitzed by Mario and the Pens. There was no sustained success for another six years. It was a lot of fun but I don't think it even gets in the conversation.
  6. The Sens were bankrupt. They almost left the league period.
  7. I will always remember the goal...and wearing my Devils jersey to school and talking sh!t to the Rangers fans the next day. But that's me. If you aren't a Devils fan you don't remember or care. If you are a younger Devils fan, it doesn't mean as much (And if you are a younger Devils fan, you should look up 1988. After the three Cups, it was the best season. Not only did they go on a tear at the end of the season to make the playoffs. They did it at the expense of the Rangers. And to top it off, they beat the Islanders in round 1. When the Islanders were a dominant team). Those two groups are the majority of people and to them MacLean was the awful coach who killed the Devils season. I would say this will be devastating to his coaching career. He would have to start at a lower level and work his way up. I think it is more likely that he goes into a less visible hockey operations role. Or maybe broadcasting.
  8. I remained a Devils fan in Atlanta. I am done with all of the NHL. It happened in Atlanta it can happen anywhere. I remember 95. Whatever the motivation, the NHL saved hockey in those cities. I am saying the ASG was never serious about finding a local owner.
  9. The point I was making is that people turn up to see hockey here. The idea that "Atlanta doesn't support hockey" is false. Also, Glads tickets are as expensive or more expensive than some Thrashers tickets. The cheapest Glads tickets are $11 day of game. The cheapest Thrashers tickets are $10. It is a complex financial transaction. It's not like buying bread and milk at the store. There is a lot that we still don't know. There was at least part of that time that the owners had an exclusive negotiating window on the arena and the Hawks. If you were interested in the Thrashers, you couldn't make a move then since you would not know who you would be negotiating a lease with. We also don't know what kind of lease terms were being offered. That would have a huge impact on the viability of someone buying the team to keep it here.
  10. It is not a step forward for the league at all. The NHL needs to grow. There is no growth in Winnipeg. There is a huge growth opportunity in Atlanta if ownership actually cared and did not simply run the team on the cheap. Atlanta is a fine hockey market. The ECHL team is regularly at the high end of attendance in that league. Why? They win occasionally. The Thrashers made the playoffs one time in their time in Atlanta and showed no signs of turning that around any time soon. You can't blame fans for not wanting to pay to see that. If you limited the league to markets that would still turn out under those circumstances the NHL would be very very small. Anyway, I am done with the NHL. After watching them go all out to save Nashville, Phoenix and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh and then not lift a finger for Atlanta? That does not work for me. If that is how the NHL treats its fans I see no reason to continue to spend time and money on it. I will find a nice Major Junior team and root for them. There is other hockey. As for the "well they couldn't find a local buyer" tripe. I have a hard time with that. They couldn't legally start trying to sell the team until December when their lawsuit ended. Five months is not a long time. These a$$holes never wanted the Thrashers. They wanted the Hawks and the arena and had to take the Thrashers to get that. They were never committed to hockey here. They failed, not Atlanta as a market.
  11. Before wary of good players on bad teams. If Larsson is on the board and he is not the pick I will be very disappointed.
  12. Speaking strictly of Atlanta, the ownership has been involved in a long drawn out lawsuit between each other for years. The only season the Thrashers made the playoffs they drew ~17,000 a game. Hockey can work here but the product cannot be consistently terrible. There are very few cities that would respond to the failure on the ice seen in Atlanta and Columbus with high attendance. If that is your standard for "supporting NHL hockey" then the league would be much smaller.
  13. Phoenix isn't struggling because it isn't a hockey market, it is struggling because it has poor ownership and an arena that is not convenient to a lot of the population. Atlanta is struggling not because this isn't a hockey market but because of inept ownership. Houston, Seattle/Portland and yes Vegas could easily support NHL teams. San Diego probably could too and maybe SLC. I am not saying the NHL needs to expand to any/all of these places but the idea that the US market is somehow "tapped out" is laughable.
  14. Who says it has to be at Prudential Center? Wasn't it at the Giants Stadium bubble in the past when the team played at CAA? Lots of places they could have it...
  15. I don't think that is true at all. Houston could easily support a team as could the Pacific NW (Seattle or Portland). Kansas City could deserve a chance and whatever league decides to do Vegas first will do well. That's just off the top of my head. A case could be made for Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, San Diego and lots of other places. The US market is hardly tapped out.
  16. It is a long term strategy. Democracy doesn't happen overnight. Also, it is as much about opening markets for large oil companies (whether they are American or not) as anything else. When was the last time we stoked democracy in a country that did not have oil? Bosnia? The fact that it looks bad has not stopped us before, and it won't stop us in the future. The Daily Show had it right last night. http://www.hulu.com/watch/225699/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-americas-freedom-packages#s-p1-sr-i1
  17. It's not just us. It's oil as something traded on the world market. Even if we don't get oil directly from Libya, what happens there impacts the price we pay.
  18. I'd be more OK with this if we didn't just go into places that had oil. Look at what is going on Bahrain and not a peep, ditto the genocide in the Sudan. I guess if you want the US to intervene you need to have oil.
  19. I *hate* the new tournament format. It was one thing when the play-in was for #16 seeds who were going to get rolled. But now? You can't legitimately do your bracket until 11PM EDT on Wednesday and games start at 12:15PM on Thursday. Not much time at all.
  20. The fix was in. Arsenal didn't help themselves but it was clear how this game was supposed to go. Rough couple weeks for the Gunners.
  21. Sure, but that is the max for Winnipeg, while Atlanta and Phoenix are basically at the minimum. It is all about future growth. There is no growth in Winnipeg or Quebec City.
  22. As everyone has said in this thread, this is the big leagues. As much as Winnipeg and Quebec City may love hockey the big time economics just don't work. Without the corporate sponsorship base and population to have a major TV deal, I don't see how either of those teams could afford to spend anywhere near the cap on a consistent basis. And replacing two bottom feeders with two other bottom feeders does no one any good. Not to mention the hit the league would take negotiating an American TV deal without two of the top 10 markets represented. Winnipeg may get the Coyotes simply because they played by the rules and have everything ready to go while better markets like Houston or Seattle are not prepared. That doesn't mean it is a good for the league long term. The NHL left the small Canadian markets for a reason, they just are not viable long term. When the Canadian Dollar is back to being worth $0.70, they will be in real trouble. Again. Atlanta is not a bad hockey market. It just held back by poor ownership. If the Thrashers had the Coyotes record they would be drawing much better - just look at their attendance from 2006-07, the only year they were any good.
  23. I think you saw a preview with the iPad 2. Faster processor, thinner case, no death grip bug etc. The speed and memory jump, plus probably higher res cameras will be the draw.
  24. He is using some Š„klund (2.3% accurate) words like 'think' and 'possible'. It is also possible that Cliff Lee is traded to the Yankees in the next two weeks for Andruw Jones and AJ Burnett.
  25. I don't have a problem with it from a talent perspective. Melo or no Melo, the Knicks weren't winning a championship this year. So Chandler is irrelevant. Felron is a nice player but for his role Billups is a capable replacement. Gallinari has developed well but you have to give up something of real value. Mogzov may turn into something but he is still the definition of a project. Also, it is tough to say Mogzov is a starter. I don't like it from the money angle. If the NBA gets a more restrictive salary cap you are committing a lot to two guys and without the draft picks to bring in cheaper talent it is hard to fill in. The Knicks did not have great options, they could have let it play out and tried to sign Melo in the off season or saved the cap space until 2012. Neither gives a guarantee of anything. They took the guarantee of something and after what seems like decades, the Knicks are relevant and that has real value. The CBA is a real unknown and hangs over all of this.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.