Don Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 (edited) http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=85451 I'm only half through: - Worst trade: giving up a high draft pick for Sharifijanov from the Devils - Would you be upset if someone said that you were a bad GM because you only won 1 playoff round? - No. Fair comment. - Would you be upset if someone said that you were a bad GM because you didn't get a strong #1 goaltender? - No. Fair comment. - Then why would Al Strachan saying that you demanded $2M/year upset you? - Because it wasn't true. The others are matters of opinion. Strachan said this as a matter of fact and it was a lie. - the media overplayed the Bertuzzi incident and invaded his privacy. Nobody should be showing up at someone's house and demanding an interview at his home. - But he's a public figure. That's how he makes his money. - No, he makes his money as a hockey player. Not by being a public figure. Edited May 27, 2004 by Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 - Why the CBA needs change: because a good GM should be able to put a good team on the ice every year, and a bad GM should ice a bad team every year. Small market teams shouldn't get the cup only once in 10 years. Calgary had 9 bad years. Now they are deep into the playoffs. They probably will be in the playoffs again next year. And then all the players start demanding giant contracts and the payroll explodes and you can't afford to keep them all and you're back out of the playoffs for 9 years. It shouldn't be that way. You can't make a profit AND be competitive every year if you are in a smaller market NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE GM IS. And that is wrong. - On his goals in life: He wants to win a championship. It wasn't his goal in Vancouver. His goal in Vancouver was to put a winning team on the ice and make a profit for the owners. He figured that was what the goal of being a good GM was. And putting a very exciting team with lots of goals out on the ice - put a product on the ice that will make the people excited. Put a team on the ice that will sell more tickets and generate profit for the owner, while still winning a lot of games. A Stanley Cup is still a quest, but it wasn't his primary goal in Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Stanley Cup not the primary goal eh? I guess that explains Cloutier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 How can he say that? That was every fans goal and the players goal. I bet it was Crawford's goal. This team ahs been very good for the past two years and his goal wasn't to get passed the 2nd round and make it farther this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 How can he say that? That was every fans goal and the players goal. I bet it was Crawford's goal. This team ahs been very good for the past two years and his goal wasn't to get passed the 2nd round and make it farther this year? Fans, Players, Coach. Yup, it was their goal. I guess it wasn't the goal of Orca Bay, and in turn Burke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 Well, it's interesting. Burke DID put an entertaining product on the ice. He DID put together a team that would score a lot of goals for a fairly cheap price. He DID sell a lot of tickets. And he DID turn a tidy little profit for his owner. On the other the Devils put out a defense-first, trapping team that can't sell front row tickets for a dollar. And they lose money every year. But they win championships. Two distinct methods of running a team. One gets fired, the other hailed as a genius. I, as most of you, prefer the way our organization is run. I'll take the pot shots about destroying hockey so long as my closet is full of championship merchandise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LL Cool NJ Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Depending on the sources, the team was purchased for $195 million by Puck Holdings, a separate entity from YankeeNets, which overpaid by $20 million. (The Newark Star Ledger's Matthew Futterman and George E. Jordan) The fact that the new owners overpaid for the teams means that they will eventually take a hit on the bottom line equal to that overpayment. In geak speak, the purchaser (Puck Holdings) will record the assets acquired at the fair market value, which is $175 million. The overpayment will then be carried on the books until the "goodwill" stops providing a future benefit. With the current state of the NHL, a blind man can see that overpaying, even better, owning an NHL team holds little or no future benefit. The accounting for the overpayment is often a one time hit and is recognized upon the managements discretion. If the Devils incurred a net loss of $15 million in 2003, the blame should not be directed to the operations but to the stupidity of owners. Had the Devils not incur the paper loss (primarily a financing miscalculation), the team would have been one of the 11 teams that made a profit during the period. Personally, I do not know whether Vancouver made a profit or loss last year. Being the latest major league sports team in the congested New York-metropolitan area compounds the Devil's woes. Among the four (4) major sports, hockey (sorry to say) is a distant fourth in the area. Champions and winning teams are not a rarity where the Devils call home. In the meadowlands alone, teams have made their mark and went to win titles. I consider the Devils as my own. However, prior to witnessing winning three Stanley Cups by the Devils, the other two hockey teams have combined for five (5) titles within my life time. The Meadowlands Sports Complex houses the Continental Airlines arena, where both the Devils and Nets play. Both teams struggle with attendance despite having successful teams. Both teams have the fans, but it is where the arena is located and in what condition the arena that should be asked. The sports complex is very hard to reach. As most teams in the area, the team relies on cable contracts and has lots of competition for a very small area. It has to somehow stay up atop of the demand for Rangers and Islanders games. The team has obviously been the best in performance out of those teams due to its many long playoff runs in recent years. And yet, the Devils make little headway as sports coverage is often inaccessable because of black-outs. Once a the new arena is built within Newark the financial question marks over the Devils and the NETS should dissapear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 LL, you've been rolling, but I have to hit you on this one: Among the four (4) major sports, hockey (sorry to say) is a distant fourth in the area. Baseball and football are neck and neck. But basketball and hockey aren't distant at all. There are three pro hockey teams, two pro basketball teams (the Liberty are a summer gimmick that we'll leave out of this). If you want to throw in the college teams, go ahead: The Big East is just starting to come out of a decade-long depression that has seen interest erode. From a gate standpoint, the Knicks and Ranger$ are neck-and-neck. The Knicks are 6th overall in the NBA, and Ranger$ are the sixth-highest attedance in the NHL amongst American teams. The Devils outdrew the Nets this season, and nearly did it last season despite having a smaller seating capacity. The biggest difference is that interest in hockey, among hockey fans, is constant. Knicks fans come and go--you hear more about the Yankees in the middle of winter now than before because the Knicks fans had little to talk about over the last few seasons. On a national scale, there's no question basketball is bigger. From a NY/NJ perspective, you can't simply go by what's on WFAN (if you did, then the biggest issue facing professional sports would be the Yankees' pitching). <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LL Cool NJ Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Fair enough. I do share your attitude that hockey fans are constant. All the other sports are for the masses and often welcomes bandwagoneers. I count the days when the Devils season begins anew. Fortunately, our summers have been shorter than mosts. As for the Yankees pitching, I think they just made a movie about it. I think it's called "The Day after Tomorrow". Heaven might as well fall from the sky when the Yankees do not achieve greatness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 There are three pro hockey teams, two pro basketball teams (the Liberty are a summer gimmick that we'll leave out of this). what a stupid thing to write. Really, it makes me hope you don't get laid for five years if women are such crap that they can't have their own leage without it being seen as some gimmick by you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 There are three pro hockey teams, two pro basketball teams (the Liberty are a summer gimmick that we'll leave out of this). what a stupid thing to write. Really, it makes me hope you don't get laid for five years if women are such crap that they can't have their own leage without it being seen as some gimmick by you. Women can have their own league. But in this conversation, I don't think a professional women's league of any kind can be factored into a sport's popularity. You and I both know that the WNBA and WUSA both had more to do with empowerment of female athletes and female fans than the actual game-play. That is how the sports are marketed. I covered the Washington Freedom, and believe me, when they were drawing 20,000 people it wasn't 20,000 soccer fanatics. I don't bemoan the WNBA's existance like some people do. I do, however, think women's basketball is an entirely different game than men's, just like women's lacrosse is an entirelt different game than men's. It's not better or worse, just different. See...I was able to make that entire point without referencing your sex life. Interesting concept, no? <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Women can have their own league. But in this conversation, I don't think a professional women's league of any kind can be factored into a sport's popularity. - so why the smart alek editorializing then? either factor it in out of respect for the league at least (especially if you think it's just about empowerment), or just leave it off - don't even refer to it if it's such a non-factor. You and I both know that the WNBA and WUSA both had more to do with empowerment of female athletes and female fans than the actual game-play. That is how the sports are marketed. - No I don't know that. Women's empowerment - yeah it's real empowering to an athlete to have you say their league is for the sake of women's empowerment - not the actual sport itself. I covered the Washington Freedom, and believe me, when they were drawing 20,000 people it wasn't 20,000 soccer fanatics. - who were they then? I hope you're not implying this was a glorified women Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.