Derlique Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Tri: I didn't say the quotes from the owners were taken at face value. Just like Lou, I interpret them based on lots of things as I see, just like you and everyone else. Does everyone have to view things your way? By your standards, we shouldn't believe Parise saying it wasn't about money, but believe Lou that he was going to get 2 rentals at the trade deadline, even though he didn't. Better yet, you believe whatever ESPN says about the NBA. I'm allowed to have an opinion about the owners just like you do. Because it's different doesn't mean that I must be wrong and you must be right. If you want to stop the argument, then stop it. You don't have to attribute opinions to people and keep arguing. I'm just saying I don't like the owners. But that's "dumb" by your standards. Well I find plenty of the things you do as petty/shortsighted/asinine/childish. If you want to do add ad hominem fallacies to the way you argue, congrats, you sunk me to your level. Mantzas: So one is bad therefore the other must be good? Just keep making me love Vanderbeek, it doesn't make it true. You aren't bringing up anything about hockey, which is the only thing I brought up about the owners. They are bean counters. Of course they did a good job at the business side. I could care less seeing 3d projections or having three times the reps, or having advertising if the team sucks. You are just sad with your trolling. Never did I say anything about the "You Suck" chant. I just want them to score the goal. But keep on saying what I think and don't think. It really provokes discussion from the other posters. It's really difficult to judge what the new owners have done on the hockey side....it's only been two years. They opened their purse strings for Lou when he wanted to sign Cammalleri last summer. They obviously have no issue spending money, when it's the right time. It isn't the right time and I think you know that. No sense dipping into the underwhelming UFA pool and signing top 6 tweeners like Vermette and Frolik when we're so far away. How has that worked out recently with signings like Clowe, Ryder, Havlat and Brunner? The team needs to develop forwards from within and stop with these UFA bandaids. Devils were bailed out of some terrible contracts with luck such as Clowe getting injured, IK17 going back to Russia and Volchenkov getting amnestied. The owners are saying there is no quick fix and arent spending stupid money to marginally improve the team. I dont understand what the issue is here Edited June 11, 2015 by SMantzas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 You aren't bringing up anything about hockey, which is the only thing I brought up about the owners. They are bean counters. Of course they did a good job at the business side. I could care less seeing 3d projections or having three times the reps, or having advertising if the team sucks. I think what you're missing in calling them bean counters and then immediately listing things like 3d projectors and ticket reps is that those things show that they are interested in investing money into the team. Doing it on off ice stuff shows that they would pay for the on ice product as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyall Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) i don't understand this comment and why you assert it makes them bad owners. I'm not talking about any other owner or making comparisons. let's stick with harris and blitzer. to this point, what "hockey ops" decision did they make besides kicking Lou upstairs and signing off on Shero? or are you taking comments they've made and projecting what the future could look like (using terms like ROI) and are convinced that they will look to make the devils into the 76ers for the next 5 years to hoard draft picks and prospects I appreciate the civility, sundstrom. That's exactly my point. They say things like, "There are no shortcuts" which could just mean they are in it for the long haul and want to build things back up, but it could be ownerspeak for softening the fans to a long tank and rebuild. Then they say, ROI in terms of winning, which would mean lots of things. Are they looking for everything to be based on the advanced stats that Sunny has to justify it? Are they looking for more simple responses like: this guy is worth the pay? Or maybe they are bean counters looking for profit that realized they said ROI and added a quick sequitar about winning to cover it up. I'm not saying my side is right, but there are many valid ways to read those comments, and more that have been said. Thank you for just letting me clarify my point without the assertions. I think what you're missing in calling them bean counters and then immediately listing things like 3d projectors and ticket reps is that those things show that they are interested in investing money into the team. Doing it on off ice stuff shows that they would pay for the on ice product as well. I probably am discounting that too much. It does show they can spend money. With the 76ers, they hired something like 5x the intermission entertainment to make things interesting for the fans. It could mean that they will also spend on the players to win, but it could also be a situation where a losing team makes more profit than a winning team because so much goes to the players. Again, it is possible to read either way. Not saying I'm right, but the 76ers put on a great show except for the actual game. Edited June 11, 2015 by themightyall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I appreciate the civility, sundstrom. That's exactly my point. They say things like, "There are no shortcuts" which could just mean they are in it for the long haul and want to build things back up, but it could be ownerspeak for softening the fans to a long tank and rebuild. Then they say, ROI in terms of winning, which would mean lots of things. Are they looking for everything to be based on the advanced stats that Sunny has to justify it? Are they looking for more simple responses like: this guy is worth the pay? Or maybe they are bean counters looking for profit that realized they said ROI and added a quick sequitar about winning to cover it up. I'm not saying my side is right, but there are many valid ways to read those comments, and more that have been said. Thank you for just letting me clarify my point without the assertions. I probably am discounting that too much. It does show they can spend money. With the 76ers, they hired something like 5x the intermission entertainment to make things interesting for the fans. It could mean that they will also spend on the players to win, but it could also be a situation where a losing team makes more profit than a winning team because so much goes to the players. Again, it is possible to read either way. Not saying I'm right, but the 76ers put on a great show except for the actual game. The owners have had one off-season here. They let Lou sign Schneider and Greene to large extensions, the team signed Cammalleri long-term, and there were one year extensions for Jagr and Zidlicky. I see nothing that would indicate that the owners are going to pinch pennies in any way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the stats department, such as it is, has been used for anything at all. The NBA has a salary floor. The 76ers are not losing because they think they can make money by losing. Harris and Blitzer know from markets that you don't make money by doing what everyone else is doing. You have to innovate, and they're leading the way with the Sixers. I imagine next season is the last one they'll be tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Three sh!tty things: Stevens concussion, Niedermayer departure and slammed with the lockout/new CBA. This is when everything came to a screeching halt and left the Devils with no way forward... absolutely NO transition around the myth of "the new NHL" which is effecting team thinking to this very day. It is a myth, that's the thing of it - hockey is hockey. It was a complete psyche out the Devils organization never EVER recovered from. Parise would have stayed on without that resulting quagmire and of course Pat Burns's cancer. I guess I blocked that little peice of the puzzle out pretty well. Edited June 12, 2015 by Pepperkorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher72 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If Dr. McMullen was still the owner, Lou would still be the infallible GM and we'd probably be trading our #6 pick for Kessel, signing Martin and Oduya in the off-season...and missing the playoffs again with an old, expensive roster. The new owners are the best thing that's happened to this franchise in a very long time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If Dr. McMullen was still the owner, Lou would still be the infallible GM and we'd probably be trading our #6 pick for Kessel, signing Martin and Oduya in the off-season...and missing the playoffs again with an old, expensive roster. The new owners are the best thing that's happened to this franchise in a very long time! Where the fvck is THAT coming from? You do know that John McMullen sold the team over FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Vanderbeek was part of the YankeeNets affiliate that bought the Devils (Puck Holdings) in 2000, and then in 2004, VBK bought the team outright. Not sure why you'd even consider knocking the late McMullen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher72 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Where the fvck is THAT coming from? You do know that John McMullen sold the team over FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Vanderbeek was part of the YankeeNets affiliate that bought the Devils (Puck Holdings) in 2000, and then in 2004, VBK bought the team outright. Not sure why you'd even consider knocking the late McMullen. Take a breather and chill the fvck out. I wasn't knocking him. My point was if he was the owner, Lou would still be running the show without question. Because he let Lou handle the entire operation....and I was referring to another post that mentioned McMullen. Edited June 12, 2015 by slasher72 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyall Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Take a breather and chill the fvck out. I wasn't knocking him. My point was if he was the owner, Lou would still be running the show without question. Because he let Lou handle the entire operation....and I was referring to another post that mentioned McMullen. I have a feeling that some regulars are just full of piss and vinegar looking for something to complain about. Everything one says has to be taken literally and spelled out because there's nothing better to do until the draft comes closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I have a feeling that some regulars are just full of piss and vinegar looking for something to complain about. Everything one says has to be taken literally and spelled out because there's nothing better to do until the draft comes closer. No genius, slasher posted something that had no merit whatsoever and was completely unfair. He has no clue how McMullen would've reacted in an alternate timeline...to assume that McMullen (who would've been in his friggin' NINETIES by now) would've just blindly let Lou run the show based on the fact that McMullen allowed Lou to do that during a time of great prosperity is just flat-out stupid. 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.