WorkingOvertime

.

You're correct about most of them playing with the team for the full season, with Rinaldo being the exception. I would think more teams would do what the Wings did in 08 with Downey- play him during the season, and use other players in the playoffs. Hopefully this trend is evidence that enforcers are upping their play.

This is probably a negative for the posters here (me included) that want an enforcer. I doubt the Wings would ever ice Scott, Westgarth, Biz Nasty, Parros, or Rinaldo in a playoff game (not that the Wings should), and thus these type of players will likely choose to sign with teams that will give them playing time and be successful. Finding an enforcer that has skill and is willing to be the Wings' 13th/14th forward is likely getting more difficult. Regardless, it's nice to see the play of enforcers elevating to the level that they can be counted on to play in the playoffs.

Exactly. Even if they split time, I would rather spend the extra money on a shut-down dman and/or a forward.

Nice to see the girl with the Wings tang top and pompoms.

As a defensive, grind, wear down the opponent's d line, they have been great. As a scoring line, they haven't been doing much. I like having the line against a team like Phoenix (and Nashville and Anaheim).

Google myp2p hockey. There should be 10+ links for you to choose from.

As of yesterday he was told he is going to be in the lineup. Maybe the Yotes think Scott had an effect on them winning last night.

BizNasty is in tonight. Hopefully he doesn't cause too much trouble.

ESPN reportedly offered less money. I don't see how you can assume the NHL could have gotten more. ESPN is more informed about the possible effects of lockouts than any of us, and they still made an inferior offer. As other posters have said, football and basketball fans will likely focus more on NCAA sports. When the NHL lockout occurred, did you become an NBA or MLB fan because of it? I surely didn't. Good post. Unfortunately, this argument has no real solution. If NBC/Versus can become a legitimate sports network, the NHL wins here. If ESPN continues to dominate, the NHL retains its current status (relatively). However, the NHL was able to get a lot of money (for the NHL) from NBC/Versus. Therefore, the gamble is at least hedged by certain revenue for the league. I am not certain but I don't think ESPN could show more games, or games on a different channel (ESPN v. ESPN2), than what it listed in the offer. I believe the offer was to show one game a week on ESPN2. While it would be better for the league for them to show games on ESPN and show more games, I am not sure if it would be legal depending on how the contract would be worded. This is due to the increased profits for ESPN from these moves that would not be shared with the NHL. (i.e ESPN pays to receive revenue from one game on ESPN2 but gains more revenue through showing more games on ESPN, while the NHL doesn't see any of this money). The first thing NBC/Versus will likely look to do is have Versus added to most basic cable lineups (like ESPN is now). Hopefully this will remedy the fear of availability.

Do you realize the GM's can essentially veto any decision the league makes if they wish? Obviously, they believe this is a good deal. Even with the possible lockout, ESPN was only willing to offer one game a week on ESPN 2 for less money. I fail to see how that would have been good for the league. If ESPN wanted to up the number of games after the contract, the NHL would likely agree but then ESPN would be severely underpaying. Also, an NFL lockout will consume so much of the air time on ESPN that it might actually hurt their hockey coverage. ESPN has been focusing a lot more on the drama of sports lately.

All of the Sunday games on NBC were also streamed on NBC.com (although it was hard to find sometimes). Hopefully NBC can find a way to add to the online aspect of the NHL.

I think you are underestimating the power GM's have. If most of them didn't want a NBC/Versus deal, I don't think it would have happened. NCAA basketball is very popular in most of the US. This subject is difficult to debate because there is no measure of 'the ESPN effect'. However, with one game a week on ESPN 2, I don't think the network was/is very serious about the NHL. To me, it was more a play to gain the NHL viewers and (to a greater extent) hurt an opposing network. EDIT- A difficult debate, but a good one.

Another poster here has disagreed with you about the soccer thing, but -like I said- I have no first-hand evidence. I would be very surprised if it were true that ESPN had more soccer coverage than NHL. IMO the growth ESPN still has is small. Hopefully Versus can capitalize on this like they did with securing the UFC. NBC already has a lot of NCAA sports. I don't see why the addition of Versus will lessen this. If anything, I would think the NCAA would be more likely to give more games to NBC/Versus because they will have a higher priority. The addition of Versus will mean that Versus will cover a lot of the Olympics. Instead of putting the sports on MSNBC, CNBC, USA, etc NBC will have a dedicated sports network to show the events not covered on NBC. There will still be spillover, but Versus will likely get the biggest events NBC doesn't directly cover. I don't think the addition of NCAA sports, the Olympics, or other sports will reduce Versus' coverage of the NHL. I believe Versus is committed to showing 3 games a week for the entirety of the contract. This will keep NHL at the forefront of Versus, because of the economic incentives you spoke of earlier.

Agreed, I think one of things overlooked here is the network wanting to promote the sport. With ESPN's bid, it seems like they were simply trying to gain the NHL fans (and, possibly more important, take ratings away from an up and coming ESPN competitor), whereas Versus wants to grow the game. NBC/Versus can put NHL commercials on USA,NBC,CNBC,MSNBC, etc to gain attention. It is obvious that Versus is vested in growing the NHL, while ESPN would not have the same marketing.

I would argue that ESPN does not cover soccer more than they cover the NHL. I haven't watched much ESPN in the last year, so I cannot verify this myself. Would ESPN cover the NHL more if it was on ESPN? Of course, but would this amount- combined with one game a night on ESPN2- be more exposure than the NHL will get on NBC/Versus playing three times as many games? I am not looking at it as a fan. I am thinking long-term whereas you are thinking short-term. Would the NHL see an immediate spike from being on ESPN- yes. However, the NHL will likely never earn ESPN close to as much as the NFL or NCAA. Therefore, there isn't much time for the NHL to gain on ESPN. NHL would always be the third, fourth, or fifth priority to ESPN. NBC/Versus is a growing team- they were just formed. Versus will be getting NCAA, Olympics, NHL, etc. There is no reason to think that NBC/Versus won't grow in sports over the next few years. Despite being on OLN/Versus, the NHL has managed to grow. The NBC takeover/merger with Versus (the parent company) will only grow the network. This growing network has NHL as a top priority- offering to play at least three times the amount of games as ESPN. As I said, ESPN plays almost as many MLS games as they would NHL games. This isn't enough for the NHL to gain the exposure you're expecting. You're severely overestimating the ESPN effect. One game a week on ESPN 2, which is about what the MLS gets, is not going to make hockey main-stream.

Simple economics? The simplification is on your part about the NHL, how the game has changed, and what ESPN's incentives are. MLS is on ESPN. How much coverage does the MLS get on ESPN outside of the games? By your argument, ESPN has the 'economic' incentive to cover the MLS more because it shows the games. However, MLS is not a prominent subject on ESPN. When the NHL was on ESPN, there was less coverage than the other three major sports. Why do you assume this will immediately change? Your argument about ESPN's incentives isn't clear, nor correct. If the NHL can earn ESPN significantly more revenue than they currently have, than they would have made a larger offer. The 'economics' of the subject is that the NFL and NCCA make the most money for ESPN. Therefore, they commit to most time to them. What do you think the viewership of ESPN wants- to hear about Favre sending nude pictures, or about the Wings/Phoenix series? While everyone on this forum would prefer the Wings, ESPN knows that Favre's penis will get them more viewers and thus more money.

You're contradicting your own argument here. If NHL is a growing and worthwhile commodity, than why doesn't ESPN dedicate more time to it now? If there is such a demand for the NHL, than ESPN would dedicate more time to the sport. I don't watch Sportscenter anymore because there is almost no NHL coverage. There are a lot of NHL fans who do the same. Also, the ESPN bid (or potential bid) is a perfect indication of how much the value hockey- and that amount (from what I've read) is much less than NBC/Versus. Also, I don't think it is ridiculous to assume that ESPN would play less games than Versus. I agree- I don't need to hear about the NFL for 12 hours a day all year. I think a lot of ESPN's early fans are tired of what ESPN has become. There is too much sports gossip, talk shows, etc and not enough focus on sports. If NBC/Versus can gain some other sports and focus on the actual games,players,etc they could be relatively successful. IMO a name change to NBC Sports alone would do a lot for Versus' credibility. Personally, I don't have a problem with the NHL sticking with Versus/NBC. I think a perfect situation would have been an ESPN game of the week with Versus/NBC doing the rest of the games, but I realize this is unrealistic. However, this change doesn't apply to me right now. I don't have cable because most of the games I want to watch aren't nationally televised. I use an antenna, Netflix, and other internet sources for my other viewing.

Good to see Patty Sunshine back out there.

"Yandle's a quick healer."

MULE SNIPE!

Cage is getting very annoying.

You want to see complaining, read the HF thread on the Van-Chicago game last night. Also, most of the posts Eva quoted weren't complaining.

I asked because I didn't see the play well, and thus didn't see anything out of the ordinary. If you read my posts here, I don't think you'll see much bitching about the refs- outside of the phantom 10 min misconducts handed out to other teams.

Was that a legit call? I didn't see anything out of the ordinary.