• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
frankgrimes

Anyone else liking the pre 2005 more?

Rate this topic

32 posts in this topic

Today I thought about how I've adored hockey back in the good old days, couldn't stop watching the games was thrilled to see "my" Red Wings play, watching so many great players on the ice and fantastique season was just gorgeaus but for whatever reason, I heavily dislike the new NHL. I don't agree with the stupid rule-changes, how they are treatening the fans and all this CBA crap.

To be honest for me as a fan, I am losing interest in the NHL fast, trade-deadlines and UFA days are not what they once were and tank to win teams are rising to the top or at least close to it every year. Speaking with some friends I am clearly not the only one, losing interest in the NHL.

So what about you? Do you think this league can be fixed or will it continue to lose fans because of idiots running the show and by doing so, ruinning this great sport.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yea, from 1991-2004, lets look at the total number of championships per team

Pittsburgh - 2

Montreal - 1

New York Rangers - 1

New Jersey Devils - 3

Colorado Avalanche - 2

Detroit Red Wings - 3

Dallas Stars - 1

Tampa Bay Lighting - 1

Before the cap, there were dynasties. We won't see dynasties in the NHL with the cap thats for sure.

On the flip side, while many people cry about the cap, no one wants to address that the Wings were dead in the water for years even before the cap. I wasn't around in the 60s, 70s and 80s but I have heard those were lean years. So I guess the pre-cap world was great if the ownership of your team invested wisely in getting good players and making a run. Imagine if Illitch didn't invest in the team all these years. People would be loving the cap around here.

Who knows how things are going to change once Illitch sells. Will a new owner invest in the Wings like he has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yea, from 1991-2004, lets look at the total number of championships per team

Pittsburgh - 2

Montreal - 1

New York Rangers - 1

New Jersey Devils - 3

Colorado Avalanche - 2

Detroit Red Wings - 3

Dallas Stars - 1

Tampa Bay Lighting - 1

Before the cap, there were dynasties. We won't see dynasties in the NHL with the cap thats for sure.

On the flip side, while many people cry about the cap, no one wants to address that the Wings were dead in the water for years even before the cap. I wasn't around in the 60s, 70s and 80s but I have heard those were lean years. So I guess the pre-cap world was great if the ownership of your team invested wisely in getting good players and making a run. Imagine if Illitch didn't invest in the team all these years. People would be loving the cap around here.

Who knows how things are going to change once Illitch sells. Will a new owner invest in the Wings like he has?

Who said he was going to sell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said he was going to sell?

I personally don't see them selling the franchise. I thought his son(s) were already in decent positions within the franchise and most likely taking over in the future? Who knows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest complaint since 2005 would be the shootout, but I won't go into all that again. :D

As for the cap, I don't know that parity necessary equals a healthier league. The NHL apparently thinks so and I'm sure it makes a lot of small markets happy, but people still talk about the Avs-Wings rivalry. That happened in great part because they were two great teams who had to get past the other one to win the Cup year after year. Plus when the teams become successful for years, they usually achieve popularity that transcends just their local market.

I also think a soft cap/luxury tax might be better as well. At the very least in principal it would reward great owners like Ilitch who turned around a franchise and know how to run a business. I'm guessing he'd happily pay extra revenue sharing if he could spend above the cap.

And with the cap and contract limits, we'll likely start to see more teams having a couple star players and a whole lot of scrubs on the bottom two lines. Owners will always pay top dollar for the star players, there's just not a lot to go around for everyone else. The more they ratchet down the cap and contract restrictions, it'll only get worse.

But honestly a part of waining interest is also just getting older and having more things compete for my time. I love hockey, but I could never love it as much as I did when I was 12 years old, going to nearly every home game and watching as many games as I could, even though the team was pretty awful then except for this guy Yzerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont miss that time at all. before the lost season, hockey had become incredibly boring and stale. there was little to no excitement because it was a giant hugfest with all the interference and holding. the only reason people here pine for it is because the wings were a top team.

in general, the salary cap rewards well run franchises. because everyone is on a level playing field, its all about resource management. everyone likes to wine that the only way to win a championship is to tank for a long time, but there are only 2 example of that; chicago and pittsburgh. and if you honestly look at their situations, its more luck than a strategy of tanking. chicago was terrible because old man wirtz was an awful owner. the only reason they turned it around was him kicking the bucket. the changes that were made after he passed are what allowed the hawks to actually turn that talent into a good team. and if you look at pittsburgh, they just got lucky to get 2 of the best players of their generation in successive drafts. theres more examples of teams that are bad and stay bad than the 2 that managed to turn around their franchises. think of columbus, the islanders, and the oilers. heck the oilers had the #1 pick 3 years in a row and are still terrible! if tanking for draft picks was an effective strategy, i think we would be seeing something there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said he was going to sell?

No one, just saying that things change when ownership sells. Look at the Wings before Illitch and then after. Who knows what is coming with the next change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am strongly in favor of the hard salary cap that the NHL runs. The burden of success is equal across the league as teams need to draft, develop, and manage talent wisely. I shudder at the mere suggestion of a soft cap/luxury tax. I honestly can't stand baseball because big market teams can steamroll free agency and the gulf between the haves and the have-nots widens. This is definitely something that the NHL got right.

The shootout and three-point games are obviously problematic. I understand why they wanted to incentivize teams to play hard in OT instead of the ultra-conservative shell game fringe playoff teams used to play under old rules... but it has created some issues. I think these are things that need to be tweaked.

As far as the rules are concerned, I think that the NHL has relapsed in a way. They wanted the game to have less obstruction and have more speed, but I think that we've regressed on that point. Part of that is in the enforcement of the new rules. Goalie equipment is getting ridiculous as well... they need to be protected, of course, but they look like they're in a sumo fat-suit!

At any rate... I'm not going to fall into the trap of glorifying the past. Nostalgia clouds perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am strongly in favor of the hard salary cap that the NHL runs.

I loathe the salary cap. Not only because it supposedly prevents the "buying championships" either. That tactic doesn't always or even usually work. The Wings didn't win every year and neither do the Yankees. To this point, neither have the Tigers.

The salary cap in hockey is a method to ensure competitiveness among teams that really should fold. It's a way to dictate to incompetent owners/front offices, to tell them how much they should spend on a team, on players, and how much to invest. The league has expanded into small/bad markets. The salary cap keeps those teams on the ice.

I don't want to see the NHL turn into the NBA where 2-3 players surrounded by scrubs can bring home a championship. But that seems like the way of the future. Teams will continue to pay top dollar for stars (Minnesota) and then fill their rosters with 3rd and 4th liners playing on the 2nd.

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont miss that time at all. before the lost season, hockey had become incredibly boring and stale. there was little to no excitement because it was a giant hugfest with all the interference and holding. the only reason people here pine for it is because the wings were a top team.

in general, the salary cap rewards well run franchises. because everyone is on a level playing field, its all about resource management. everyone likes to wine that the only way to win a championship is to tank for a long time, but there are only 2 example of that; chicago and pittsburgh. and if you honestly look at their situations, its more luck than a strategy of tanking. chicago was terrible because old man wirtz was an awful owner. the only reason they turned it around was him kicking the bucket. the changes that were made after he passed are what allowed the hawks to actually turn that talent into a good team. and if you look at pittsburgh, they just got lucky to get 2 of the best players of their generation in successive drafts. theres more examples of teams that are bad and stay bad than the 2 that managed to turn around their franchises. think of columbus, the islanders, and the oilers. heck the oilers had the #1 pick 3 years in a row and are still terrible! if tanking for draft picks was an effective strategy, i think we would be seeing something there.

You can see it as a giant hugfest for sure, but I for one felt it was more intense, meaner and the overall product was a lot better than todays event-NHL. Detroit wasn't the only top-team there were are lot of top-teams like someone mentioned the Avalanche under Sakic, Roy for example.

Sure as we are getting older, we are focusssing on more important things than a game, but obviously watching hockey should be a thrill and not something to despise but the lockout has changed a lot for me. 8 more years of this stupid parity crap are for sure not something I am going to watch, so yes give me pre 2005 hockey back and this is not just nostalgia.

I am strongly in favor of the hard salary cap that the NHL runs. The burden of success is equal across the league as teams need to draft, develop, and manage talent wisely. I shudder at the mere suggestion of a soft cap/luxury tax. I honestly can't stand baseball because big market teams can steamroll free agency and the gulf between the haves and the have-nots widens. This is definitely something that the NHL got right.

I am just learning about the MLB (getting better but still) from what I've read, the have-nots and the league itself should kiss the Yankees, Red Sox because the more the spend, the more these teams are getting in hard $, the difference in the NHL is Ilitch doesn't gain anything from feeding the "have-nots". Now even UFA players are under contract limits and only their "own" team can offer them more, this is just turning into a joke sorry.

Please note, I am not against the cap per se I am against the fact, that the teams who are paying the most aren't getting a reward for it. It should be a give-get kind of thing which it is not, if Ilitch is paying 5 % of the teams revenue on other teams Wings should be allowed to be 5 % over the cap, you get the idea?

Edited by frankgrimes
Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the salary cap, I do mind the retarded rules. Game isn't as fun. And were fake, forced, rivalries as common back then? When I started really watching, I only could watch the Wings.

Games seem too predictable and scripted now with the bad reffing focused more on outcomes than calling penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the salary cap, I do mind the retarded rules. Game isn't as fun. And were fake, forced, rivalries as common back then? When I started really watching, I only could watch the Wings.

Games seem too predictable and scripted now with the bad reffing focused more on outcomes than calling penalties.

And we get games like today where the Blues were literally not even trying to score, it was boring as hell. I will say one thing for all the flaws that our team has this year at least we try to get some flow going to the game and move the puck with some nice passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the shootout personally, I think it was brought in as a gimmick to attract more fans but isn't a proper way to decide the outcome of the game. If they ever introduce it to the playoffs and discontinue sudden death overtime it may be enough to turn me away completely. I didn't mind ties as much as I mind a team being able to gain an extra point for winning a mini all-star event at the end of the game.

I also miss the fierce rivalries, we may never see anything like Colorado/Detroit in the 90's ever again. I hate the fact that they are in a continuous battle to push fighting out of the sport, and yes as much as I dislike hits to the head and concussions, I think a lot of players are afraid to lay out heavy hits anymore which takes away from the physical aspect of the game.

And my god do I miss Yzerman and the days of watching him play. I try not to live in the past but i'm not sure we will see another generation of hockey like it used to be.

ManLuv4Clears likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that there are teams in bad markets that water down the product of the game is valid, but I don't think that's something to necessarily pin on the salary cap. It's bad leadership. The NHL has the opportunity to relocate teams like Phoenix and haven't to this point.



As far as the salary cap goes, it's about creating a level playing field. You're right that money doesn't buy championships, but in baseball you can pencil in half the playoff field just by looking at rosters. Teams without deep pockets face an uphill battle from the start. You have MLB cities that haven't seen playoff action in literally decades. I question whether some of those small market teams are even focused on winning. I'm pretty sure clubs like the Pirates have just pocketed all kickbacks from the luxury cap instead of funneling that into improving the on-field team. The fans suffer under this model.



The salary cap pushes the burden of success on management and scouting. In a luxury cap scenario, talented players just have to float out into free agency until they land on Cash Island. Some teams end up being relegated to Pro Farm status. What's fair is having all teams built under the same set of rules. The NHL messes a lot of things up but the decision to have a hard salary cap is one thing they have right. Teams should not have a competitive advantage on the basis of being owned by a billionaire.


kipwinger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. A cap is necessary. I'd like to see some rule to force teams like the Islanders to actually spend money.

What you guys are complaining about isnt the cap, it's the rules and their enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with a lot of what @haroldsnepsts wrote about parity...

I'm really conflicted on this issue. The 2012 lockout might have changed a lot of my views about the 2005 lockout, which I originally considered to be a "success". Now, I wonder if the perceived success of the post-lockout was really limited to three factors, which were either wholly unrelated to the lockout, or a self-fulfilling prophecy therefrom:

(1) The lockout carpet-bombed the popularity of the league so badly (and reset salaries, TV ratings, etc.) that the perceived "growth" from 2005-08 was really just the league naturally recovering where it was pre-lockout.

(2) The growth of HDTV coincided perfectly with the post-lockout era and while hockey is still arguably a "bad" TV sport, the argument has also been made that hockey benefits the most from SD --> HD versus all the "major" sports.

(3) A unique class of colorful and super-talented new faces for the league, such as Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin.

If you listen to fans/media from other markets, or even neutral sources (such as the Marek v. Wyshinski podcast), you get a real sense that the BEST years as a Wings fan were an absolute dark period for the league and its fans. When we think of Yzerman, Fedorov scoring 5 goals, Vladdy throwing checks, Hasek standing on his head, and 4th lines stuffed with Hall of Famers, the rest of the team thinks of the "dead puck" era, 2-1 double overtime games, and goalies with absurdly large equipment and jerseys.

Still, I LOVED the sport in that era. I loved watching other teams. Even though I hated the Avalanche, they were easily my 2nd favorite team to watch (and they got tons of coverage on "The Deuce", ESPN2). But I'll never be able to say if the NHL seemed to "big" to me because of what an exciting time that was for the Red Wings, or if the product really was that good.

I love to remind people the year before we blew the whole thing up to achieve "parity" and "cost certainty", the two teams in the Stanley Cup Finals were Calgary and Tampa Bay. I don't know that parity necessarily is good for the league. Baseball is doing pretty well right now (and has had almost two decades of labor peace), and I don't know if the product "works" the same if New York, Boston, and L.A. don't get to spend into oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at my avatar...Stevie & Shanny...Scoring goals, and punching faces...A wonderful combo of skill/grit/toughness...

I've said it 1,000 times before...I'll take my beloved Detroit Red Wings circa 97/98 over 2008 anytime.

EDIT - just think if we had our 97/98 club today, or if we had HDTV back then...Would've made Claude Lemieux's ass kicking so much better!

Edited by F.Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the status quo in Detroit is that us fans really hate change. If our team is not winning (buying) championships, we are awful quick to throw in the towel during the franchises' refocus period. Think about the superstores vs small business. Think of the pre lockout era Wings in relation to Meijer/Walmart. These mega stores kill any chance of small business thriving in the surrounding areas. What the league has done is regulate the amount of spending in regards to team salary. This way, no matter where the team is located, they all have equal opportunity due to adequate business strategy, to succeed in the NHL. This League is not just 4 or 5 teams at the top winning every year anymore. Its an equal opportunities market. For the league's sake, they had to lower the top in order to raise the bottom. It helps to try to generate even income for all franchises, so that even in the small markets, the small fan followings that they do have can continue to stick around with hope that their team can win it all. After all, this is a business. Look at what happened to the city of Detroit. The big fish (auto industry) was the only source of economy because the little fish couldn't stand up against the big fish. When the big fish died out, or expanded/relocated to other major cities, the entire city of Detroit ended up in the s***ter. This is what would've happened if the league would've continued its pre lockout course of action. What Illitch and Co. used to do was buy their way to the top. Now, since that strategy has been almost eliminated, They seem to be restructuring the way they go about the present and the future. They are stocking up on young prospects and building almost entirely within. However, this comes at the cost of a few present years. The future is bright, the Red Wings will be at the top once again. It doesn't happen over night anymore and our fans just cannot seem to grasp this concept at all. The league is changing for the better, and whether or not us fans realize this, change is going to continue to occur. I think this downtime has really exposed our bandwagon fans. It seems as though the majority of "the best fans in the league" are not really hockey fans at all. When our team is not winning, we blame the league, the commissioner, the refs. Detroit fans only appreciate winning through absurd spending and monopolizing the sport whereas a true hockey fan enjoys, accepts, and appreciates the game of hockey no matter the circumstances. (See Toronto, or any Canadian club for example) No matter how awful the team is, their still selling out games due to love of the sport. Americans, Red Wings fans are greedy..

Edited by MibJab
Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the status quo in Detroit is that us fans really hate change. If our team is not winning (buying) championships, we are awful quick to throw in the towel during the franchises' refocus period. Think about the superstores vs small business. Think of the pre lockout era Wings in relation to Meijer/Walmart. These mega stores kill any chance of small business thriving in the surrounding areas. What the league has done is regulate the amount of spending in regards to team salary. This way, no matter where the team is located, they all have equal opportunity due to adequate business strategy, to succeed in the NHL. This League is not just 4 or 5 teams at the top winning every year anymore. Its an equal opportunities market. For the league's sake, they had to lower the top in order to raise the bottom. It helps to try to generate even income for all franchises, so that even in the small markets, the small fan followings that they do have can continue to stick around with hope that their team can win it all. After all, this is a business. Look at what happened to the city of Detroit. The big fish (auto industry) was the only source of economy because the little fish couldn't stand up against the big fish. When the big fish died out, or expanded/relocated to other major cities, the entire city of Detroit ended up in the s***ter. This is what would've happened if the league would've continued its pre lockout course of action. What Illitch and Co. used to do was buy their way to the top. Now, since that strategy has been almost eliminated, They seem to be restructuring the way they go about the present and the future. They are stocking up on young prospects and building almost entirely within. However, this comes at the cost of a few present years. The future is bright, the Red Wings will be at the top once again. It doesn't happen over night anymore and our fans just cannot seem to grasp this concept at all. The league is changing for the better, and whether or not us fans realize this, change is going to continue to occur. I think this downtime has really exposed our bandwagon fans. It seems as though the majority of "the best fans in the league" are not really hockey fans at all. When our team is not winning, we blame the league, the commissioner, the refs. Detroit fans only appreciate winning through absurd spending and monopolizing the sport whereas a true hockey fan enjoys, accepts, and appreciates the game of hockey no matter the circumstances. (See Toronto, or any Canadian club for example) No matter how awful the team is, their still selling out games due to love of the sport. Americans, Red Wings fans are greedy..

Took me a while to read the whole thing, because I am on my mobilephone. However you are bringing up some very good and well thought points:

I really like the big fish/family company analogy, but truth of the matter is all teams are owned by billionaires and who is to say some of them didn't didn't expose smaller - note family companies - firms? If they did so, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt in any way shape or form.

Ilitch worked his way up to where he is now and now he should be punished, because he loves success more than a cheap, quick buck? No in my mind this is not fair at all!

The MLB doesn't have lockouts, because the system is designed really well. Owners can spend whatever they want, but by doing so their penalty fees are used to support smaller franchises, which I really love. Now back to the analogy from before, where are those "even playing field rules" in the real world?

Nowhere to be found but you'll find a lot of sweatshops, hostile take overs and outsourcing which destroys regions and family companies. The Isles owner had to change his company name a few times, because he was regarded and lead like an absolute tyrann and now he is a crying poor and at the same time killing a once proud franchise, this is not fair he shouldn't receive money from great owners.

I couldn't care less how the rest of the league is thinking about Detroits best years,, there are 29 franchises or different businesses but thats hardly Wings related. The sport itself would do better without having the NHL as a roof organisation and just different teams working together.

The final nail in the coffin for me will be once hitting, fighting is almost gone from the game and the whole mini-allstar called shootout being introduced into the playoffs.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself am not a fan of a salary cap. I as well prefer the soft cap, like the MLB has. Teams should be able to spend whatever they want over the cap and in return pay a fee to the other teams for going over the cap.

Some people might think the old hockey was too slow and boring, but what I really miss though is the toughness. There aren't too many guys that can score and fight in this league anymore. Back in the day there were tons of those guys (Shanny and Yzerman especially).I recognize that actions had to be taken to improve players safety with concussions, but with the new rules and this emphasis it seems like the game is getting less physical and I can't stand it. You rarely see any big hits anymore because guys are afraid of getting suspended or fined. I also missed when teams legitimately hated each other like the Red Wings/Avs rivalry. As a kid growing up it was so exciting to watch.

The other thing I think was a huge mistake was obviously not signing with ESPN, although NBC is getting better.

I still love watching more than anything and I'll even watch games with teams I'm not a fan of, but it definitely doesn't seem to be as good as it used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HATE the salary cap (I detest it in ANY sport), and I do not like the shootout (too many points being awarded for not enough effort). I do like the wider-open (nice word huh?) play and I like the fact the NHL playoffs are no longer the rodeo. Kind of a mixed bag.

Sooner or later that salary cap is going to bite the NHL when top players one day decide they can play abroad like the KHL where there is no cap, no income tax and it's a pretty good game. Say 2 or 3 stars did this the NHL might have to reassess how much teams can spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By and far, the big market teams that bought the best teams hate the salary cap. Meanwhile, the small market teams love the salary cap. That isn't surprising at all. I know its all doom and gloom for Wings fans, but this is the way the league is now. Wings management is approaching things the right way in the post salary cap world.

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