frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 http://www.tsn.ca/blackhawks-hurting-after-moves-forced-by-cap-1.332728 This time, some departures seem to sting more than usual, coach Joel Quenneville and players said before the opening of the team's annual convention. "You go back to 2010 we lost a significant part of our team," Quenneville said Friday night. "We were more fortunate in 2013, this year we've seen a few guys ... not just (Patrick Sharp) and (Brandon) Saad who were big parts of our team and played in all situations." Sharp, a left wing who played 10 seasons in Chicago was traded to Dallas last week for defenceman Trevor Daley and forward Ryan Garbutt. Although the 33-year-old left wing and his $5.9 salary cap hit were expected to move, Blackhawks players said that didn't make Sharp's departure easier to take Well welcome to the Detroit red wings land Blackhawks, this is a league known for punishing successful teams in order to force parity even if owners are willing to spend whatever it takes. And this will also be the downfall of this league coupled with a few other questionable decisions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Euro_Twins 4,477 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 http://www.tsn.ca/blackhawks-hurting-after-moves-forced-by-cap-1.332728 Well welcome to the Detroit red wings land Blackhawks, this is a league known for punishing successful teams in order to force parity even if owners are willing to spend whatever it takes. And this will also be the downfall of this league coupled with a few other questionable decisions. Despite what we think it seems to be working Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Difference is ratings are down, GMs are starting to get fed up so it's not just fans anymore. I mean I'm not an NFL fan but even I know who the Patriots, Seahawks are a league needs super-teams. 1 Avssuc reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyemeryhunter 2,747 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Difference is ratings are down, GMs are starting to get fed up so it's not just fans anymore. I mean I'm not an NFL fan but even I know who the Patriots, Seahawks are a league needs super-teams. Wait.Weren't ratings up quite a bit last year. And the seahawks are a super team now, because they draft really well and had a pro bowl quarterback making under 1m dollars. Once his contract kicks in they'll lose some of their depth... And the patriots are an anomaly, bill belichik is a wizard, and they constantly cheat. Plus tom Brady is probably the best quarterback the leagues ever seen, so that also doesn't really apply. Plus. The blackhawks are basically a dynasty, the kings could have been another one had they bought out Richards before last season and used that money to bolster their lineup... So we kind of have super teams. 1 PavelValerievichDatsyuk reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Wait. Weren't ratings up quite a bit last year. And the seahawks are a super team now, because they draft really well and had a pro bowl quarterback making under 1m dollars. Once his contract kicks in they'll lose some of their depth... And the patriots are an anomaly, bill belichik is a wizard, and they constantly cheat. Plus tom Brady is probably the best quarterback the leagues ever seen, so that also doesn't really apply. Plus. The blackhawks are basically a dynasty, the kings could have been another one had they bought out Richards before last season and used that money to bolster their lineup... So we kind of have super teams. Nope sadly a yahoo link and their site is just....https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/despite-decreased-ratings--rogers-rates-first-year-of-nhl-deal-a-success-212225823.html I'm just saying it's super-teams that people even not interested in the sport are going to know about, the more super-teams the better and even better if those teams can keep their talent. The Kings are far from being done, they'll get rid of the Voynov contract sign someone else to replace him yeah the Richards thing (rightfully) is going to hurt them but given their age group LA's run is far from over. Wouldn't be the least surprised if the win it all this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Avssuc 2 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Difference is ratings are down, GMs are starting to get fed up so it's not just fans anymore. I mean I'm not an NFL fan but even I know who the Patriots, Seahawks are a league needs super-teams. Um... wat? "2015 Stanley Cup Final Second-Most Watched in Past Two Decades 06/16/2015 Only once in the past 20 years has the Stanley Cup Final averaged a larger audience than this year." http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/06/stanley-cup-final-ratings-second-most-watched-series-since-1995-blackhawks-lightning-nhl/ And what the hell is your argument, Frank? Both leagues have a cap. The revenue is exponentially higher with the NFL, so what is it exactly that you suggest here? Parity should be a goal here for all fans. Maybe not for us spoiled Wings fans, but what about the folks in smaller markets? I know it hasn't worked out all that well so far, but I think you're suggesting the opposite here. Edited July 18, 2015 by Avssuc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Um... wat? "2015 Stanley Cup Final Second-Most Watched in Past Two Decades 06/16/2015 Only once in the past 20 years has the Stanley Cup Final averaged a larger audience than this year." http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/06/stanley-cup-final-ratings-second-most-watched-series-since-1995-blackhawks-lightning-nhl/ And what the hell is your argument, Frank? Both leagues have a cap. The revenue is exponentially higher with the NFL, so what is it exactly that you suggest here? Parity should be a goal here for all fans. Maybe not for us spoiled Wings fans, but what about the folks in smaller markets? I know it hasn't worked out all that well so far, but I think you're suggesting the opposite here. Read the listed link I am not talking about one game or series it's an overall evaluation. If you don't understand why having super teams is important than search the definition of them.Also my goal is to watch the best possible Wings team if others can't compete because their owner doesn't want to spend or they've hired the wrong people that's their problem and one I couldn't care less about. As much as I hate the Blackhawks I don't believe teams should be punished for having success and especially not for building a dynasty. Edited July 18, 2015 by frankgrimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyemeryhunter 2,747 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Nope sadly a yahoo link and their site is just....https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/despite-decreased-ratings--rogers-rates-first-year-of-nhl-deal-a-success-212225823.html I'm just saying it's super-teams that people even not interested in the sport are going to know about, the more super-teams the better and even better if those teams can keep their talent. The Kings are far from being done, they'll get rid of the Voynov contract sign someone else to replace him yeah the Richards thing (rightfully) is going to hurt them but given their age group LA's run is far from over. Wouldn't be the least surprised if the win it all this year. That's just rogers, Canadian market. As stated above the finals were the second most watched in many years...Also, its looking like the kings are going to get away with just voiding Richards contract. I get the argument that more super teams would draw interest from more casual fans, but the league right now has the same amount of powerhouses as the NFL, who's popularity the NHL will never be able to match in the u.s. Unless You're making an argument here that you haven't said yet, you're just wrong on this one bud. It would be cool for the wings to just be able to buy/horde all the talent they can, but then there would be no chance teams like Arizona, Florida, or Ottawa could survive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 I cant speak for anyone else, but I'm not losing any sleep at the thought of Chicago being brought down a peg. I'm sick and tired of seeing them in the finals. This is a perfect example of why cap management is so important in today's NHL. Being reckless now can screw you later. 4 krsmith17, DatsyukianDekes, derblaueClaus and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlashyG 1,799 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Nope sadly a yahoo link and their site is just....https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/despite-decreased-ratings--rogers-rates-first-year-of-nhl-deal-a-success-212225823.html I'm just saying it's super-teams that people even not interested in the sport are going to know about, the more super-teams the better and even better if those teams can keep their talent. The Kings are far from being done, they'll get rid of the Voynov contract sign someone else to replace him yeah the Richards thing (rightfully) is going to hurt them but given their age group LA's run is far from over. Wouldn't be the least surprised if the win it all this year. Canadian ratings are down, but that has more to due with Rogers being awful than the product being bad. Ratings in the US are soaring 2 gcom007 and DatsyukianDekes reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 That's just rogers, Canadian market. As stated above the finals were the second most watched in many years... Also, its looking like the kings are going to get away with just voiding Richards contract. I get the argument that more super teams would draw interest from more casual fans, but the league right now has the same amount of powerhouses as the NFL, who's popularity the NHL will never be able to match in the u.s. Unless You're making an argument here that you haven't said yet, you're just wrong on this one bud. It would be cool for the wings to just be able to buy/horde all the talent they can, but then there would be no chance teams like Arizona, Florida, or Ottawa could survive. Ok my bad then sorry, yeah Rogers is well just annoying and tsn crushed them again with their trade dead line. See that's the difference I don't care about the other teams, if the Wings win in let's say a 7 team league that's way more entertaining than watching them aging and struggling to make the playoffs and on top of that not being THE July 1 team, not long ago this was our second Christmas Don't get me wrong the Blackhawks can go down as much as much as possible but I don't think punishing successful teams is the right thing. For sure I feel a bit of satisfaction watching other teams going through the same crap we've gone through since 2009 1 jimmyemeryhunter reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 I've been saying this for a couple years now, they'll not be able to sign and have to get rid of players. Also doesn't help you gave Kane and Toews ridiculous contracts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcom007 1,465 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 I cant speak for anyone else, but I'm not losing any sleep at the thought of Chicago being brought down a peg. I'm sick and tired of seeing them in the finals. This is a perfect example of why cap management is so important in today's NHL. Being reckless now can screw you later. Reckless? Screwed over? How many Cups have they won in the last 5 years again? I've been saying this for a couple years now, they'll not be able to sign and have to get rid of players. Also doesn't help you gave Kane and Toews ridiculous contracts. Of course, people say it every year, and they get pinched now and again, drop some people, and so far, they've found a way back. I'm not saying one has to like it or the team, but so far, what they've been doing has been working for them. I'm not about to be the one writing them off again at this point. Again, they've got a great core and they keep retooling and coming back strong. Cups don't lie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Helmethead 235 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 It doesn't really matter who their depth players are. As long as they have Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Hossa...they will continue to win. 3 Cups in 6 years. Sounds familiar, yes? Lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Reckless? Screwed over? How many Cups have they won in the last 5 years again? Of course, people say it every year, and they get pinched now and again, drop some people, and so far, they've found a way back. I'm not saying one has to like it or the team, but so far, what they've been doing has been working for them. I'm not about to be the one writing them off again at this point. Again, they've got a great core and they keep retooling and coming back strong. Cups don't lie. I think you may have misinterpreted my comments. They have won 3 Cups, which is exactly my point. Chicago sacrificed their future a bit (not completely) to win in the moment and it 100% worked. BUT when you make the moves they made (ie. Hossa contract, Toews contract, Kane contract etc.) at some point when your young guys are due for a new contract (ie Saad) you wont be able to sign them. This is exactly why I have been against Holland signing vets to dumb contracts, because a bad contract in lets say 2012 could lead to losing Tatar, Nyquist etc. in 2014, 2015, or Jurco in 2017 etc. . 2 krsmith17 and whitewolf406 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Down with stroumboulopoulos! He doesn't know enough about hockey and doesn't know how organize discussion with the panels. Nice guy and watched him since MuchLoud, but stay away from hockey. Also get rid of the long angle shots that show these hockey guys standing awkwardly floating on your sets. Get them some chairs and a desk. Ratings problems solved. I think Hawks will be fine Sharp hasn't been as good the past couple years. They've done really well finding complementary players. My opinion on the cap has changed over the years. I used to be on the side of Frank, Mickey Redmond, that it's a forced unnatural system, but the more I think about it, what's more boring and artificial than a couple rich guys buying championships. Let the smart GMs claw it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyemeryhunter 2,747 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 Ok my bad then sorry, yeah Rogers is well just annoying and tsn crushed them again with their trade dead line. See that's the difference I don't care about the other teams, if the Wings win in let's say a 7 team league that's way more entertaining than watching them aging and struggling to make the playoffs and on top of that not being THE July 1 team, not long ago this was our second Christmas Don't get me wrong the Blackhawks can go down as much as much as possible but I don't think punishing successful teams is the right thing. For sure I feel a bit of satisfaction watching other teams going through the same crap we've gone through since 2009 Hahaha.I don't blame you by any means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Down with stroumboulopoulos! He doesn't know enough about hockey and doesn't know how organize discussion with the panels. Nice guy and watched him since MuchLoud, but stay away from hockey. Also get rid of the long angle shots that show these hockey guys standing awkwardly floating on your sets. Get them some chairs and a desk. Ratings problems solved. I think Hawks will be fine Sharp hasn't been as good the past couple years. They've done really well finding complementary players. My opinion on the cap has changed over the years. I used to be on the side of Frank, Mickey Redmond, that it's a forced unnatural system, but the more I think about it, what's more boring and artificial than a couple rich guys buying championships. Let the smart GMs claw it out. You make some good points. I remember back in 2006 I was talking to a casual friend, and I brought up the Wings. He told me he was a HUGE fan back in the 90's, but when it seemed they started having their pick of whoever they wanted in the early-mid 2000's it really turned him off. He said that he couldn't respect a team that won just because its owner spent more money. At the time I really didn't listen to what he said and I completely disagreed, but looking back on it I can see how someone would have more respect for a team doing it the way its done now. Did anyone out side of Yankees fans really respect the Yankees back in 2009 when they won the world series and their payroll was around 200,000,000 while the second highest payroll was closer to 100,000,000? Now the Yankees were an extreme, but my point is I'm starting to get his train of thought. Edited July 18, 2015 by kliq 1 whitewolf406 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marcaractac 3,963 Report post Posted July 18, 2015 The only thing I'd change is having some kind of break towards the cap for home grown talent. Parity is nice and all, but it is kind of a bummer when teams who draft and developed well are punished because of the cap. The cap should prevent teams from buying championships. Not force them to lose homegrown talent. 2 whitewolf406 and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) I kind of like how the cap has put everyone on a level playing field. Yeah, it kind of sucks as a Red Wings fan having an owner who is willing to spend whatever it takes. But it's really putting the pressure on the GMs and it really takes skill to balance the cap while putting a competitive team on the ice. It's been good for the league and it hasn't in anyway eliminated "super teams" just as it hasn't in the NFL. When you see how Belichick totally disregards fan favorites, past performance and just looks at the bottom line, it adds interest. On the other side of the coin is someone like Holland (or the Ilitch family) who sticks with guys who have won with them or are fan favorites or homegrown guys, no matter what. I also think Red Wings fans have a romanticized (inaccurate) memory of this yearly mass signing of every top free agent every July 1. Edited July 18, 2015 by Playmaker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted July 18, 2015 You make some good points. I remember back in 2006 I was talking to a casual friend, and I brought up the Wings. He told me he was a HUGE fan back in the 90's, but when it seemed they started having their pick of whoever they wanted in the early-mid 2000's it really turned him off. He said that he couldn't respect a team that won just because its owner spent more money. At the time I really didn't listen to what he said and I completely disagreed, but looking back on it I can see how someone would have more respect for a team doing it the way its done now. Did anyone out side of Yankees fans really respect the Yankees back in 2009 when they won the world series and their payroll was around 200,000,000 while the second highest payroll was closer to 100,000,000? Now the Yankees were an extreme, but my point is I'm starting to get his train of thought. Meh, I think that's a bunch of crap. If spending the most was the only factor, the Yankees would win every year, and so would the Wings pre cap. But that obviously didn't happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted July 19, 2015 I kind of like how the cap has put everyone on a level playing field. Yeah, it kind of sucks as a Red Wings fan having an owner who is willing to spend whatever it takes. But it's really putting the pressure on the GMs and it really takes skill to balance the cap while putting a competitive team on the ice. It's been good for the league and it hasn't in anyway eliminated "super teams" just as it hasn't in the NFL. When you see how Belichick totally disregards fan favorites, past performance and just looks at the bottom line, it adds interest. On the other side of the coin is someone like Holland (or the Ilitch family) who sticks with guys who have won with them or are fan favorites or homegrown guys, no matter what. I also think Red Wings fans have a romanticized (inaccurate) memory of this yearly mass signing of every top free agent every July 1. Yeah, they lost out on a lot of guys they wanted, but back then the third or fourth option was still good. Now the fourth option is a #4 d-man or a forward you hope scores 20 goals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Meh, I think that's a bunch of crap. If spending the most was the only factor, the Yankees would win every year, and so would the Wings pre cap. But that obviously didn't happen. Never once did I say money was the only factor, I'm not sure where you got that from. Of course it isn't, spending money simply increases your probability of winning, and the more you spend, the higher the probability becomes. Edited July 19, 2015 by kliq Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyemeryhunter 2,747 Report post Posted July 19, 2015 Yeah, they lost out on a lot of guys they wanted, but back then the third or fourth option was still good. Now the fourth option is a #4 d-man or a forward you hope scores 20 goalsHa. if the 4th option was still a number four guy, or a possible 20 goal scorer, that'd be an amazing free agency.The only thing I'd change is having some kind of break towards the cap for home grown talent. Parity is nice and all, but it is kind of a bummer when teams who draft and developed well are punished because of the cap. The cap should prevent teams from buying championships. Not force them to lose homegrown talent. Thatd be an interesting way to go.The wings would be amazing. Could you imagine our third or fourth line being hudler-fil-sheahan? Rolling four lines would be unfair when other teams played us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted July 19, 2015 Yeah, they lost out on a lot of guys they wanted, but back then the third or fourth option was still good. Now the fourth option is a #4 d-man or a forward you hope scores 20 goals I think the difference isn't about getting a fourth option, but that the teams then were already highly talented teams that needed a few extra pieces. The "prime free agents" were all old guys past their prime who probably wouldn't have been nearly as successful on a more mediocre team. The Wings needs are much different now. They need a #1/2 defenseman, a #2 center, a top line winger. It's rare to find guys like that in free agency, especially in their prime. The Wings were also fortunate in the past by having a guy like Hakan Andersson to find top line players in the later rounds in the draft. He's not a secret anymore. Never once did I say money was the only factor, I'm not sure where you got that from. Of course it isn't, spending money simply increases your probability of winning, and the more you spend, the higher the probability becomes. I don't know as though that is factual or not. Does spending more really increase the probability? I also don't think there's any lack of "respect" for a team who wins it all, no matter how much they spend. That mostly comes from sour grapes fans and media from other teams. I think many free agents are going to be homegrown. I don't really know how you'd protect them. Plus, most draft picks don't work out, will the Ha. if the 4th option was still a number four guy, or a possible 20 goal scorer, that'd be an amazing free agency. Thatd be an interesting way to go. The wings would be amazing. Could you imagine our third or fourth line being hudler-fil-sheahan? Rolling four lines would be unfair when other teams played us. But other teams could keep their talent too so it'd probably be a wash. guys that don't develop have some type of guarantee of a contract? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites