Jump to content

StormJH1's Photo


Member Since 09 Oct 2007
Offline Last Active Nov 11 2014 11:20 AM

#2351368 Stats Thus Far for Suter and Weber

Posted by StormJH1 on 05 February 2013 - 02:38 PM

Suter is by far the best defenseman on the Wild, without looking it up I'd have a hardtime naming any other defenseman on that team but I do know, that they have a very promising young rookie named Brodhin. People also have to keep in mind that Suter has never been that sexy, flashy offensive defenseman he is an elite stay at home defender.


Up to this season Weber always had thte assurance of Suter staying back, so he could play a more offensive type of game but now he is paired with a guy, who is playing his second NHL season, so Weber has to be more defensive responsible I think that's the reason, why his point totals are down.


These two just completemented each other perfectly so I am not surprised they aren't that dominate, but keep in mind stats aren't always telling the whole story. Suter also has to adopt to a new coach,. system including all the pressure of being the #1 defenseman on the team.


I live in Minnesota.  Suter has been awful and the Wild fans know it, but I think they're trying to be patient with it based on his track record.  It's not like Suter was total garbage on the U.S. Olympic team, I thought he was quite good.


The Wild have a rookie, Jonas Brodin, who looks like a stud.  He's decent-sized, skilled with the puck, and already playing 21 minutes a night, almost by default.

Tom Gilbert was acquired in a trade for fan favorite Nick Schultz last year that stunned everyone, and Gilbert has been a better fit with this year's more skilled set of forwards.


Zach Parise has actually been as good or better than advertised.  As long as he stays healthy, his leadership and work rate are going to keep up his effectiveness, even if the scoring dries up now and then.  Plus, he's the local guy who came home, so the Minnesotans love him for that anyway.


But the shocking reality for the Wild is that they're more than a decade in and they've arguably never had a shutdown "Top 2" defenseman in franchise history.  They had Brent Burns, but he was more interesting for his offensive rushes and willingness to ignore Lemaire's trap system.  Other guys, like Cam Barker, were supposed to anchor the D unit, and completely flamed out.  So there has to be some concern that Suter isn't the guy they thought he was, but I'm sure he'll turn it around over time.  

#2344394 Red Wings sign D Kent Huskins to 1-year, $750k contract

Posted by StormJH1 on 22 January 2013 - 11:51 AM

33 years old, left handed shot, 6'4" 205lb, but pretty limited playing time the past few years.  I have only vague knowledge of him from being on the Ducks.


But I guess it's a warm body with some size an NHL experience, right?

#2343037 Minnesota

Posted by StormJH1 on 21 January 2013 - 01:11 PM

I'm one of the "undercover LGW'ers" living in Minnesota, the fan base here just really annoys me.  Obviously, they know the sport itself, or they wouldn't bother taking their kids to all those 6am practices and obsessing over WCHA games with the Golden Gophers.  But given that they had no hockey here from 1993-99 (an era of DRAMATIC change in the NHL), and then Lemaire trapped and dumped his way to 8 terribly boring seasons when they got the Wild...it's almost like their impressions of the professional game are locked in some time capsule from the 1970's.  When Slap Shot and the Minnesota North Stars are your reference points for the NHL, it explains whey they always need a super-goon here - from Boogaard (R.I.P.) to John Scott to Zenon Konopka.   


People need to keep in mind that the Wild were as bad as they were for a reason last year.  They had the NHL's best record for, like, 20 games, and then were AWFUL.  I think their 2nd half record was worse than Columbus last year.  The defensive corps is young and undersized.  Adding a horse like Suter helps, but I always thought Weber was clearly superior out of those two, and they always played together.  So how much do we really know about Suter?


Parise is like the messiah here - they should've just given him the "C" and bumped Koivu down to an "A" because it seems inevitable anyway.  Homegrown kid comes home, and his dad played for the North Stars for parts of 8 seasons.  People assumed here that Parise would sign during LAST season, which made it more annoying when it actually happened.  But at least with Parise, you understand the appeal.  The Wings needed Suter, and he came to Minnesota just to follow Parise and because of his wife.  I've taken to calling him "Becky" around my Wild fans, let's see how long before they pick up on it.


I think the Wild are a better team than they were before, but their first two opponents weren't world beaters, and things are screwy all over the league because of the quick start.  I still believe that you can't make a bad team good just by adding a player (or two).  (See 2001 Capitals, New York Rangers since 1995).  Minnesota will likely get better, but mostly because of their revamped farm system, which went from horrible two years ago to one of the better ones in hockey now.

#2342546 Giant Griffins bench-clearing brawl

Posted by StormJH1 on 20 January 2013 - 03:34 AM

Jesus.  Great, half our farm system has a concussion now.  Mrazek got beaten to a pulp - love how the ref slid his lifeless corpse away from the other goalie.

Also, what the hell was that siren going off in the background?  Is that some sort of signal for everyone to pretend they're in "Slap Shot"?


Great call on that Islanders/Pens brawl by @stevkrause above.  The teams with the "best fighters" are usually the teams in the bottom half of the standings.  Probably because you have to offer some raw meat for the fairweather fans to chew on.

#2341315 NHL Gamecenter Live **No illegal stream discussion**

Posted by StormJH1 on 18 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

I see yeah I don't have cable trying to save a buck. So I watch all my sports online these days. Decisions decisions


I'm also a Wings fan in Minnesota.  The national games for Detroit are almost half the season this year, but I decided to try out GameCenter anyway.  But yes, it's a bummer for people that don't even have the cable subscription that their streaming options are dictated by the cable providers they could have gotten the game on.  I think a couple of the games are NBC on the weekend, so presumably you could see those, but NBC Sports Network and NHL Network are a no.

so i have the nhl gamecenter app on my vizo apps. I wonder if it will show the games or is it just for fault?


Guess we'll find out tomorrow.  I don't understand why there should be any issues given that it's not even like these are "new" apps.  They should have been ready in October and just "flipped the switch", but I guess not.

#2336382 Every player a UFA?

Posted by StormJH1 on 19 December 2012 - 06:30 PM


This doesn't really fit here, but I just felt like yelling it out.

#2335884 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 11 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.

All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.

And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:

1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;

2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);

3) eliminate re-entry waivers;

4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted);

5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).

Brilliant. I think the bulk of the hockey-following public really has lost touch with this debate. They hear little bits and pieces of another "concession" by the owners, and when a deal doesn't happen the next day, it must be because Fehr's an *******.

There is no "negotiation" here. This is more like a hostage situation where Bettman has kidnapped little bits and pieces of what the players already had, and letting them out piece by piece. At the end of the day, if he's only taking and not giving back, he's still the aggressor in all of this.

Player salaries did not become inflated (AGAIN) because the players are "greedy" or "overpaid". The salaries went up because the 2005 CBA and its salary cap that the OWNERS unilaterally wanted and forced upon the NHLPA is fundamentally broken. To put the salary cap and floor so close together and to raise the cap so aggressively so that it nearly doubled in the course of 7 years is absurd. The struggling market teams literally HAD to start overpaying mid-level guys to even meet the salary floor. It's not like Crosby and Ovechkin are readily available on the free agent market. You fill out your team and keep your budget up by paying way too much for Jeff Finger, Mike Cammeileri, or Ville Leino.

And worst of all, the same owners who now say they're all losing money were going out of their way to pay more ACTUAL money than the salary cap apparently allows. How do you expect the NHLPA to "give in", given that total lack of credibility on the other side?

#2334940 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 29 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.

That second point is what I think the majority of people I argue with don't seem to understand. To solve a problem, your solution actually has to address the root cause of that problem. Otherwise, it's like trying to bandage on your finger to cure a headache - it doesn't make any sense.

In 2004/05, there was an idea that player salaries had gotten out of control. Even thought the fans personally identified with the players more than a bunch of suits who own and operate the teams, public sentiment was largely on the side of the owners. A lot of people, myself included, assumed that if you put a reasonable cap in place, ALL teams would have to spend more responsibly. More importantly, the disparity in budget between the "haves" and "have nots", by definition could not be more than $16 million (difference between cap floor and cap ceiling).

The new CBA really could have succeeded. But two things happened between 2005 and 2012 that really destroyed any chance for smaller markets to compete again. The first was that the revenues of the game grew, which meant that the cap increased:

Posted Image
Raise your hand if you really thought we would nearly DOUBLE the salary cap by 2012 (oh, and by the way, in the midst of a massive worldwide recession). Oh, and by the way, teams like the Detroit Red Wings, who were derisively referred to as the "Yankees" of the NHL, actually didn't spend more than the current salary cap amount before the new CBA, except for one season (2003-04). That "all-star" team that one the 2001-02 Cup with something like 11 Hall of Famers on it? Their payroll of $66 million would've fit easily into the Cap for the 2012-13 season. Of course, the problem was getting worse and worse without a Cap, and I agreed at the time that Salary Cap was necessary. Unfortunately, the implementation of that did nothing to slow the increase of salaries. It simply reset the clock for a few years, which is necessary anyway after you sit out a whole season and disillusion much of your fanbase.

The second thing that happened, of course, was the backdiving contracts and owners/GM's figuring out ways to spend more on players than the team's cap figure would seem to imply. This is significant financially because if you're handing out money to minor league stashes, bonuses, and actual payments to players larger than their cap hit would suggest, then the salary cap really isn't doing much to limit spending, which was supposed to be the whole point of this fiscal responsibility push in 2004-05 in the first place.

Long story short, the system was fundamentally flawed, and the combination of the increased cap and "cheater" contracts that payed more than they appear to led to sustained spending on players. Those problems do need to be fixed so that spending can't get out of control again.

But if you're Phoenix, or Nashville, or Dallas, or whatever...people still need to want to BUY your product, or you'll never make money like the big boys. Even worse, the CBA that is supposed to help all teams by controlling spending actually hurts franchises by putting a cap FLOOR on those teams. Many of those franchises are going to draw 10,000 to 12,000 per game whether they spend $25 million or $50 million on payroll. There just aren't enough fans to support the product long-term in those markets, and that has nothing to do with the players or how much revenue they get.

#2334867 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 28 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

This whole thing is so sickening. Even though I feel like the NHLPA still has some measure of additional support from the public/media as compared to the owners...it feels like even the people who support the NHLPA have allowed this entire debate to be stuffed into the framework laid out by the NHL. The idea that "we have to get to 50/50", which is really just a completely arbitrary distribution that SOUNDS non-arbitrary, necessarily called for a massive reduction in player revenues and a lockout. What rationale could there possibly be for completely shutting down the product and asking the players to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue back to the owners, when the product (as a whole) was actually generating far more money than seemed possible in 2005?

We don't see the actual numbers behind these purported losses by the 18 NHL franchises. What part does the players share of revenues have in the fact that about half of the league can't operate at a profit...any more than the players have to do with the fact that some other franchises have turned CONSIDERABLE profits? Moreover, if the cap floor is fixed at $16 million below the cap maximum, why don't we see 15-20 teams bottoming out as close to that floor as they possibly can, if they're hurting for money so bad anyways? Heck, you have a greater chance of making the playoffs as you do missing the playoffs anyway (16 out of 30), why not just save $10 million a year by bottoming out and hoping that enough other teams do the same? If Nashville and Phoenix can make the playoffs multiple times with all the issues they have financially, couldn't anybody?

The surprising truth is that most owners actually want to win. They want to win so badly that they will cheat their own CBA provisions as much as they can, waste money on stashed minor leaguers, backloaded deals, and bonuses that don't even appear in the cap, and overpay undeserving players like Ville Leino, Mike Cammileleri, and Jeff Finger chasing the dream. Then, when the bubble bursts again, they'll just ask for more money every 7 years. I'm sorry, but that's not the way to run a business. I don't blame Jeff Finger for taking huge money to play a game he loves, to support a career that could be over tomorrow if he crashes into the boards wrong. I do blame the guys who thought paying that money was a good idea, and drooled over expansion fees without putting any type of revenue sharing in place to support struggling teams.

#2334865 Sheahan arrested for "superdrunk" driving

Posted by StormJH1 on 28 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

Wow, weird timing on how this thing blew up all of the sudden, ESPN.com has it as one of their 11 "headline" stories on the front page (right below the breaking news that Hope Solo is happy in her marriage).

Guess it's all about an "angle". NHL news rarely makes it on that page for actual game events, but if some unknown prospect gets arrested wearing a Tellytubby costume during a lockout - now that's news!

#2334732 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 26 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

This issue so complicated because of the polarizing figure that is Gary Bettman. A New York lawyer running the most popular sport in Canada. 3 significant work stoppages in 18 years.

@Nightfall is partially right when he says that Bettman was not the "cause" of the lockout. Admittedly, that would be an oversimplification. I heard a TSN podcast today where one guy wondered if this isn't just the "new normal" given the fact that salaries were so constant for so many years and then shot up exponentially in the past 20 years. He wondered if the underlying problem isn't just that nobody knows "what anything is worth" in the NHL.

But I refuse to give Bettman a pass on "causing the lockout" for this reason: He DID create and stubbornly support the environment that caused this lockout to happen in the last 2 CBA's. When you a situation where you can make $3.3 billion in profits AND it can also be true that (allegedly) 18 franchises are operating in the red, you have fundamental problems. If I honestly believed that setting HRR at 50/50 and just telling the players to give a little more back would solve those problems, I would turn on the NHLPA and Fehr in a heartbeat.

But here's the thing: I have zero confidence that Phoenix, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, etc are suddenly going to become profitable simply because you cap player contracts at 5 years, lower the salary cap, and take money out of the players' share. I have zero confidence because we were told that everything in '05 CBA was necessary to save those bottom-feeder teams, and it didn't work.

The problem is the structure of the league, and the freedom of the owners to continue spending even with a hard cap in place. The deeper problem is that the league is badly overexpanded into places it doesn't belong. Phoenix is not going to start drawing 15,000 a game just because you made it so the Parises and Suters of the world only sign $40 million deals instead of $98 million ones. And when ownership in Phoenix or any other city in Bettman's "Grand Sun Belt Experiment" tried to sell to owners/cities with actual money and an interest in hockey, Bettman blocked it.

Unless you are willing to dramatically revise how revenue sharing works and commit yourself to having the Tornto-type markets carrying the struggling teams (which is obviously problematic), this will continue to happen. And Bettman (who whoever represents the owners) will continue to ask for additional money every CBA simply because they can.

#2334503 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 21 November 2012 - 04:35 PM

Not that the PA's offer was the be-all-end-all, but from the reporting it sounds like the League is sitting back waiting for the PA to come up with some kind of offer that will fix all the League's problems for them.

I think the league is sitting back because after their "3 up, 3 rejected" response within the course of an hour to the NHLPA's counteroffers in October, they'll look like absolute clowns if they reject this thing immediately again. Still, as this portion of Pierre LeBrun's article hints, I find it hard to believe this approach will gain a significant foothold for the NHLPA:

For the first time, the NHLPA offered a framework based on the league’s preferred system of a percentage linked to hockey-related revenue, instead of a system based on guaranteed dollars. In this case, the NHLPA agrees to go to 50 percent of HRR right from Year 1. However, a key line in the proposal bears underlying: "There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season."

Essentially, it means the players are guaranteed to make no less in total dollars than the year before. The league won’t like that.

The NHL have to be nuts to guarantee the players that their share of revenue will not go down in subsequent years. What if the fans revolt and attendance is down? What if the world economy takes a massive dump and people just stop spending money on the NHL?

Let's say HRR is $3 billion next year (randomly selected #). In Year 1, you have a 50/50 split, so $1.5 billion each for owners and players. Let's say in Year 2, HRR drops to $2.2 billion for some reason. Under the NHLPA proposal, the players now have over 68 PERCENT of HRR b/c the CBA says that they can't make less than $1.5 billion.

Also, the language makes no sense to me. If Year 2 has to be as high as Year 1, then does Year 3 have to be as high as Year 2? In other words, it could never drop below whatever number it was in Year 1. However, it could go up. The NHLPA is basically proposing a unilaterally fixed MINIMUM for the players. No way in hell the league agrees to that, and I don't blame them in this instance.

#2334356 Sheahan arrested for "superdrunk" driving

Posted by StormJH1 on 20 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

Drunk/impaired driving is wrong, make no doubt about it. But people get on their high horse about this issue like none other, when virtually EVERY person who has ever drank at a bar and then driven home has probably broken DWI laws to some degree. And if you don't drink, but use your smartphone while driving every once in awhile, don't try to tell me you're any better than a drunk driver, either.

Sheahan did a bad thing, and the law will punish him for it to the extent sorted out by the system. If it happens again, we can start to talk about a pattern. But the way people "discard" people with a DWI as if they must be "alcoholics" bothers me, even if the underlying offense IS wrong. You don't have be an alcoholic or chronic screw-up to make a mistake.

#2333579 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by StormJH1 on 06 November 2012 - 11:35 AM

So, with the NHL/NHLPA apparently set to talk today, do we really have any idea what was said in these recent meetings. They seemed to be productive (or at least not counter-productive), and this came on the heels of the 11/1 news that the owners were willing to "chip in" somewhat on the "make whole" provision.

Even though the media is slightly pro-players in their coverage, I was surprised how many people gave Bettman the benefit of the doubt on his 10 minute consideration of the three counter-proposals by the NHLPA. I think that Bettman's barely-even-perfunctory review of those offers, coupled with distrust over the 48-hour "owners can talk to players" window really tanked what should have been an ongoing process leading up to 10/25. I never believed that the full season could be saved (or perhaps even the Winter Classic), but it was disgraceful to see that progress completely fall apart due to (IMO) the stubbornness of the Union to make ANY concessions on their proposal.

#2333321 NHL Officially Cancels 2013 Winter Classic

Posted by StormJH1 on 02 November 2012 - 03:27 PM

I am so ANGRY right now. Knew this was coming for weeks, and it just gets worse and worse. The 2012 lockout, for me anyway, is so much worse than the 2004-05 lockout. At least during THAT lockout, I felt like the game had serious problems that needed to be addressed. Also, we didn't know what the loss of a full season would feel like, and there was hope (until January) that it could be saved.

This time, I KNOW what a lockout feels like. And this lockout has NO purpose that means anything to a fan. All the people telling me that the owners need a bigger share of the pie so that the 18 teams losing money can be back in the black...shut up. Please shut up. There was nothing in the owners' proposal that would do anything to keep idiot GM's from circumventing their own rules they asked for, and generally doing an awful job running hockey teams in markets that don't even really want hockey.

If I hear the phrase "new NHL" one more time, I might have a nervous breakdown. What did we accomplish in exchange for losing an entire year? Take back your stupid salary cap, cap floor, trapezoid, regular season shootouts, and obstruction calls and give me back the old NHL. If you had to completely blow up the system to get what you want, and having gotten what you want (plus $3.3 billion revenues), and you STILL can't figure out how to divide up all the money you collected from the fans?!