- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: Nightfall
NightfallMember Since 10 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Feb 01 2016 10:30 AM
- Group Gold Booster
- Active Posts 3,997
- Profile Views 16,921
- Member Title My goal is to deny yours!
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
ice hockey, rollerhockey, goaltending, photography, hockey journalism
- Website URL http://www.nightfall.net
Posted by Nightfall on 15 October 2010 - 05:41 PM
I lay it out a lot like you do.
1. The management deserves our full support. If not for the consecutive postseason appearances, but for the tradition of winning that has been built.
2. The players deserve our full support. No player is going to be a top line player like Lidstrom for 20 years. Even he is not immune from the negativity, which surprises me. I guess all it took was one non-Norris trophy like season for the commoners to turn on our captain. Anyway, every player deserves to be supported. They all play their hearts out and to chew into them for their mistakes or belittle them is really dumb.
That isn't to say that conversation shouldn't happen. Sure, anyone can ask the question if "player A should be signed" or "player B didn't play well". What is just wrong are the attacks against players, management, and ownership from moronic fans. Case in point, look at the "need a goalie" post. Osgood has sucked the last 3 years? 2008 was one of his best seasons! Talk about uninformed and dumb just because of that fact.
A majority of posters in these forums are not true Wings fans. They are what I would call bandwagoners. The instant that the team falls on hard times, these posters will be joining up on the Sharks or Hawks forums and claiming that they are fans. Just watch. All it will take is one bad season to make it happen. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but I suppose there is an advantage if it does happen. Look at the Tampa Bay Lightning. When they won the Stanley Cup, everyone was a Lightning fan. I have a friend who has been a season ticket holder to the Lightning since they started playing. At the start, it was the ticket to have in Tampa Bay, and the general hockey knowledge was pretty low. After the Stanley Cup run, he would describe it as one of the most uninformed hockey fanbase he had ever known. Fans would ride the players and be non-supportive if they weren't doing well. Today, its a great time to be a hockey fan in Tampa Bay because the team is playing well, Yzerman is in charge, and the base of fans is small but they are die hard fans who support the team. That, IMHO, is the best time to be a real fan of the team.
Ah well, I have said enough.
This is very true. Without the common idiots, it really is not entertaining to go to forums and read the posts.
All the really successful sports teams have the most neurotic fans.
Fans have the right to think what they want. They don't "owe" the team anything really. The team provides fans with entertainment, while fans provide teams and owners with actual revenue, which goes into player salaries.
LGW is actually more fun with neurotic threads. Go to a Panthers or Thrashers board, and see how many people give a damn there. Not many, hence not as interesting a discussion board.
Posted by Nightfall on 13 October 2010 - 12:30 PM
Lol @ the bickering in this thread. It's one game (3rd in the season) and a SO loss. Who cares....
Furthermore, Avs are a good young hockey club that showed tons a resilience and wanted the win more.
A vast majority of Wings fans in here are very fickle. If the team wins, all is good with most people here. If the team loses, the refs, Bettman, Howard, Ozzie, Bert, 3rd liners, and everyone else under the sun is singled out. Its just tiring to hear over and over again. I swear that I get more intelligent hockey posts from the Wings fans on the HFBoards following a loss.
- DatsyukianDekes likes this
Posted by Nightfall on 12 October 2010 - 03:08 PM
Thank you man.
Thanks Nightfall. I was around when the Wings weren't making the playoffs every year and I remember when we made the playoffs in 1988. I just remember how excited I was ( I was only 9), I thought then that this team was going to do something special, then followed up the next year with 19 wins and didn't even sniff the playoffs and I wondered what was next. We all now what happened, but I always kept the faith in this team. I think may people on this board were not around during the DeadWings era, because if they were, we would not see these crazy comments about players like Malts and Drapes and yes, Even Lidstrom (which just baffles me)!
I will always remember Maltby in the playoffs, right when we needed a big goal, everyone would pick Stevie, Shanny, Kozlov, Feds, ect and who ended up with a goal..... Kirk Maltby! As far as I'm concerned, Malts was one of the best faces of the organization that there ever was. Will the #18 go to the rafters, probably not, but he will always be at the top of the lists of players with the biggest heart and dedication. We'll miss you Malts!! GO WINGS!!
Your post reminded me just how much of a new fan I am compared to those who were around in the 70-80s when they were called the "dead wings". I didn't get exposed to hockey until 1994 when I went to college at Ferris State. As of that moment when I went to a live college hockey game, I was hooked. I started watching the Wings that season, and getting swept in the finals by the Devils was horrible to experience.
You are right, the older fans of the team who have been around for a while have a whole new appreciation for members of the team who gave so much. Things like loyalty are hard to find in sports these days. In the working world, if someone gets cut from their job, its distasteful and backstabbing to do. In the sports world, if someone gets cut from a team, its a necessity because they want the team to win, win, and win some more. I want to win just as much as every other Wings fan. At the same time though, I praise the loyalty of the Wings organization.
- 55fan likes this
Posted by Nightfall on 12 October 2010 - 12:40 PM
So... Maltby what was the point of signing a contract if you was just going to retire?
Draper is probably a lot closer to retirement than he wants to admit.
Draper should follow suit
When I read some of the posts in this thread, I am just appalled. Here is a guy that gave his heart and soul to the organization. He was a penalty killer and a grind liner. You don't win four Stanley Cups by accident. Detroit knew what they had here and they treated him well for many years. In return, he gave everything he had to the organization.
Yet, some of the fans on this forum piss on him and other players. Even Lidstrom is a target by some people, which is disgusting being as that we are all fans of the Red Wings here. This isn't the HFboards where there are asshats a plenty out there that like to start flame wars with other teams and fans.
I expect people here will be supportive of their Red Wings and the management. After all, they deserve to have our support being as that they haven't missed the playoffs in 25 of the last 27 seasons and the last 19 in a row. The players have shown that they care about playing in Detroit by giving it their all season after season after season.
Here is Maltby, a player who has given it their all for years. 75% of the posts here have the right attitude, which is supportive and remembering what Maltby brought to the table. The rest of the posters here are true morons. If not for the fact that they don't remember what Maltby did for the organization, but because he is a Red Wing. He will take a job in the front office because the Red Wings care about their players and the players care about playing here. I don't see this kind of commitment from many organizations out there.
Support your Red Wings guys. They are your team. If you don't like the team, go bandwagon on the Sharks and Hawks. I heard they need more fans on the bandwagon these days.
Happy retirement Maltby! You will be missed.
Posted by Nightfall on 12 October 2010 - 08:40 AM
I would love to see an uncensored sports channel. Then you can see all these things throughout every sport. I would subscribe to this in a heartbeat as well.
this just goes on to support my idea of uncensored NHL hockey on a "requested channel"
that would rock!
miked up benches....trash talking....unabashed interviews.
yeah....sign me up.
of course, i'm in dreamland about this.
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
Posted by Nightfall on 09 October 2010 - 09:03 PM
Weak osgood :/
Not Osgoods fault. It hit Salei and changed direction. Can't blame the goalie when he centers himself to the shot and yet it hits one of his own guys and goes a different direction and in.
Can we not have Osgood play anymore?
Terribly timed goals.
So far, I can't fault Osgood on a blown defensive assignment that results in a goal or a deflection goal. These are the goals that your team has to fight through.
Posted by Nightfall on 30 September 2010 - 12:30 AM
Dedicated servers and shared servers have nothing to do with the conversation. Its all about the ISP. Who says I am thinking that they are only charging for bandwidth or that he is only doing it for free? I don't think anyone is that dumb, and since I never said that, you can stop drawing conclusions to try to make yourself look righteous. As for you doing business where I work on the ISP side, you are probably safe there unless you do business in MI and stream a ton of video. From your knowledge and experience, you obviously don't do that. Otherwise, you would have been down that road as I have with many customers.
You are confusing shared servers to dedicated servers. But go ahead and keep on thinking that Hockeystreams.com is streaming these videos and spending their time and risking getting caught for $0-dollar profit. They are doing illegal activities to serve you, the viewer, for free. And go ahead and keep on thinking they are only charging you what it costs them in bandwidth. Lol @ how naive people truly are. Just mind-blowing.
And remind me to never do business where you "contract on the ISP side". /facepalm.
I would like to have a good natured conversation with you about this if you are interested. Lets take it to PM though. The conversation is way off topic.
Posted by Nightfall on 29 September 2010 - 09:45 PM
I can point out a lot of providers who say "unlimited" bandwidth, but when push comes to shove, they will not allow you to push that much. Residential broadband providers and hosted solutions may say "unlimited" but when you start pushing a lot through the provider, you will find your account suspended or canceled. True unlimited bandwidth costs are astronomical. If you knew the industry and how shared hosting works, you would understand that.
I already proved you wrong on the first point. I even sourced it from some random hosting service. One can even build a server in their own home or office if they so desire. It's not that complicating if you possess basic understanding. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I know how the industry works and know companies that have lost hosting privileges because of excessive bandwidth when the provider false advertises, and you can find a lot of providers who say unlimited.
Posted by Nightfall on 29 September 2010 - 07:32 PM
I am not arguing the intellectual property rights at all. I was merely correcting you in that the bandwidth costs are not a concern. If you want to change the subject in order to make a valid point so it makes you look right, then thats great. You can find someone else to debate with on that topic.
And I've built servers from the ground up and sold bandwidth. What's your point? They will support thousands of users. The facts remain the same, that website is selling intellectual property. Are you going to argue that it's not illegal now because you are an FBI agent and a Judge?
Posted by Nightfall on 29 September 2010 - 06:55 PM
Good luck getting unlimited when you have thousands of users pushing that kind of bandwidth. I am also in the online industry, but I contract on the ISP side, and I am smart enough to know that those prices are not accurate. Providers like netelligent oversell their bandwidth all the time. They will not support thousands of users streaming video. If you think they will, then you are dreaming.
Whatever dude. unmetered bandwidth server packages start at $150 - $395 per month. Hockeystreams is somewhere in the middle. Do you tell a mechanic how to fix your vehicle when you take it into the shop for repairs? Online business is my career, and I am proud to say that I do it legally.
But whatever helps you sleep at night.
Posted by Nightfall on 22 September 2010 - 08:10 PM
I agree. Osgood should have won 4 cups if the Wings would have taken game 6 or 7, but I digress. The Wings are not losing because of Osgoods play right now. They are losing because the Pens played all their starters. If we had all our starters in, the game would be much different. The Ozzie haters will all pile on the hate bandwagon though.
3 STANLEY CUPS - NUFF SAID ! AND HE IS THE BACKUP !
Whoa, Crosby out? And we didn't even do it? Rad!
Posted by Nightfall on 22 September 2010 - 12:50 PM
Have a read of the article and let me know what you think.
The NHL commissioner is looking to define his league -- and his legacy
GARY BETTMAN IS IN A GOOD MOOD. Two days earlier, an independent arbitrator upheld the league's rejection of the Devils' first attempt to sign Ilya Kovalchuk. The decision backed Bettman's belief that the 17-year, $102 million deal was just a blatant end run around the NHL's salary cap. It was the latest validation of Bettman's stature as the most dominating commissioner in pro sports. Even the August sun, pouring through a wall of windows into Bettman's Manhattan office, seems to shine for him. He's relaxed, even cheery, in pleasant contrast to his reputation as a pugnacious and humorless know-it-all who looks as if he were born in a dark suit. At the moment, he's even in shirtsleeves -- blue tie knotted at his throat, but shirtsleeves nonetheless. "Whatever you want, we're happy to help," he says.
"In that case," I say, "I'd like a franchise."
He grins: "Do you have an American Express card with a pretty big limit?"
Soon enough we're digging into serious issues: the Kovalchuk deal, off-season drug testing and NHL participation in the Olympics -- all issues that will shape pro hockey in the coming years. Bettman handles even the most contentious subjects with aplomb. But something has him uneasy. Without warning, he blurts, "I assume when I'm being funny and cute, we're not going to intersperse it into the article."
Any hint of a smile is gone. "Do it in context," he says, more order than request.
Summer sun or not, Gary Bettman's office is suddenly as chilly as Calgary in January.
KENESAW MOUNTAIN Landis saved baseball's soul by excommunicating the Black Sox. Pete Rozelle created an NFL juggernaut with a savvy merger and socialist distribution of TV revenue. But no major sport commissioner has had more far-reaching impact in his world than Bettman, who has influenced everything from the location of franchises to the size of goalie pads. The NHL is Gary's league; Sid and Ovi just play in it.
In his 18-year reign, the NHL has gone from a league hemorrhaging $200 million a year to one that just produced record (estimated) profits of $180 million. On ice, the clutching and grabbing that numbed offenses last decade has given way to thrilling open-ice rushes. "He's the best thing that could've happened to the NHL, because he's always known what needed to be done," says Dave Checketts, managing owner of the Blues.
Change, though, has come at a cost -- most traumatically, the 2004-05 season that Bettman sacrificed to win the hard salary cap he insisted was necessary for league survival. And still, payroll-cost certainty hasn't kept several owners from struggling. The Coyotes became a $170 million ward of the league, and other warm-weather clubs are barely above water, giving rise to the biggest wave of criticism about Bettman's reign -- his focus on southern expansion.
This was probably why Bettman had second thoughts about his charge-a-franchise quip. He is a fierce protector of the brand. And god help the naysayer who suggests that even the toughest problems won't be solved. "He's the last guy you want to fight," Checketts says. "He doesn't give up, doesn't give in, doesn't bend. When he decides, it's over. He will win."
His ruthlessness has Bettman both respected and despised. In Canada, fan and media vitriol is so nasty you'd think the man had torched every Tim Hortons from Halifax to Whitehorse. Players and GMs, fearing reprisals, refuse to talk publicly against him. Even Boston's Jeremy Jacobs, one of the NHL's most powerful owners, worries that an innocuous quote for this story about adjusting the collective bargaining agreement will get him fined. Don Meehan, one of hockey's shrewdest agents, can't get off the phone with me fast enough: "I'm not going there," he says at the first mention of the commissioner's name.
Simple fear isn't all that makes players and agents go silent: Donald Fehr has told them to shut up too. The most powerful man in baseball for two decades as head of the MLB players' union, Fehr is a fierce negotiator who once won a $280 million payout when he proved that MLB owners were colluding. After retiring in 2009, he became an unpaid consultant to the chronically chaotic NHLPA; he's now the presumptive choice to be the union's next executive director, a hiring expected to be finalized by a vote later this fall. (Calls to Fehr, 62, went unreturned.) For the first time since former union boss Bob Goodenow lost his throwdown with Bettman six years ago, NHL players have someone who might just be able to muscle the commish.
Over the next 18 months, Bettman will try to make himself stronger by shoring up struggling franchises, bolstering league finances, securing a more lucrative TV deal and, most important, sealing loopholes in the CBA. Bettman says the media overhyped the Kovalchuk contract battle, even though he spent the summer engaged in the talks. The NHL approved a slightly shorter and smaller deal on Sept. 4, but New Jersey was fined $3 million and lost two draft picks. More to the point, Bettman got the NHLPA to limit such deals going forward. The commissioner, never complacent, feels an extra urgency to secure labor peace. "I would prefer a constructive, strong relationship with a players' association that can work with us," he says, countering a pervasive feeling that he's trying to put the union out of business. "There's a lot of people saying we already did that," he says a bit too enthusiastically. Bettman seems to realize his overzealousness because he quickly adds, "That's not the goal." He saw the new union regime looming long before Fehr showed at the World Hockey Summit in Toronto in August. And he has been in charge too long to be scared. But it has been forever since Gary Bettman wasn't the undisputed smartest person in the room.
He was small and felt like an outcast as an only child growing up in Queens, N.Y. His father, who owned a nut business, left home when Gary was 5; he died eight years later. "I don't think I'm overstating things," Bettman says haltingly. "I may have been the only kid in the '50s living in a single-parent household." He pauses. "It was different."
What he lacked in size or social confidence Bettman made up for in smarts. And while that made him more of an outsider, it also gave him a means to control his world. Today, he eagerly argues the most controversial issues facing the NHL but gets prickly over innocent biographical questions -- like what he dreamed of growing up to be. "I'm 58 years old," Bettman snaps. "I'm not exactly in touch with what my feelings were 46 years ago. I'd need a couple of hours of therapy to start thinking about that stuff."
For the record, he claims no memory of ever wanting to be anything other than a lawyer. He went to Cornell's school of industrial and labor relations, mostly for its prelaw curriculum, then got a law degree at New York University. Hired by a Manhattan law firm whose clients included the NBA, his talents were soon recognized by then-executive vice president David Stern, who hired him away in 1981. Bettman eventually rose from in-house lawyer to the league's No. 3 executive, charged with implementing its salary cap. The NHL came calling in 1992, making Bettman the first non-hockey lifer to run its ship.
He wasn't born into the game, but Bettman seems genetically suited to command a sport. "Our mother had enormous brain power," says Jeffrey Pollack, Bettman's half-brother and 13 years his junior. "Gary is a kinetic intellectual force. Some of that came from her." Pollack says his own career was inspired by Bettman's: He founded Sports Business Daily before spending four years as commissioner of the World Series of Poker. Today, he heads the Professional Bull Riders league. Pollack knows how it feels to walk into a foreign culture as its boss. "Gary is a superior intellect, and some people take that as pugnacious," he says. "When I'm with him at an NHL arena and he gets booed, I cheer loudly. Gary laughs it off, but it's painful."
The boos are one side effect of forcing many wrenching changes on the NHL. Six new teams -- Florida, Anaheim, Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota and Columbus -- sprung to life during Bettman's first eight years on the job. Three others migrated south, pushing the NHL's center of gravity from its roots. But the current state of warm-weather teams has sparked some second-guessing, even within the NHL's Board of Governors (albeit anonymously). "I think selling ice to the Sun Belt, driving hockey into markets that didn't want it, may be Gary's one mistake," one owner says.
The commissioner disagrees: "The idea that I hate Canada is obviously absurd. Calgary and Edmonton wouldn't have survived if not for the things I did to save those franchises. Having teams in big U.S. markets gave us a footprint competitive with what other leagues have. Those markets make us more attractive, long-term, to television and national sponsors."
Another key to Bettman's recovery plan -- tamping down player salaries -- nearly killed the patient. Shuttering a major league for a year was an unprecedented gamble, one which won him a hard cap but also led to an untimely end to a valuable TV deal with ESPN. The NHL has since been shown on Versus, the young cable network owned by Comcast, which also owns the Flyers. That deal expires next summer and the league expects competitive negotiations, with ESPN among those at the table. How successful the league is at securing more money and exposure will largely answer the question of whether hockey has truly recovered from the lockout. Bettman says some evidence is already in. "Our cable ratings, nationally, in the first two rounds of the playoffs were the highest they've been since they started recording these things," he says. "On a network that isn't in as many homes."
Those ratings reflect a more dramatic and clean game, mitigating gripes from traditionalists still rankled by postlockout innovations like tie-breaking shootouts. Bettman credits execs Colin Campbell, a former Rangers coach, and Brendan Shanahan, an ex-player, for authoring most of the rules changes. But that isn't to suggest he isn't heavily involved in every decision.
HE PRACTICALLY BURSTS with delight. "Oh, I know the question that's coming!" Seven words into hearing a sentence, Bettman, like a game show contestant pounding the buzzer, jumps in. He's slightly off in anticipating the subject, but it's his overeager reaction that is most telling. He isn't just the smartest guy in most rooms; he can't resist making sure everyone is clear on that fact. When Bettman is excited, he springs up in his chair, military straight. "Go ahead!" he says. "It's the fighting question!"
No actually, it's the head-shot question. Last season, the NHL confronted an epidemic of concussions by rewriting the rules to draw distinctions between east-west headshots and full-on noggin-poundings. So why can't a civilized-if-violent sport -- Bettman interrupts me to substitute "physical" for "violent" -- ban headshots entirely?
"No, no, no!" he shouts. "It's not about hitting people in the head. We obviously don't want players hit in the head." Bettman then begins a disquisition about the tiptoe between letting players play and keeping them from killing each other. His reasoning is impressive. What gets him stoked, though, are illustrative examples. "So if I take my elbow and I hit you in the head," he says, leaning forward, words pouring faster, "or I take my stick and I hit you in the head or I take my fist and I hit you in the head & " The father of three and doting grandfather looks as if he'd like to drop the gloves right now, or at least unclasp his French cuffs.
The biggest fight Bettman has won to date, the salary cap, still feels like a split decision. And it is largely what's drawn Fehr into the players' corner for the rematch. Sure, the cap saved franchises on both sides of the border, but it has also fueled a dizzying turnover in talent that frays the team-fan bond Bettman claims to prize. The Blackhawks won the Cup in June; by August the cap had forced them to jettison one third of their roster.
"Since the lockout, guys have played for three, four, five teams," says Ian Pulver, an agent and former NHLPA executive. "The game is better and more exciting, and the players like that. But it's a lot different to be a player now. Everyone points to an increase in the average salary, but careers are cut short as younger players replace older, more expensive ones. Pack your bags, unpack, pack your bags."
Bettman shrugs when he hears this critique. "The relationship with fans is about whether you're winning," he says. "Chicago decided what it was going to do this past season to try to win the Cup. I think they knew going in this wasn't a team they could sustain for the long haul."
He brings the same lack of sentiment to the debate over whether to pause the 2014 season so players can participate in the Olympics in Sochi, Russia. "The players who represented their countries in Vancouver, they didn't get compensated, and they risked their careers," he says. "I think the total of their contracts exceeded $2 billion. And yet the IOC wouldn't even allow the NHL Network to cover my press conference!"
His detached stance is entirely rational, but it also gives the commissioner another chip when collective bargaining comes around next year. Still, how will he tell Alex Ovechkin that he can't represent his homeland in his homeland, especially when Ted Leonsis, the Capitals owner, says he'll allow his star to play regardless?
"Have you ever been to Sochi?" Bettman says with contempt. "Maybe you should go."
So much for the charm offensive.
Then again, Bettman isn't much interested in winning hearts, not when he believes his sport can do it for him. And, anyway, it is the looming battle with Fehr that will most likely determine his legacy. Bettman says, and has shown often, that he's not one to back down. But he claims not to be spoiling for anything other than a league that works for both sides. "I'm not a fan of the fight for the sake of the fight," the commissioner says, settling placidly back into his chair.
Maybe the Kovalchuk wrangling, which ended with both the league and the union able to claim victory, was the beginning of something radical: hockey's combative commissioner figuring out how to wage peace. Or maybe that's just what he wants the other guys in the room to think.