Now exactly where Cowen will take on that increased role is still undecided.
If the league can sort out the current labour issues, Cowen can expect to find himself on the team’s second defence pairing, likely in his familiar spot alongside Sergei Gonchar. In conversations with the media over a week ago, Bryan Murray indicated that Cowen would join the team in Binghamton in the event of a lockout. Cowen is entering the second season of his entry level contract, meaning he will be AHL eligible.
Assuming he does end up playing under new Head Coach Luke Richardson down in Bingo, he can expect find himself as a top pairing guy, logging big minutes and in all situations.
Either way it’s clear the organization is counting on Cowen to be an important part of this team moving forward. Cowen appeared in all 82 of the team’s games last season and played another seven in the playoffs. While he didn’t have the flash of some of the other guys included in last year’s rookie class, he did finish 11th in the voting, picking up four 5th place votes.
There is always concern about the dreaded sophomore slump but Cowen has a reputation for being an extremely hard-working player which should help him build on last season’s success.
What do you expect from Cowen next season? What type of player do you see him becoming down the road?
- Speaking of defenceman, it sounds like Erik Karlsson’s agent is actively looking for options for his client during the lockout. According to a tweet from @steffeG, Karlsson’s agent has been in touch with two second-tier Swedish Elite League teams, including Djurgarden. Karlsson has previously indicated that the KHL may be an option.
- I know I said I would refrain from any more lockout talk but a quick update couldn’t hurt. In what has to be considered a last ditch effort, the two sides will get together again in New York City. The NHLPA met for more than 90 minutes yesterday and discussed their approach heading into Wednesday’s meeting. Not a ton of optimism around today’s talks but it’s better than nothing.
Have heard this about him before. Think it's hard for a rookie to have that "edge" you see from guys like Pronger. I think it will develop over time.
much better than Volchenkov, since he has some offensive skills,and a great shot. Will definitely log many minutes in his career, and will be on PK as well as PP !
Can see him paired with either Methot or Borowiecki in future. Maybe even Karlsson ??
I wish he was a little more threatening with his checks, but that is mostly for my own entertainment. It is so easy to forget that this was his first pro season.
If we only had another elite top 6, man this team would look good.
He'll be in tough - could happen though...
Off the top of my head:
Doughty
Weber
Keith
Letang
Seabrook
Pietrangelo
Girardi
Del Zotto
Yandle
Cowen
Cowen, admittedly, does play a different game than most of these guys, except Girardi.
Cowen will eventually be logging 22-25mins a night for this team, and my realistic expectations are for him to be a poor man's Chara, with upside to be the full thing if he expands that leadership, drive to succeed and commitment to excellence like Chara has.
I dont think you can teach having an edge, you either have it or you dont, Cowen seems to be the gentle giant type with some aggressiveness but nothing like having an edge.
As for the 2018 Canadian Olympic Team, not a chance, unless he asserts himself among the best like the guys you posted above.
I'd add the following guys worth considering as well:
Marc Staal
PK Subban
Tyler Myers
Mike Green - I think he can return to his old self
perhaps even Dougie Hamilton or Ryan Ellis/Murphy
They still have last years line ups, ie: didn't Corey locke sign in europe? and Mike McKenna sign with St. Louis or something? Update their Height/weight too so we know if they got bigger from a year or two ago. And what's with not even having a picture of a player?
That's my small beef for the day..........
I say this because at first I had thoughts about Ottawa going after Tarasenko. Yes, we traded positions with St. Louis which resulted in them selecting him 16th overall. But as nice as it would be to land him we'd need to give up a fortune in prospects in return.
What are peoples thoughts on trying to trade for Chris Stewart? He's been a top line guy, traded with little success and moved to 2nd line. And now in St. Louis with the potential of Tarasenko on the 2nd, Stewart will be relegated to 3rd line duties.
I've always though Stewart would look good with a fresh start, especially in Ottawa. He's a big power forward type of guy that can really do it all. Thoughts?
we could enjoy our youth players and prospects longer except for those who may qualify for and exceptional player status that allows them to skip an entry level low paying nhl deal.
if the nhl is screwing us then lets hold on to our chl players a little longer.
I see where you are going with this, but I think he can play with an edge... he was a rookie last year and had a lot of hits. He ahs the edge, he just needs confidence to use it. IMO
I also think he needs to improve his foot speed. He got beet on the wide side pretty often last year. But that's also a rookie thing where he's just not used to elite nhl speed.
Like chirp said he's still growing. Could end up being 6'6 and 240. And a guy that big that actually has an offensive touch is beyond rare.
He's definitely an untouchable. The only guy I would have traded for with cowen was Webber.
He has a very bright future. Not many rookie defenceman get used as much as he did.
Canadian teams and fans are not the problem.
A pro Canadian hockey league is a possibility.
ya that's my point, I think he can and will.
The cfl somehow survives with i would call very little fan base and a handful of teams.
If canadian nhl franchises are forced to no lockout do to canadian labour laws then its an easy break up with the nhl.
pay players with canadian dollars from canadian fans and canadian tv deals and sponsors, screw the americans let them have their mess.
Cowen had a good rookie year, for him to play the way he did and step up to some of the leagues toughest guys and drop the mitts with them shows he's getting comfortable in the league.
I'm sure he'll get bigger and meaner as time goes by.
great pick by murray.
If it were replacement players in the Sens uniform this year, would you still follow the team / attend games etc?
not unless i'm in the lineup ;)
Maybe to an extent it comes down to what side you support. If you are pro player you'd likely loathe giving The Euge any $$$ for a substandard product. If you are pro-owner you likely wouldn't jump at the thought of the players breaking away to form a new league...
I will just be hockey starved this winter it seems like. Hopefully the Team 1200 carries a lot of Bingo games this year at least so we can follow that.
He played in all 82 games, and for the most part played very well.
For those of you who doubt he can be in the leagues best, try to remember what Chara looked like when he first came here, And that was not a rookie but a 21 year who had a couple of years under his belt.
He looked lanky and lathargic, and by no means was he imposing or was he menacing... and he did not fair too badly did he?
So I have no doubt that he will be an excellent player for us, but even one of the top D-men in the league in a few years
Totally depends on who the scabs are and the ticket prices.
Though in a lockout situation, they cannot use scabs - that's only an option during a player strike.
Lockout: essentially the employer is saying they cannot afford to operate. So employees are free to find employment elsewhere.
Strike: employees refuse to work under current conditions. So employers are free to find other employees that are willing to work.
I really love when the leagues go to replacement players, it give some very few players an opportunity to show what they have, and in fact some players may even come out of it with a right to a full time shot.
Also it breeds very intense and exciting hockey, as most these kids know it is their last shot.
Secondly it tends to force both management and players back to playing a lot quicker than when they just sit and "stare each other down" until one caves... IMO
I think Cowen certainly has the potential to be as good as any D-man. If he ends up paired with Karlsson long-term then he'll rack up plenty of points too.
Time will tell if he's a guy who just developed quickly or he's just really good already with more room to develop.
So maybe they should change the current conditions, ie payrolls, and force them to strike :)
Actually, I'm thinking that since there is no CBA (or they won't be in a few days) I guess owners could theoretically work with non-union players. But to find 600 guys that are willing to give up any chance of ever being in the NHLPA would be tough. Or maybe the NHLPA would be able to get an injunction to prevent that somehow.
Any legal experts know if that's even a legal option?
If memory serves me correctly, they said that yes the NHLPA could try to fight against replacement players however the league could probably do that if they wish. He didn't think they would though, at least not anytime soon, because of the credibility impact against the league with scab players, lesser quality product or whatever.
So the implication is that this would only be considered after a long laborious labor dispute, such as a year down the road. IF however the owners really felt that there was no way that the players would sign a "reasonable" CBA, that is one acceptable to the league, in any short order of time, they might accelerate the option to bring in replacements...
Who the hell knows, but if both parties met face to face today essentially to say "Well we are ready and willing to X..." if we don't come to agreement then maybe this was on the table today. Big threats from both sides?
Urgh. We'll find out soon enough.
I loved this quote. I was in the middle of doing a comparison and got sidetracked. Honestly, Chara as a 21 year old on the Island was below sub-par. It wasn't until 2000-01 when he was 23/24 that he played a full 82 game season, registering 2 G's and 7 A's and a -22. 157 PIMs on the other hand which was tops on the Island, gave a good indication of where he was going. I reviewed his 2000 stats in total, his TOI/G was 22:20. Good for 4th on the team, so he was obviously playing 2nd pair minutes, but spending a lot of time in the box.
Look at Cowen, now 21, played his first full 82 game season. 5 G's, 12 A's and a -4, very respectful. His 56 PIMs put him in 5th place in the Sens last year. But he was also 5th in TOI/G with 18:53. So all things considered, he did very well playing almost 3 and a half minutes less per game, but in the end if you calculate it, had more on ice time as he spent less time in the box.
Besides the difference in PIMs, I think Cowen is showing much more promise at this stage than Chara and with more responsibility over time, he will develop into a smarter and more versatile player.
What Ottawa needs to do is make sure this kid doesn't leave for nothing in a few years time.
Well let's not forget that Chara was considered by some (if not most) to eventually figure out how to play at 6' 9". But I think you can still compare the two and Cowen does look good when you compare him to Chara at the same time in his career.
But the bottom line for Cowen is he laid fists on Phaneuf - so no matter how he progresses I'll always be a fan.
"If they are uncertified in those 2 provinces, then the NHLPA CANNOT REPRESENT THEM! All union dues paid by those players in those provinces gets refunded to them by the PA and now they have in effect NO REPRESENTATION by the PA. It could have countless other ripple effects if the NHL really wanted to get nasty with them.
I think the Players on those teams should really think this through a bit better as they could possibly be hung out to dry for the good of their "brothers".
That HB post is a load of dog crap. First off the whole Alberta thing has nothing to do with whether the union is certified or not, it is about Alberta law stating that before an employer can lock out employees that proper mediation process has to take place...
The Quebec thing is a lot more of a convoluted legal mess but chances are zero of what was said on HB has a inkling of truth to it. The players are unionized, regardless of which city or province that they play games in or are traded to or home games versus away games. The NHLPA represents them as union members not as "union members who happen to be working in Quebec" currently. I cannot see that going anywhere, unless they will now be forced to rectify that in the future...
Who knows for sure though, Montreal is pretty crazy about hockey, who know what laws they may break or contort.
Yes I am...
I'm mad at the NHL players more than the Owners right now.. but I want my Sens back. I want NHL hockey to start in a couple of weeks... Get the job done.
As someone else said if neither side is giving their best proposal to get this settled before a lockout.. then they are not doing their jobs and they should be fired.
Crest on the front, not name on the back.
Being brutally honest the carbon life forms within the shirt make no difference on my level of support.
If the Senators and Leafs swapped rosters I would still be a Senators fan.
True but you're thinking of just replacing "Jason Spezza" with whoever is wearing #19 - which I agree with (to a point, I do like to be able to follow players for multiple years).
But if Rush's question is rephrased to "would you pay to go watch a bunch of undrafted muckers pretend to be NHLers?" then I say "probably not".
To me it's about the quality of the product on the ice. If it were college or AHL skill level players then I think it would still be competitive and I'd still support Ottawa - but if it's "scabs" the quality of players would be far lower.
Anyone remember when the NFL used scabs? Yeesh that got ugly.
man even when the season is locked out people are trying to trade Spezza...
Everyday I'm loosing respect for the players they are acting like spoiled little brats!
I'm still hoping it's been mainly posturing to this point and both sides really want to get this done before the start of the season.
I can't see Bettman letting it go so far as to cancel the winter classic or jeopardize Phoenix.
So I'm thinking we'll have hockey before the canal opens.
Yes! The owners know they've overstepped in what they want at once and they are the ones that will truly suffer short and long term if the season is cancelled.
Some players may have to cut their careers short, but for most of them they'll still be getting paid millions next year.
I still don't understand how any fans can be anti-players in this one, but what can you do. If the other two leagues that just had lockouts hadn't gotten around 50% shares, the NHL wouldn't even be asking for that imo.
Also, I just looked up some revenue sharing info on the other leagues. MLB has a 31% revenue sharing among teams across the board. NFL has close to 80% of general league revenue such as tv contracts, merchandise and so on, and then 60-40 split on ticket revenue between the two teams at each game. The NHL owners need to realize they need to share their pieces of the pie better!
A friend of mine said a few weeks ago that she thought the season might open with the winter classic - and I see her point.
Haha! Nicely done! *tips his hat*
@DarrenDreger NHL players aren't interested in any offer that includes taking less than the $1.87 bil share made last year.
That's been what they've been saying all along. They'll reduce the percentage in future years based on continued growth, but total sum that currently goes to them should not go below that 1.87bil or so. So for example, in 3 years if the revenue keeps growing ~7% a year, that share will only be 49.5% of total revenue. I think they're proposing a bit less drastic salary freeze than that, but it gets the owners where they want to be over time.
Considering the owners won the last CBA, I don't see this as that crazy of a stance. You don't give in during a negotiation so much one time, to just do it again the next.
Well then let them sit. With the KHL coming down with strict rules on who they will admit.. there won't be any place for these guys to play... give or take 100 of them.
So sit out... lose your salary... never play in the NHL again. As to come back you will HAVE to accept less to get a deal done. The NHLPA will keep losing fan support. The arrogance and greed is apparent on both sides.
The NHL offered a 6 yr CBA -- the NHLPA wants less than that.. So think about it in 6 yrs or less... we get to go through with this bullshit all over again.
It is really simple IMO so I will say it one last time. And no I have nothing personally vested in this, if I thought the owners were just being greedy arseholes I would be the first to say it.
The last CBA? It sure looked like an owners WIN but nobody could ever have imagined the cap and spending getting out of control so quickly. Beginning of the CBA owners thought "OK, we have something sustainable here" but they didn't. By the end of this last CBA the players were clearly winners again, everything has gotten way out of control to the point where MOST teams are losing a little money or just breaking even. The major reason for getting out of control actually isn't dumb owners paying too much (although that certainly happened a lot), it is the revenue difference between the teams is so huge, it is cap inflation.
For the players to say "As a starting point we demand the same amount of salary as last year then grow it" is a non-starter for the league. Trust me.
It seems like groundhog day but yes, the owners got the CBA they wanted, but are apparently retarded and the tide turned it back in the players favor.
For the NHLPA or the pro-player fans to say it is reasonable to start with the players making the same amount of money as before because the players got screwed so bad last time? That just doesn't really make sense.
If the players don't move off this stance (by a long shot), I would bet we will not see hockey for at least a year probably more like two. Unless the owners and investors in the few teams making lots of cash, decide honestly out of the goodness of their hearts to start writing 80M a year cheques and shipping them off to Florida? Game over. Teams just cannot afford it. No money, no paycheques.
It also doesn't make sense the owners keep teams in terrible markets. If the owners want less small market unsuccessful teams they should stop putting them in stupid places like Phoenix. Also, again, I can't emphasize this enough, it's the owners who ok the contracts the players get. You can't blame the players for taking the best offer or for wanting to keep what they agreed to. I'm sure players would rather have signed a 9mil a year deal with no rollback then a 10mil deal that gets rolled back to 7.5-8mil.
How many times can the owners say give us this ... woops we fucked up and can't control our own people, so now give us this. And then next time the Phoenixes or whoever will still be losing money and they'll ask for another rollback. At some point the bottom 5 teams need to be moved or put in a financial situation with revenue sharing where they have a chance where they are. This stance that it's the players responsibility to save the owners from themselves but only in the way the owners want (with a rollback/escrow ) is ridiculous!
Both NFL and MLB have SIGNIFICANT revenue sharing among teams, if the NHL wants all their shitty franchises to be as well off competitively as their rich franchises they need to help them out as well.
I notice you mention the revenue between poor and rich teams as an issue, why are the owners not responsible for fixing that, even a bit?
Yes salaries have continued to climb but they're tied to the cap which is tied to revenue. So if they screwed up on defining revenue then fine - but a cap system that is properly tied to the actual health of the business is the right answer and in the owners favor overall.
Boiled down to the most basic concepts, a cap is like saying "Okay teams, you're all going to net a profit this coming year of $70M so you're allowed to spend all that on salary or keep up to $20M for yourselves and spend at least $50M on salary."
The problem (as I see it - and I have nowhere near all the info) is that rich teams are accounting for most of the profit so the cap goes up higher than poor teams can afford. That's where revenue sharing should come in.
For every dollar over the league average in profit a specific team makes, some percentage should go into a pot. Then teams that lost money should be able to divide up that pot to offset their losses (in a fair way). What that percentage is exactly or how you ensure teams don't just live off that pot instead of working harder to make their own money is beyond one post, but you get the idea.
Bottom line, if the NHL believes it's good for the overall health of the league to have teams in small markets or try to build business in the "sun belt" then they have to commit to some way of keeping those teams afloat - and the rich teams should foot the bill.
The players are (essentially) just asking for their fair share of the profits which is justified IMO.
Well said Hax. I think that would really be the best long term solution. The MLB is thriving ever since they did that. I think if the solution reached this year is purely a rollback with some caps on contract lengths and such, we will just be back here in 4-8yrs again, no matter who "wins" these negotiations.
Everything else being equal, if the factory in St. Louis has lower profits than the one in Toronto you either close the one in St. Louis or use "corporate" funding to keep it going. If you feel your overall company benefits from keeping the factory in St. Louis even though it doesn't make money on its own then it just makes sense to subsidize it.
Again, with that analogy you can see that the best pure business decision might be to cut down to 16 "factories" but of course the union would never allow a near 50% layoff of their combined workforce.
You want to shut down four teams that can't afford the current system? Go right ahead, 100 players are now out of a job. What else are you going to do, significantly drop the FLOOR so shit teams can just wallow at the bottom of the standings but at least won't go bankrupt? What's the point.
As has been discussed here waay to often this year already is that even ours SENS are struggling. We aren't some jackoff franchise in Tennessee with bare;y any fans showing up, we are a rabid Canadian market with awesome attendance and we are struggling.
The 39M cap (that seemed like yesterday) has quickly mutated into 70 MILLION. The system is broken, how frigging hard is it to understand?
It's not sustainable, increased revenue sharing wont fix it, losing teams is not a good thing, owners who have invested and risked hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars and have built stadiums and employ thousands of people and shit are barely making any money and our SENS are wavering again on financial instability.
If you are a fan of a team that is NOT one of the six that are making decent profit yet you still support what the players made last year, want it to stay how it is and continue to grow?
Kiss your team goodbye and go buy a Leafs jersey. I would rather we lose two entire years of hockey and try to get this shit back on track.
Go (New York) Jets!
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
Add up the operating income for all 30 teams. This isn't "revenue" it is "profit" so it subtracts expenses like player salaries and electricity and everything.
Total the "profit" and you'll see that the 30 franchises collectively made about 173 million. Divide that by 30 teams.
Yeah that is right. The average NHL FRANCHISE makes less profit than Shawn Horcoff's annual salary! Haha! Power to the players! Whooo! Let these poor bastards "win" the CBA this time, they suffered so badly the past 6 years.
I'm done. One way or the other and whether in two weeks or two years I just hope this shit pans out so that our Sens can A) survive B) be competitive.
I want revenue sharing and moving a FEW select teams to more profitable locations. No interest in contraction as I agree the union would and should be 100% opposed.
As for our Sens struggling, I'd need a firm number to believe it. But again, owner allowed Murray to waste over 10mil on Kovalev and Gonchar. Neither of those moves significantly changed where this team ended up those years, (not saying I disagree with doing it, just disagree with overspending 1 year and then complaining you lost money because of it) so he clawed back now to recoup some money. He's saving himself from himself.
I'm not opposed to a model where teams that don't make the playoffs break even and teams that do make a profit, it would help keep incentive for teams to put good product on the ice.
When 1 team like Phoenix loses over 35mil a year of course the total number looks skewed like that. Move that team to Hamilton and you're talking about a much bigger pot to share!
I'm just mad at both this time. The Owners caused this whole mess. Yeah the players gave up a lot last time but in the end they came out way ahead.
It's unrealistic for the players to even think of a 57% share of revenue -- while sharing no expenses. They are treated like royalty but don't seem to be satisfied with that.
The costs of running an NHL team keep going up... that's not including the players salaries. The NHLPA appears to not give a crap about that.
They say they want a partnership in all of this... but they haven't moved one iota off their 57% while the NHL has come up 4% from their original offer.
The League wanted to start negotiations in January but the NHLPA was not prepared to do that. They would only meet at the end of June.. then further delayed a response to the NHL's offer by about 1 month -- leaving about 1 and 1/2 months to get a deal in place.
I just feel the NHLPA is doing nothing but delay tactics this whole time. I'm sure they were prepared to play under the current CBA until such time as they walked out just before the Winter Classic. That would be Fehr's way.
I'm frustrated and angry... that's the long & short of it.
The players won't take less revenue than they did last year... but the second the lockout starts they start losing fans. So when and if they ever do decide to play.. after losing salary.. revenue will be down, so any % they get will be less revenue. They are in a lose-lose situation and they just refuse to see that. Let alone how many of the older or role players (fighters, etc) will have no job to come back to.
Does anyone have the figures on how many NHL players actually had no job after the last CBA?
Yeah skewed alright. Leafs made 88M that alone cancels out losses by Phoenix, Columbus and Anaheim. I suppose you would say the Teacher's Union or Bell + Rogers alliance or whatever should just hand over 80M of their profit to those clubs and everything would be great right? How about a super insane luxury tax like MLB you seem to think has a great model! Awesome! Toronto can finally buy themselves championships to compensate for how screwed the Jays are year after year with 100M less payroll than Boston and Yankees.
For your sake I hope you are just too stubborn to admit that you are wrong, otherwise you are pretty daft when it comes to economics.
Sens made 2.8M last year... that is what? About the same as Cark's will make next year? Can't wait til the cap goes up 5M again and 5M once more, also dragging the floor up and then we can lose money every year even if we are bottom spender! Yeah, your train of thinking is really great for the health of the league and the Sens.
At least a few other people here share frustration with the retarded stance by the players not wanting to budge and using shifty PR to pull fans to support them.
Leafs jersey.
Not sure exactly what kind of numbers you mean, but things keep playing out like this and we'll have one less Alfie by the time we see NHL hockey again.
Methot seems pretty slow and his GM will soon trade him
Latendresse is fairly quick and has a nice shot
Spezza can blast the puck past the goalie from anywhere on the ice
I've simply replaced the actual NHL season with NHL13 and all is fine. Who needs a real season when I can pretty much gaurantee the Sens will win the cup this year.
Yeah. There is a reason they brought in The Fehr and yeah, look at the damage he helped bring to baseball, to a Canadian franchise and look how now it is probably the worst run haves vs have-nots league on Earth.
And yes Bettman is pretty frigging annoying too, I really don't understand their PR the past few weeks, pretty much not communicating reasons and league problems to the fans at ALL.
The last time I firmly believe the players thought they were biting the bullet huge but it worked out great for them. This time... well there is a reason I brought up the topic of replacement players earlier today.
I love NFL also and that will tide us over, but in the endless vast wintery months, I hope we have other hockey to tune into other than just 67s on Team 1200. I find it hard to get into OHL without really attending games and putting faces to names, I find AHL more appealing hopefully we will have decent access to that. Maybe this year with 67s @ SBP, OHL will grow on me more, I'll certainly be attending a couple games.
I used to adore the NHL games, especially 2002 on PS2 the year before they got away from the digital pad controls... the new ones do nothing for me, I've tried. Glad video game hockey fills the void for some people, but not for me. ;)
Still not sure I understand how that mode works.
Glad everyone is making a smooth transition to simulated hockey! I pretty much gave up on those games but desperate times call for... well whatever maybe if you guys get a "league" going I might pick up the game as well.
I hear that NHL 13 is the most realistic version to date. Does it have a lockout mode?
1. Many say "the owners" won the last CBA, but that really isn't the case. The players saw record growth in contracts. I would say they both won as it created record growth and thus shared revenue.
2. The NHL has moved (albeit from a shameful first offer) both in % and HRR definitions. The players haven't moved much, if at any. The NHL seems to be breaking rule one in negotiations, don't negotiate with yourself.
3. I know the players are opposed to any type of salary reduction, but either they choose it now or it happens through a lockout, one way or another. I would rather choose to deal with the devil you know (owners) then the devil you don't (what type of shape will the offer and league be in after another lockout).
4. I believe the players should be paid, what the market will bear. Yet perspective is also needed. How many of us would take a 10% reduction off a $500,000 to play a game we love? Would you rather make an insane amount of money, or no money at all? If career length is 5 years, most will never make back what they loose in a protracted lockout.
5. Lastly, the thing that frustrates me the most is this CBA is going according to script. Since early last year "analysts" and "insiders" have been predicting a protracted lockout. There are many different options, but this was too predictable.
Whoa - novel. Guess I was more frustrated than I thought.
As you may expect, the Sens are already taken :)
Yes because the CFL does so well, and draws all the top talent.
srklump at hotmail dot com if interested
Reporter: "What will you hockey fans do in the case of an NHL lockout?"
Fans: "Oh I dunno, video game hockey I guess... table hockey, street hockey, AHL hockey, OHL hockey, hockey puck shaped birthday cakes, hockey haikus!"
HOCKEY! HOCKEY! HOCKEY! HOCKEY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu0NIBAUz5w
I'm thinking about joining Chirp, but I must say, I picked the game up on Tuesday, and I've never been more disappointed in the NHL series.
I buy the new game each year and always think it's worth it, but after playing this game for 2 days and a bit this morning, I wish I could get my money back.
They tried to make the game more realistic, but I actually find the game play extremely annoying. It's so easy to score, even on superstar, the skating is ridiculous, I find the loading times are longer than usual. There are just so many flaws with this game.
I don't understand the player ratings at all? How is Malkin only a 91 if Crosby is a 95? How is Erik Karlsson, the Norris trophy winner, only rated an 86? and Celine Dion Phaneuf an 89?!?!
Spezza only an 87, Kessel only an 86, when players like Kesler and Marleau among others rated 88 or higher. How is Eberle only an 84? I find myself questioning almost every rating in the damn game lol.
Bottom line, I'm only hesitant to join the GM connected league because this game is pure garbage.
What do you guys think of the game?
Well, I'm not the best player in the world (I usually get my ass whooped by players using glitchy goals while stubbornly try to play realistic hockey), but all-in-all I think it's the best hockey video game out this year...oh yeah...it's also the only hockey video game out this year.
The skating is kinda wonky and jittery, the computer doesn't seem to be affected by physics as much as you are, but I don't get all the hate...It's certainly no worse than NHL 12. Don't you remember when NHL 12 came out and everyone said how much worse it was than NHL 11....and when NHL 11 came out it was so much worse than NHL 10.
One-timers killed NHL 12 in my opinion (way too easy), they over-compensate d the fix a little too much in NHL 13 (where goalies are a little too good at them where really it's the defense that needed to tighten up a little). But I wouldn't say it's any better or worse than NHL 94 - NHL 2012...just different. It all depends on your preference. A lot of hate from old-timers like me about the skill stick...but take it from an old timer, once you get used to it and dangle past everyone, you can't go back (but then I always loved danglers :)
MORE IMPORTANTLY!!!!
Senschirp!! what system is the GM connected on? PS3 or 360?? I can check tonight, but I'm just curious.
boo XBOX...PS3 is better
Have you tried the new "Commissioner mode"? It's where you break the disc in half and nobody gets to play.
Bazinga!
Agreed Rush
Someone needs to explain to these players, that this is not the NFL or the MLB!
the money paying those players comes mostly from TV contracts. The money coming to the NHL is mostly coming from the pockets of the every day fan... you and I.
I have had it with shelling out $300 per game, and cannot afford more.
I have had it with stupid contracts from the "Have money" teams that are forcing up the cost per game.
Bottom line, 4 million to a kid who scores 20 goals a season is WAY TOO MUCH! especially when you and I are paying for it.
And they want to keep their Guarenteed contracts for the bad contracts
So here it is, stop the increase now so we can afford to go to the games, or force the owners hand, and lose 5 teams and about 150 NHL players, and stop the average fan from going to games
In the end the owners are fighting for the every day fan who cannot afford to pay anymore for games... IMO
they should have added the hardest shot competition..bu t bettman is the target...imagin e cracking 100mph slapshots at his head...small bit satisfying.
I was watching the Canada-Russia super series from 87 on TSN. You guys should check it out and compare those days and that game to today`s game. Much different. clutching, picking, holding, hitting, scoring lots of goals, good goaltending and great coaching. This is the game that has changed so much in the past 25 years. I am quite sad with that!
But this argument that "we pay their salaries" is pretty lame. People need to realize that like any other free market system it's supply and demand. If you personally don't want to pay the ticket prices or can't afford them that's not really relevant (outside your own home that is). If the Leafs wanted to charge $500 per ticket they could probably still sell out the ACC with a crappy team.
Players salaries should be a portion of the overall profits of the league. The owners should make money (some say they should get more than half the profits since they're taking the risks and building the business long term) and the players should make money.
If the market will bear ticket price increases that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if players average $50k per year or $5M per year - as long as the total player salaries are proportional to the overall income and expenses of the league as a whole.
The biggest problem with the NHL and, to a less critical extent currently, all other sports leagues is how to balance the rich and not-rich teams properly.
Certainly there is value for the league as a whole to have teams in new markets but is that value worth the cost to "prop up" those teams while they build a fan base, pay off their arena construction etc?
Let's say the league wanted to put a team in Hawaii for example. Would the added viewership they might get overall as a league offset the added cost of travel and the millions of dollars that specific franchise would probably lose? Not likely, so they don't do it. One could easily make a good case that Phoenix is just as bad an idea as Hawaii but clearly the league feels it's worth the cost in the long run.
Bottom line, it's a business and every team would rather have 15,000 fans per game paying $200 per ticket than 18,000 per game paying $100.
When you set the ticket prices it's a decent approximation of real life. If you raise the ticket prices (and everything else stays equal) your attendance drops slightly. But if you raise the prices 5% and your attendance drops 3% you make more money overall.
That's pretty much exactly what teams do. They try to find a set of ticket prices that brings in the most total money at the gate. Of course they do also take into account the visibility of it (i.e. they love to advertise that ticket prices are "frozen" etc) as well as long-term sustainability. They also like to be able to announce sell-outs and publicize donations to groups/veterans etc. But in the end it all boils down to the total money that comes in on a given night from tickets, concessions, souvenirs etc.
On a somewhat similar but different topic:
I was watching the game last night, Russia just tied it 3-3 on a short-handed play. Few minutes later Gretzky breaks out on a 2 on 1 with Lemieux on his left wing...Gretzky holds it, glides the puck to lemieux who slams it....SCORES!!!
LOL, I remember that play from my childhood. Two of the world's best players to ever play the game...tears built-up in my eyes. Great hockey watching, in such a depressing lockout time.
But the NHL is mostly a gate driven league, where other pro sports are not.
Yes the market dictates prices I get that, however there are a few teams that can and will afford the continued increase of NHL salaries. And if the owners decide to pay them less, then again let the market dictate who can and will play for that lower amount.
Great example is how many teams can afford stupid contracts like Wade Redden or Jeff Finger kid in TO.
Not many, and that is what drives up the costs.
So if you and the NHL players are ok with fair market for NHL salaries, then be prepared to not be able to afford NHL tickets. Can you afford lower bowl tickets in Toronto? Unless you can afford $500-$1000 per game, then like most of us probabley not. This will continue to rise where we cannot even get into a live game anymore.
And yes some teams will fade away, so teams like Ottawa, and about another 10 more like Ottawa may not be around in 5 years.
So if players and you, are fine with not having NHL hockey in your city, and having 200 less NHL players in the league, then yes let the market dictate what they are to be paid, if not then let the NHL owners, tell them what they are willing to pay them, and just like the fair market, if you dont like it, then we will find someone else who will play for that lower amount,
The Owners need to help become part of the solution as well. If the players say ok let's go 50-50, they'll just be back here in 6 years with the owners wanting a 60-40 split. The initial offers from the owners have been beyond ridiculous. Asking the players to go down to low to mid 40% is not a starting point you can expect the players to really work from.
I'm frustrated too, but I just don't see how people can get so upset with the players when they were trying to suggest to the owners to look at this differently then the unsuccessful solution of last lockout. The solution the owners want will just keep repeating this same dance every 6 years and I think the players want to proactively stop that with 1 last lockout if needed.
Totally missed my point.
I'm saying that if the league was run as 30 separate franchises then many would not survive. For that very reason, the league needs to run as one cohesive league where teams in smaller markets get help with their overhead costs. Basically if the league feels having a team in Nashville is good for the overall health of the league, they need to acknowledge that a franchise in that city will need help with their costs since their gate and other revenue will be lower.
In other words, some form of well-planned and properly weighted revenue sharing is the best answer in all sports. Regardless of where the revenue comes from (gate, TV etc). If it's not worth it to the league to put a team in a small market because the added revenue for the league doesn't match the amount the other teams would have to contribute to prop up that team, then don't do it. That would be a bad investment.
But if the board of governors were to all agree that (for example) adding franchises in Seattle and Hamilton would add $20M per year in total league profits (picking numbers at random) and cost the league $15M per year in revenue sharing to keep those teams afloat while they built a fan base etc, then it's worth while. If it would cost $30M per year with no decline in the foreseeable future then it's not worth it.
Players salaries are really not part of the equation - especially if you're running a cap system where salaries are tied to profits properly (which I don't think they are currently - they're trying to tie it to revenue and since nobody trusts anyone it's hard to know what "profit" really is).
Imagine if Gary Bettman were to come to the board of governors and tell them the following (and we assume it's all true and backed up by research etc):
- I have a buyer lined up that will pay $100M for the right to put a team in the NHL based out of Seattle. So that's $100M into the NHL account we all share.
- Over the first 10 years of their existance, we project that they'll lose about $400M. This includes start-up costs and losses related to poor initial attendance.
- So we'll need to offset those losses for them to survive long enough to become self-sustaining . Which means that over the next 10 years I'll need $300M from the current 30 teams to funnel back into the Seattle franchise.
- So the net cost to you is $300M total (or $1M per team, per year).
- But the good news is that our projections are that with a team in Seattle our overall league profits will increase by $60M in the first year.
So while you'll be giving up $1M per year to prop up this new franchise, you should be making $2M per year more than you are now - so $1M in pure profits.
(Obviously we'll devise a profit-sharing program that gathers more from the rich teams and less from the poor teams.)
Again, if players salaries are PROPERLY tied to profits (not just revenue) then the actual amounts of those salaries is irrelevant.