"Ragnarok73" <nabiki73.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sZkyc.692099$Pk3.181930@pd7tw1no...
> "Mario R" <marior.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:bY7yc.727155$oR5.58841@pd7tw3no...
> > > LOL.
> >
> > Nobody but you and ironically your favorite, HL, would consider it good
> form
> > to preface a response to a fellow newsgrouper with LOL. You show
> consistent,
> > utter, contempt for anybody you respond to.
>
> I've made my view on bandwagon-jumpers clear on other posts, hence the
> contemptuous note to the opening to my reply.
So this necessitates your curt, disrespectful, relies to anybody with ANY
differing opinion or view?
>
> >>10?
>
> Tell me who won the Cup from '93 to '03 and what their payrolls were,
> Mario.
My computer crashed unexpectedly recently so I don't have my fave info
sources neatly bookmarked anymore :( Off the top of my head the Canadiens
in 93, NJ 3 of those years and the rich blooded teams won the rest. Winning
the cup however isn't the only definition of success. I would certainly say
Calgary, SJ, had very productive years and that Minny and Anaheim the year
before had great years. Hell even Florida, Carolina, Buffalo, and the Nucks
have had some good years. The point is many teams have a good run at least
once in awhile whereas the Oil haven't done squat the past dozen seasons.
Its been a long, hard, dry spell and your resolute defence of a lately so-so
Org all based on $ gets tiring.
I'd do it, but I've already done legwork in other threads I've gone
> through with you so this time YOU can do the research (and some learning,
> evidently).
In your mind you're *schooling* everybody here right? You unfortunately
chronically confuse your opinion: "That the Oil cannot have success due to
financial limitations" with fact. You are so convinced of the above that you
seem to believe it is a hard and fast 100% rule. At best $'s and success are
correlated but not having one does not exclude the other and vice versa
exhibit Caps, Rangers. ANY small market org can still have success as
recently indicated by Calgary and without need of the NZT trap (unless you
consider the 2001-2002 Oilers as a trapping team.) Conversely any rich team
can fail miserably.
Some advised self reflection may result in your realizing that there are
actually opinions other than your own and that others have a right to them
and to co-post here without your typical abuse.
> > And what makes
> > > you think the Flames will even be back next year?
> >
> > What makes you think the NHL will be back next year?
>
> I don't care if the entire season is sacrificed so long as the NHL puts
a
> cap or some other real form of self-imposed salary control into place. In
> the long run, that is the only way the league will survive and/or continue
> to grow. Even major league baseball has made an effort to halt their
> payroll madness and they have infinitely more money as a league than the
> NHL.
Totally agree.
>
> > Iginla is a free agent
> > > now, so Calgary can kiss him goodbye since you KNOW he'll be getting
> more
> > > than the 6.5 mil he's making right now with a large-market team.
> >
> > Any other year that would be true but with the NYR, Wash, Det, Col, buy
a
> > team experiments being a huge bust and the CBA you'd have to be insane
to
> > think anybody's going to bust open the piggy bank prematurely.
>
> This is assuming that the re-negotiation of the CBA does result in some
> form of salary control like a cap or tax being implemented. If nothing
> changes then Iginla is gone, period- the Flames wouldn't even make it back
> to the playoffs in that scenario.
No, you missed something critical which is that the Wash, NYR, fire sale of
talent sent a huge message across the league that there is simply no market
for $10million hockey players. When a few of the big spenders in the league
come to the conclusion that their high priced help is financial
dead-weight(no pun intended) it changes a lot. Note that players were
literally given away as in please please please take this useless bankroll
off my hands! This was a reality check to owners, players, alike. Remember
that there are only about 8 big spender teams in the league that typically
drive up payroll so minus a few means that only a half dozen are still
potentially in big-spend mode. Of these St Louis, Colorado, Dallas, and
Detroit had disastrous seasons again and will all need to rethink the
benefit of trying to buy a winner only to fall flat on their face. Even
Toronto is talking about a youth movement.
Tampa and Calgary competing in this particular final also reshapes the tired
*old veterans win* mythology pepetuated by the particular success of
Detroit and Dallas. Tampa winning is a victory of good management vs good
spending on established players. This is a breath of fresh air that
correctly illustrates that their are several recipes for success. The Tampa
blue print will perhaps be remembered as eerily reminiscent.
Owners will perhaps one day, maybe now, recognize that hockey is won and
lost as a team sport and that the star players can only excel with a proper
supporting cast and team commitment. One could argue, and people have, that
some of the richer teams may actually suffer from locker room
chemistry/commitment/role problems due to the disparity in pay.
>
> > They play a dedicated system and are committed to minimizing the scoring
> > chances of the opposition.
>
> I thought you hated the trap, Mario- at least, you've stated it in other
> posts.
Like everybody else here offering a view contrary to yours I assert that the
flames do not play the NZT. I get the distinct impression that a hundred
posters could counter your idea and it wouldn't matter to you.............
One of the reasons I hold comtempt for Oilers "fans" that jumped the
> bandwagon is that a lot of them were yakking about how they hated the trap
> and were proud their team was one of the few that didn't play it.
Trap or no trap a commitment to D 1st hockey can often get boring. I have
found that the Oil at times but particularly 2 yrs ago have played a system
that is boring enough that it may as well have been the trap.
Yet, they> decided to cheer not only for the provincial rival but also for a
team that
> DOES play it (albeit a more aggressive version of it).
Whatever you want to call it Calgary hockey has NOT been boring. Anybody
that likes intensity, hitting, passion, enjoyed seeing that team. You are
getting caught up in an automatic dismissal of the flames as a trapping team
which is a shame because this probably prevented you from at all enjoying
some interesting hockey.
This speaks to me of
> a lack of consistency which I find laughable.
You only find it laughable because you are apparently inflexible in thought
and your black/white view of things doesn't allow for any ambiguity. I
didn't jump the bandwagon I just continued to enjoy some of the playoffs and
the interesting David vs Goliath storylines all accompanied by some mixed
feelings due to the Calgary-Edmonton dynamic.
>But since most of the "fans" that post here seem to have less brain cells
than your >average piece of lint, I guess this is sadly not too surprising.
This last bit just sums up your ignorant impressions of others.
>> Stay informed about: Welcome back bandwagon jumpers 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
