"MarioR" <marior.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3o2cg.179044$7a.147266@pd7tw1no...
>
> I always HAVE an answer. Sheesh, you should know that by now.
I credit you with being one of the few people in this NG who can actually
see beyond a game or two, Mario, but that doesn't mean you haven't made your
share of criticisms of the current management.
> You've gone at length in this thread talking as if no one else realized
> the
> effects of player price wars on smalltown clubs. Well I did. Most
> everybody
> I think did. You don't have proprietary knowledge of simple economics.
> Interesting that you think that though...
You know, maybe deep down all the mouth-breathers who've raked MacT/Lowe
over the coals realized that they had little choice in many of their player
moves over the last few years. Considering that MacT's teams have been over
..500 just about every year he's been the HC is pretty impressive given the
conference his team's on top of the economic situation he was forced to work
with. Picking apart every single decision he's made can't hide that simple
fact. Ditto with Lowe's work as GM.
> But yes their was much criticism of Lowe and MacT, their predecessors, and
> the org, for player *asset management* and for a horrible draft record
> these past 20 years. Also for management and direction of players in the
> lineup some of whom were consistently underperforming.
> You think variables other than economic don't also factor in? Economic
> isn't
> the ONLY variable as you suggest.
It's not the only variable, of course. But if you go on a percentage
scale, it's about 95% of the problem that the Oil had over those last 14
years. What a lot of people don't seem to realize are the side effects of
being unable to pay players what they wanted in the old NHL. The reputation
as being a "poor" team puts a GM into a very difficult bargaining position
as richer teams KNOW that they can simply dangle that fact during the
negotiations for a particular player. Asset management? Are you kidding
me? Once a player blossomed in the old NHL on a team like the Oil, everyone
knew he'd be gone the second his contract expired (if not before the season
ended in a salary-dump move). So what's Lowe forced to do given that
situation? He's forced to look for players with "potential" who were
underperforming on their current teams and whose market value was thereby
reduced. Then he had to hope that they'd blossom in the Oil's system before
dumping them because their value then went up beyond what the team could
afford.
> I find the *timing* of your thread interesting. Its as if you needed a
> particular situation to develop just right, perfectly, for a moment in
> time,
> to *proove* what you are always saying. This suggests a lack of ability
> to
> actually be convincing in debate and a tendency to await planets aligning
> perfectly so you can say "SEE SEE SEE, I was RIGHT, the planets are
> aligned
> in the cosmos"
LOL. In a league where most teams were losing money and player salaries
were high despite the fact that it didn't have a viable TV contract with
anyone, everyone knew that changes had to be made. They were made this year
when Bettman made a stand against the NHLPA and won almost completely. You
make it sound like luck that I'm able to make some claim that I'm right.
I'm right because I could see what was fairly obvious to anyone with
intelligence. I had to wait until now because as I said before this season
started, the effects would take at least 1-2 seasons to become visible.
Long-term thinking, Mario, that's what this is all about.
> Where am I going with that? Its clear. You pick one moment in time, right
> now, to try to indicate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this Org still
> has greatness stamped all over it. I find that interesting tunnel vision.
> Let me guess that this thread would never have occurred if Vancouver and
> LA
> didn't stumble badly at the worst time for us to sneak into the playoffs.
> Or
> if Lowe couldn't manage to desperately pry Roli from Minnesota. Or if SJ
> didn't do us a major unsuspecting favor thumping the nucks so we'd get in.
> Point is it was REAL CLOSE to a disaster of a season that Lowe would've
> had
> to explain to the owners. How popular would another cashcall have been in
> a
> post CBA environment. playoff revenue has fortunately saved a lot of
> explaining and embarrassment.
Why did teams like Vancouver, St.Louis, and Los Angeles stumble? They
were playoff teams the last time the NHL had a season. It's pretty simple:
the economics of the new NHL force GM's to actually be SMART about spending
their money. Those teams weren't smart though in the Blues' case it was
more a need to dump their high-priced vets to start the rebuilding process
thanks to their reckless spending in the previous years. If the Oilers
hadn't made the playoffs this year I'd still be saying what I am because
they're not the only ones who've benefitted from the changes. Look at
Buffalo, for example: 3 years ago they were on the verge of folding or
moving and couldn't get back into the playoffs because they too were too
poor to compete with the "big boys". Now they're 3 wins away from returning
to the Cup finals.
> While you note the new CBA and how it impacts us you seem to give zero
> thought to how it has adversely effected many other clubs. This year
> represented a very difficult transitional time for many orgs. The rapid
> fire
> slash and burns that needed to occur have wreaked havoc on teams like
> Colorado, Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, St Louis, Philly, NYR, Vancouver, NJ,
> many others....any surprize that this has created a vacuum that has
> allowed
> 3 teams that didn't even make the playoffs when hockey was last played to
> now be in the quarterfinals?
It's surprising that the big-money teams can't just buy their way to
another Cup because of the new hard cap now? Of course a vacuum is created-
it's called "parity". Like I said, GM's now have be SMART about how they
spend their money. Buying up the best UFA's is no longer the main option
for a big-market team.
> The clear intended result of the new cba is that teams had to make
> significant adjustments to the new capped environment. Its a no brainer
> that
> the degree of difficulty of those adjustments would be directly
> proportional
> to the amount that a teams previous payroll exceeded the imposed cap.
> Conversely teams that had functioned well under what the new cap would be
> now instantly had AUTOMATIC CAP SPACE(the new making deals power leveraged
> position) combine this with the significant wage rollback that occurred
> and
> the spendthrifts had more spend opportunity than they even dared to dream.
> Add on a drastically improved CDN $ and Cal and his boys have free licence
> to be the new player robbers.
> Suddenly tables are turned and we can make player raids on Pronger, Peca,
> or
> take advantage of confused orgs with subsequent acqusitions of Roli,
> Spacek, Samsonov, Tarnstrom. The CBA created a perfect one time only
> buyers
> market for us. We are the clear beneficiaries of other teams troubles
> during
> this transition. Its a given with the new cba that there were going to be
> great acquisition opportunities available to us. Almost impossible to drop
> that ball.
Really? Getting Khabibulin wasn't enough for the 'Hawks to get back into
the playoffs. Getting guys like Gonchar and Recchi didn't solve all the
Penguins' problems. The Rangers got back into the playoffs this year even
though they had more of a budget to work with in previous years. The
Devils, Wings, Stars, and Flyers still had pretty good regular seasons. The
fact that a new small-market-friendly CBA is in place doesn't automatically
mean that the league is going to turn upside-down overnight. But it does
mean that teams like the Penguins can feel like they have a chance to
compete.
> But make no mistake, the airload influx that we obtained to go this far
> this
> year is one time only. With teams now cap adjusted it doesn't happen each
> year. Subsequent results, and years, will be the true relative
> demarcation
> of where this team is.
You don't get it- the point I'm making is that the new CBA now allows us
all to see how savvy the GM's around this league really are. If Lowe still
couldn't make the Oilers competitive in the new environment after a couple
of seasons, I'd be calling for some changes too.
> Hey I love where we are at right now and lets enjoy it but let the smoke
> and
> dust settle for all teams under the new cba and see how long it takes for
> the cream to rise to the top. Not convinced as you that this first year
> is
> a true, or fair, indication of that.
It may not be, but it's a great start. The greatest benefit of having 4
small-market teams in the final four is that players around the league are
no longer going to just look at places like Detroit, Dallas, and New York as
the ones to head to for a big payday. Player movement will be much more
uniform now that everyone has the sense that ANY team can compete in the new
NHL. You think Pronger would have even considered Edmonton an viable
destination in the old days? Not a chance in hell.
Ragnarok73
--
"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land."
- Marcus Aurelius
>> Stay informed about: This place seems to be fairly quiet... 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
