OH1FlyersFan

I am fu*king pissed off. I live in Columbus Ohio and I'm watching Los Angeles? I'm calling NBC right now. Little good that will do me, but a small terrorist threat ought to shake things up in NY. BASTARDS.

He might of wanted to get as far away from NY as possible as well

Good point.

One year and $800K.

I would have thought this was in our price range for a veteran d-man with some size and experience....especially considering we have a few of our roster guys banged up and questionable.

Did we miss an opportunity?

And here I was ready to let this go.

That would've been too easy. You had to let me pile on too! Hehe.

Yes, he is not a Cooke- thats for sure. He can play hockey without the need to be a cheap shot. I think Downies issues are more a lack of control on his anger where-as Cookes are pre-meditated meanness. Cooke has always been a mucker and does not have the skill of a Downie.

Sounds Rinaldo-esque.........

Has any rookie ever laid a hit like that on a guy in his first preseason

So just to be clear, you're implying the League should set degrees of punishment and hits ("a hit like that") based on the players status ("rookie"), years in the League, etc., during a particular time of the season ("preseason")? So if he had hit him as a veteran player with 5 years experience in the League and during the regular season the outcome, or punishment, could have been something other than a 20 game suspension?

I don't see what being a rookie in his first preseason delievering a hit "like that" has anything to do with the severity of punishment he recieved, or should have recieved in your opinion.

Head games! ---- Ha! That is Bryz's excuse!

I thought bears was Bryz's excuse.

Just for the record: http://www.philly.co...lette_says.html

Interesting. Thanks Rad. Looks like that answers the question. Attack more, but perhaps this time with a stronger, more solid defense? Could work. Or this could just be disinformation on Lavi's part designed to mislead opponents on what our strategy/system really is. Ha.

@OH1FlyersFan " Seems to me, this reshaping of the defense could mean a possible reshaping of Lavi's system. What do you think?"

An excellent question, we will find out the answer soon enough huh?

I'm actually really looking forward to that when the new season starts on Saturday - the chance we may get to see a new look, new style of play.

With the addition of yet another big body in Foster, is Lavi changing his system for this season from offense-heavy, attack minded to a more traditional defensive approach that doesn't necessarily emphasize chasing the puck?

Less run and gun and more Getting Bryz some bigger bodies in front of the net to keep the crease clear, some guys who will stay at home postionally, resulting in less one on one with opposing offenses with the intent of giving up a lot fewer quality scoring chances, giving Bryz more cover, and making his job easier so he isn't required to make as many one on one saves because our defensemen are out of position - either because they've been physically pushed out of position or because they got caught chasing the puck.

Seems like Foster, and I don't know anything more about him than what I've read here, is not the kind of player that is going to be jumping up on offense to support Lavi's attacking style - and with Grossman's size, he probably would be better utilized in front of the net, in a less offensive manner, too. Seems to me, this reshaping of the defense could mean a possible reshaping of Lavi's system. What do you think?

I'm wondering what the reaction of the fans will be at the arena, any arena, when their team takes the ice for the first time. My guess is it's going to be pretty positive - I mean, the people there are obviously fans - ticketholders who made a decision to come back out and support their team by buying tickets, bought and paid for with their hard earned money. I don't think those are the fans who would go to boo their team at the first game after the lockout. On the other hand, will some sort of displeasure with the way things played out over these several months be expressed? A moment of silence, something? Or will all be forgotten and bygones will let be bygones. I don't know. I do know that if Bettman shows his face at any of these games, he's going to probably wish he hadn't. Can't imagine the reaction he gets is going to be welcoming.

Who am I kidding!? How could I not be happy that the Flyers are back and I get to watch them play. It's the only freakin' sport and the only team I root for and watch. Just so happens this League also is the most dysfunctional. But I'll be watching from the comfort of my own couch. No tickets, no merchandise, no Center Ice this season -- unless they're giving that one away for free. So I guess I'm a little schizophrenic......love the Flyers, love their game, love their history, and hate pretty much everything else about the sport. But I'm coming back. Ha!!

Actually I think you are spot on when you say "some billionaire's pet project". No team is their owners primary source of income so I would argue that the objective is first not to lose money. Making money is a niec bonus....just don't lose money. I haven't heard an owner complain about not making enough...only losing. Maybe that is semantics but it's a big difference to me. Few teams are going to turn a profit or have a return on investment like some of the companies that made these owners wealthy in the first place. Owning a team has status...a think that's a big reason why a lot of these guys try to by a team.

Sounds like a tax write-off! Haha.

I just think a 28-32 team league where the wealth is pooled is better than 20 teams each doing what is best for them.

A valid point! I can respect that point of view.

They say these things happen in threes.....Meszaros, Lilja, and now Cousins. Let's hope that's it.

accompanied by a visual of bone jarring hits!

I'm totally with you, but does this fit into Bettman's vision of a kinder, gentler league without any, or very little, physical contact? His commercials would come out looking something like a ballet. No offense to those who like the ballet.....

Oddly enough, I favor expansion so long as it's well thought out. Hartford, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland (yes Cleveland and i spelled if different cause i can't remember if it needs that 'e') ,Saskatoon, Kansas City, Hamilton , Portland, Salt Lake City, Moscow (?) and Long Island NY (joke) all could support teams....

I'd be very leery of that. See the link I just posted in a previous response about the dangers, that may be too strong a word, of expansion. Cleveland is a ghost town by the way. An absolute mess. Even worse than Columbus which can't even support its own NHL team.

@brelic

1. Good question... if their team is competitive (which it has been over the last number of years), then they should still be able to sell out the place. But what about the other options for your sports entertainment dollar in the San Jose area (note, I've never been there, so if these teams are not in the area or some are missing, my bad):

San Fran Giants - $23.28 (MLB average is $26.98)

San Fran 49ers - $23.79 (lowest in the NFL; highest was NY Giants at $332; average is $241.72).

Oakland Raiders - $108.89 (still below NFL average)

Golden State Warriors - $39 (NBA average is $48.48)

The average NHL ticket last year was $57.10, which still puts the Sharks below the average price. But, other than the Raiders, the Sharks have the most expensive tickets for a winter sport in a state that doesn't see snow. If the Sharks used the Flyers pricing model, they would have made a $18m in additional revenue, which in theory should put them on the plus side of the ledger.

But then if fans in San Jose won't pay that price, doesn't that signify that the market there won't support/sustain a team in the NHL? Which leads nicely into your 2nd question...

1st - assuming that 49ers price is a typ-o? 2nd - we asked the same question basically...if the Sharks charge Flyers prices would the still sell out thus closing that revenue gap? Maybe...but should they have to? To answer you last question...my answer is a strong "no". That does not at all signify that the market cannot sustain an NHL franchise considering that the Flyers are at the upper end of the ticket price spectrum and at the top of that list for U.S. based teams. It's not as if the Sharks prices are articifially low. If teams need to all charge that much to sustain profitability while spending to the cap then it's a clear indicator that the cap is too high. Just look at the cap room some teams have...even the hugely profitable teams like the Pens and Flyers.

2. Let's rephrase that another way... for argument's sake, should Comcast be financially penalized because San Jose's market can't support higher prices? If you think so, then I'm sure you'd have more than one owner thinking long and hard about their investment into an NHL team.

I do. I don't look at it as a penalty, either. A Comcast remains profitable even with revenue sharing...just not as profitable.

Not to bring this in the political and social realm, but if the Flyers shouldn't have an advantage over the Sharks because they're willing to pay more, why should a wealthy citizen have an advantage over a regular citizen for medical care because he's willing to pay more? Or why should Joe Thornton have a much much nicer car and much much bigger house than me because he's willing to pay more? Even the redistribution of tax dollars in social programs and safety nets won't give me anywhere near Thornton's purchasing power.

The only point I'm trying to make with those parallels is that why should hockey be some sort of share-the-wealth dream when the rest of American society is not structured that way?

Good argument but...I don't think a wealthy citizen should have an advantage over a poorer one when it comes to health care (and I'm a Republican BTW) but that's an arguement for another day.

To use your Joe Thornton point....because there is no competition between you and Joe Thornton. His career allows him access to more material things. Yours and mine do not. No one is winning or losing anything based on their ability to purchase a bigger house. I get what you are saying but comparing athletic competition to real life just doesn't fly for me.

When it comes to sport, in theory things should be on a level playing field among competitors. There are exceptions - sure. But finances shouldn't be one of them. I'm not looking for total equality among teams but when you have 30% - 35% differences that's a problem i/m/o.

Great discussion between you and Brelic. Appreciate the perspectives, though I just can't bring myself to support your position on point #2 -- that comcast should be penalized because its market supports a higher price than San Jose's. I also believe that a wealthy citizen should have an advantage over a poor citizen. But you have to look at why, so I think I want to reserve the right to qualify my blanket statement at a later date because my thinking could change. For now, it's based on questions like -- Is it because they worked harder? Put themselves through college, got a degree, started a business, worked 18 hours a day, 6 days a week? I think that there should be a reward when a person puts in that much hard work, effort, time, committment. I can choose to do nothing with my life, but why should I be entitled to the same rewards and benefits as someone who chooses to do something. Now, I'm crossing the line into a socio-political discussion which I really want to avoid because politics can be even more inflammatory than hockey talk, so that's all I have to say about that. Ha!

@OH1FlyersFan

The Forbes article...

http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/

The Sutcliffe article...

http://sports.nation...getting-richer/

Thanks Polaris. Much appreciated. I'll give them a read.

But (and I don't think it will happen) do you really want to see less teams? Half of the teams lost money last year if you believe the owners. If there is no change to the system and the truly unprofitable/unsustainable teams "go away" then the NHL will be down to what...20 teams?

That would relegate the league to a niche sport somewhere between Arena League Football and Bowling.

I think maybe I would like to see that. I could argue based on many things and compared to the other professional sports (except for maybe major league soccer and lacrosse) that hockey is a niche sport already, at the very least there is that perception - as much as I hate to say it. So what is there to lose? If the league drops down to 20 teams and they are all financially healthy then wouldn't it be in a better, more competitive position than it is today? You would have teams located in markets that are strong and that are known to support hockey, that actually DO support hockey. That's a better experience for the fan and for the team. It also would improve the game by strengthening the talent pool....which may be somewhat diluted with 30 teams. With fewer teams perhaps there is greater parity.

This is actually a pretty good article I came across on NHL expansion. I know I'm actually talking about retraction, but this article points out that expansion may not be what it's cracked up to be and that it may not always work out as planned.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/should-nhl-expand-to-houston-what-about-honolulu?urn=nhl,wp10912

"Yes, according to these metrics, Atlanta is the 11th-best market from a local income perspective to support an NHL team. The same Atlanta that just saw their NHL leave after a decade to become Winnipeg Jets 2.0. So yes, having a stout income base should be paramount for NHL expansion or relocation; Atlanta is a reminder that it won't matter if your shiny new team (a) is mismanaged and (b) fails to connect with more than a niche audience of fans and © blows."

Soon as I can I'll link them for ya. On my phone right now working all night.

Thanks!

There is not always a correlation between fan support and profitability.

I see your point. Lack of fan support could be just one factor contributing to why a team is losing money hand over fist. I think it's a big one, though. But I'll concede there are definitely others. Concessions and terms of an arena lease are good examples -- unless, like the Blue Jackets you have casino gambling revenue to bail you out. Those pockets may not be as deep as Comcast's but it's a large amount of money -- and that's just for the arena. Nationwide Insurance, a part owner, makes a lot of money too and it puts its fair share into the team.

But my point goes beyond whatever is causing the financial crisis requiring subsidization and to the fact that I just don't think it's right. I'm a market guy, I believe in competitive markets, letting the market determine price and quantity, and letting the model of supply and demand work without "government", or in this case League, interference.

And AndyS makes an excellent point about the necessity of winning and building the fan base by being, as Randy Jackson would say, in it to win it, baby.

From Forbes magazine...

"During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year."

Mark Sutcliffe wrote....

"Thanks mostly to the stronger dollar, Canada’s seven franchises have a combined profit of $169-million. Despite a couple of financial powerhouses in the Rangers and Red Wings, the 23 American teams combine to lose $42.5-million.

Outside of those few really profitable teams, the NHL consists of the equivalent of a bunch of middle-class families struggling to make ends meet against rising costs, and a couple of impoverished franchises, including one, the Phoenix Coyotes, that survives solely on government welfare."

Interesting. Thanks for digging that up, Polaris. Was it from a longer article? I'd like to read the whole thing. Do you have a link?

So what about the teams like the San Jose Sharks? They sold out every game last year and still lost $15,000,000. The only reason they remain competitive is that they have deep pocketed owners willing to spend to the cap to remain competitive even if that means dipping into their personal wealth. More power to them for doing so but that should not be the case.

http://www.mercuryne...tted?source=rss

Any time this topic comes up the tendency is for the Flyers fan to scold the unprofitable teams, pount their chests about what a great fan base they have and how all the money that Flyers fans sink into their team is the biggest reason they can remain profitable, etc, etc, etc. The Sharks sold out every game. I'll argue their fan base is just as good. Without owners willing to absorb a loss they be just as bad as the Blue Jackets.

Revenue sharing is not just about the teams below the Mason Dixon line that are not drawing. There are teams that ARE drawing and are still losing money. If that is the case then the system is broke.

The fix is simple...somewhere out there is a number where "most" teams in the league will at a minimum break even while spending close to the cap having operating losess offset by revenue sharing.

So what about the San Jose Sharks? If they're losing money, they're losing money. That's a bad thing. Even if they have managed to sell out however many times. Something must be wrong. What do you think it is? Maybe they're paying players too much? Ticket prices must not be too high because they're selling out, right? Maybe they should increase ticket prices. Maybe they should look at where they're spending money. I haven't seen their balance sheet, so I have no idea why they're hemorhaging money. Maybe their management is just piss poor. Should the other teams in the league be responsible for that? All I'm saying is, no, they shouldn't.

Can anyone find a listing of what teams collect revenue sharing? I'd like to compare it to payroll info, attendance records, and marketing income/expenses. Would be nice to get factual data to know who's profitable vs. who's parasitic.

Oh, great! Now you're going to bring these crazy things called "facts" and "data" into the whole conversation. Dangit. Hehe. I did read somewhere that it's the bottom 15 teams, in terms of revnue, who are eligible for assistance and they are supported by the top 15 teams. Not sure exactly what the mechanism is. But I will fully admit, I don't know exactly how it works. I've just been sharing my opinion based on my limited understanding. Though my reaction to and opinion of the concept of subsidization, at the macro level, will remained unchanged.

EDIT - just saw AJ's post about the bottom 10 teams having a chance to collect revenuw. I'll go with what he said, since I was going from memory.