2017-2018 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
You really have to question Bettman's thinking on that one. Why on earth would you want a team in Seattle when you could put a team in a city 1/5th the size, where one of your biggest teams is already popular in the region and that would further imbalance the conferences. I mean doesn't he realize that a Quebec City team could be a second Ottawa?
Coco-puffs
New member
herman said:
2020-2021 is when Key Arena would be ready. Expansion draft would happen a few days before his contract expires.
Considering he'd be a free agent in 2020-2021 (unless re-signed), we probably don't have to worry about the Leafs going and protecting him instead of a Leipsic
herman
Well-known member
Coco-puffs said:herman said:
2020-2021 is when Key Arena would be ready. Expansion draft would happen a few days before his contract expires.
Considering he'd be a free agent in 2020-2021 (unless re-signed), we probably don't have to worry about the Leafs going and protecting him instead of a Leipsic
Ah, even more unlikely than I expected!
We're very likely going to lose a good player at that expansion draft (better than Leipsic). Assuming a similar set of rules, it could be one of our nice goalies (assuming Sparks and Pickard are in the fold, or even Andersen with a year left), or more likely one of our middle depth forwards we don't have the space to protect (Johnsson, Kapanen, *Gauthier*).
Zee
Active member
herman said:Coco-puffs said:herman said:
2020-2021 is when Key Arena would be ready. Expansion draft would happen a few days before his contract expires.
Considering he'd be a free agent in 2020-2021 (unless re-signed), we probably don't have to worry about the Leafs going and protecting him instead of a Leipsic
Ah, even more unlikely than I expected!
We're very likely going to lose a good player at that expansion draft (better than Leipsic). Assuming a similar set of rules, it could be one of our nice goalies (assuming Sparks and Pickard are in the fold, or even Andersen with a year left), or more likely one of our middle depth forwards we don't have the space to protect (Johnsson, Kapanen, *Gauthier*).
Leafs will have already won the Stanley Cup before then so we won't care what happens.
Frank E
Active member
Some interesting developments this season so far...https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/standings#/league
1. Winnipeg finally getting somewhere, I thought thought that roster was too good for the results they showed last season.
2. Teams I thought would have a better result: Edmonton, Buffalo, Chicago, Minnesota, and Florida.
3. Teams I thought would have a worse result: LA (!), NJD, and certainly Vegas.
1. Winnipeg finally getting somewhere, I thought thought that roster was too good for the results they showed last season.
2. Teams I thought would have a better result: Edmonton, Buffalo, Chicago, Minnesota, and Florida.
3. Teams I thought would have a worse result: LA (!), NJD, and certainly Vegas.
Coco-puffs
New member
herman said:
(_!_)
&
http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/francis-150-million-more-reasons-for-flames-owners-to-sell/wcm/bee3f8a6-a64b-40c2-8173-cff4316c9138
God, this is such an embarrassing article. It's amazing that Francis sees what a disaster an Olympic bid would be (he calls the IOC the "fraudulent five-ring circus"), but is completely fine with carrying water for the Flames owner.
God, this is such an embarrassing article. It's amazing that Francis sees what a disaster an Olympic bid would be (he calls the IOC the "fraudulent five-ring circus"), but is completely fine with carrying water for the Flames owner.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
It's bad but a recent one from Bob MacKenzie was just as bad, basically just repeating ownership and NHL claims on financial situations verbatim as truth.
This is an easy call for sportswriters like this. They don't care about being on good terms with the mayor's office or economists but they have sources they want to make happy at the hockey team. Take a stand of principle and it's someone else that breaks waiver news on twitter 15 seconds before everyone else.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
I still can't fathom how any right-minded tax-paying adult can think that giving public money to pro sports teams for a fresh new arena could be a good idea.
At a push, I could see them offering some type of loan to the team to entice them to stay, but flat out giving them 1/3 to 1/2 of the funds is a completely preposterous idea.
What's to blame?
Is it the public school systems in North America that are churning out people who are incapable of understanding what is in their own best interests?
At a push, I could see them offering some type of loan to the team to entice them to stay, but flat out giving them 1/3 to 1/2 of the funds is a completely preposterous idea.
What's to blame?
Is it the public school systems in North America that are churning out people who are incapable of understanding what is in their own best interests?
Kin
New member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
It's a bad understanding of economics that is largely the result of people with a lot of money having organized and funded a huge political movement resting on the idea that giving those same people with a lot of money more money would result in good things for everyone. Broadly speaking I think it's the result of people resenting the idea of education and knowledge and the way people take advantage of that by trying to reduce complicated systems and ideas to easy nugget-sized sound bites.
I mean, look at the comments on that article. Of the ones that a pro-public funding half are regurgitating thoroughly discredited ideas about these stadiums paying for themselves and the other half are saying that building a cookie-cutter NHL arena to house a mid-tier NHL team would make their city "World Class".