I wish we had an in with someone at the NHL. This guy was in charge of NHL Media.....which means he probably had something to do with the whole TV Situation.
NHL has record revenues, attendance and TV ratings since he has been there but how much of that had to do with him?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
"A better team than the team I formerly played on"
Avery is a dick. That's why I loved him on the Rangers. At the same time he says some things some times just to get a rise out of people. I hate when people do that. Other times he might actually mean it. Either way, he is a dick.
I guess I should give some context for my rant. I just got home from work (yeah...awesome), watched the end of the Mets game (which they lost because partially because David Wright is going senile or can't count or both), and jumped on my laptop to check out youporn..er..I mean cnn.com and then decided to see what happened in the world of hockey during the afternoon. So of course I went to espn.com...oh no wait, this isn't 2003 and ESPN doesn't carry hockey anymore so they have only one guy who is a Juliet Alpha (codeword for Jack Ass) by the name of Burnside writing for them during the summer.
So I went to tsn.ca. And I saw a clip of the Stars welcoming Avery to their squad. After showing that annoying mojito commercial (which leaves Mags dancing in his living room), they only showed one or two minutes and of course Avery had some dickhead thing to say. Something to the effect that he is "obviously" coming to a team that is better that the team he used to be on (the Rangers). First of all, Dick, the Rangers and the Stars had the same number of points in the regular season last year. Second of all, you're a dick. (I really had only one point, but I started off with "first of all" because I thought I'd come up with a second. Turns out I couldn't.)
Okay...so are the Stars better than the Rangers? Maybe. Is it "obvious" that is the case? No. That's why Avery is a dick. I loved the guy on the Rangers but I hope he sucks in Dallas, gets into a big fight with Modano, and sleeps with Morrow's wife and Guy Carbonneau's daughter. Now that might sound like a lot for him to do, but Carbonneau's daughter is Morrow's wife, so he can kill two birds with one stone on that one.
PS: Could Guy be any more French Canadian in that tux? Someone get that guy some poutine.
NHL Tournaments?
So frustrated. Had to write this post three times now because of errors on the site….I better get some comments.
What are people’s thoughts on having NHL tournaments during the season….potentially as the first games of the year? I realize there are some revenue and logistical (# of home games per team, etc) issues but I think those can be worked out. What would be some good tournaments?
Battle for NY/NJ…..Buffalo, NYR, NYI, NJD
Canadian Supremacy…..top 4 Canadian teams based on prior season’s points
Original Six….same concept but with original six teams
Sunshine Bowl……Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, San Jose
I think that it would be good for the NHL….just look at what the outdoor games are doing….huge draws. Could generate the buzz the beanpot does in Boston.
Again….look past the logistical issues….what would be some other good tourneys?
What are people’s thoughts on having NHL tournaments during the season….potentially as the first games of the year? I realize there are some revenue and logistical (# of home games per team, etc) issues but I think those can be worked out. What would be some good tournaments?
Battle for NY/NJ…..Buffalo, NYR, NYI, NJD
Canadian Supremacy…..top 4 Canadian teams based on prior season’s points
Original Six….same concept but with original six teams
Sunshine Bowl……Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, San Jose
I think that it would be good for the NHL….just look at what the outdoor games are doing….huge draws. Could generate the buzz the beanpot does in Boston.
Again….look past the logistical issues….what would be some other good tourneys?
4 v 4 - All the time
The post below is actually decent. A lot of guys recently have left the NHL to play in Europe. Most notably Jagr, but also guys like Yashin, Brylin and Modry etc. etc. None of these guys are in their prime of course and nobody really cares, but it does show that players consider it now. I actually think the NHL it at risk of players leaving for the reasons Olgie explains below. All it would take is one marquee player to leave and then this simple concept posted in a random hocley blog becomes front page headlines. “Crosby leaves for the Russian Super League”. Let’s face it, the NHL isn’t exactly crushing it these days. This is not an unimaginable situation.
Now – the debate the 5 hockey geniuses have had on this topic revolved around going 4 on 4 – full time. “Mags” has been arguing this for year now – the NHL should go 4 on 4 all the time. He has good reasons for this, and I respect all of them and the fact that he sticks to his guns on this argument. For the record, I like 4 on 4 hockey for the same reasons Mags does. Its more open, it showcases the talented players, it weeds out the weaker players. But that said, I have and will continue to argue that taking the NHL to 4 on 4 all the time is an extremely risky proposition and I disagree that it is a good idea. I like 4 on 4 in OT only. In my opinion, making it full time changes the hockey in the NHL entirely. If the NHL is the only hockey league that is 4 on 4, than every kid across the world will grow up playing one game, and then work to get into the NHL which is totally different. Every system you learn (forechecks, dzone coverage, power play etc) is now changed and obsolete to a degree. 4 on 4 is not a minor change at all – its taking 20% of the skaters off the ice. Its like taking the center out of basketball to free up the lane for more dunks; or taking the shortstop & right fielder out of baseball to produce more offense. Take a hypothetical. A player like say Malkin plays his whole life in Russia and learns 5 on 5 hockey, and is good enough to play professionally. Then he is faced with this choice (1) Play the same 5 on 5 game he knows in his home country of Russia (and maybe get more money to do so) or (2) Play an offshoot style of hockey, 4 on 4 in North America (and maybe get less money). Will the NHL still be considered the best league in the world, when it’s a different style of game entirely?
When the NHL is a different game of hockey than every other league in the world (IIHF/Olympics, Euro Pro, Russian Pro, US College/High School, kids hockey everywhere), than it just intensifies the risk of players leaving. I also think that from a fan point of view - for every guy like me and Mags that likes hockey 4 on 4, there is a guy who hates the idea and likes old school hockey.
The risk is huge that both the players and fans don’t love the change to 4 on 4, and the NHL falls apart b/c either they lose players (most likey) or fans (not like they have a ton anyway).
Now – the debate the 5 hockey geniuses have had on this topic revolved around going 4 on 4 – full time. “Mags” has been arguing this for year now – the NHL should go 4 on 4 all the time. He has good reasons for this, and I respect all of them and the fact that he sticks to his guns on this argument. For the record, I like 4 on 4 hockey for the same reasons Mags does. Its more open, it showcases the talented players, it weeds out the weaker players. But that said, I have and will continue to argue that taking the NHL to 4 on 4 all the time is an extremely risky proposition and I disagree that it is a good idea. I like 4 on 4 in OT only. In my opinion, making it full time changes the hockey in the NHL entirely. If the NHL is the only hockey league that is 4 on 4, than every kid across the world will grow up playing one game, and then work to get into the NHL which is totally different. Every system you learn (forechecks, dzone coverage, power play etc) is now changed and obsolete to a degree. 4 on 4 is not a minor change at all – its taking 20% of the skaters off the ice. Its like taking the center out of basketball to free up the lane for more dunks; or taking the shortstop & right fielder out of baseball to produce more offense. Take a hypothetical. A player like say Malkin plays his whole life in Russia and learns 5 on 5 hockey, and is good enough to play professionally. Then he is faced with this choice (1) Play the same 5 on 5 game he knows in his home country of Russia (and maybe get more money to do so) or (2) Play an offshoot style of hockey, 4 on 4 in North America (and maybe get less money). Will the NHL still be considered the best league in the world, when it’s a different style of game entirely?
When the NHL is a different game of hockey than every other league in the world (IIHF/Olympics, Euro Pro, Russian Pro, US College/High School, kids hockey everywhere), than it just intensifies the risk of players leaving. I also think that from a fan point of view - for every guy like me and Mags that likes hockey 4 on 4, there is a guy who hates the idea and likes old school hockey.
The risk is huge that both the players and fans don’t love the change to 4 on 4, and the NHL falls apart b/c either they lose players (most likey) or fans (not like they have a ton anyway).
Crosby, котор нужно сыграть в Россия
What does that title mean, you ask? It means "Crosby to play in Russia" (at least according to on-line translator I used).
Now...that's not a true statement. But what if it was? There is an article on ESPN today (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3520860) stating that LeBron would consider playing in Europe if the price was right...and by right I mean $50M.
The five of us who started this website often argue about this. What if the European leagues become successful in their attempts to snatch up high profile stars from the NHL? With today's salary cap, the max contract a player in the NHL could receive is $11.34M per year.
What if a Russian team offered an NHL star $25M per year? Impossible? Far from it. With the new Russian Super League and Czech teams shelling out big money for washed up players, I think it is closer and closer to becoming a reality. Throw in the weakness of the US dollar and I think it's only a matter of time. What is $25M to us is only €16M to them (feel free to convert to whatever ridiculously-named currency is appropriate).
So what does that mean to the NHL? It could mean big trouble. Fortunately for them, their three biggest stars (Crosby, Ovechkin, and DiPietro) are locked in to contracts through 2013, 2021, and 2022. (Just kidding about DiPietro but had to throw it in there for a laugh...since Garth Snow and the Islanders have given me so many over the years). But what happens in 2013 when (hypothetically) Crosby is on pace to break all of Gretzky's records and he gets an offer for $30M a year for 10 years from Omsk to play side by side with the 84-year old Jaromir Jagr? Crosby...the face of the NHL and the player the NHL has built their "new" NHL around.
What happens then? Does the NHL crumble? Probably not, but it would most likely mark the beginning of the end. What happens next? Does the NHL become desperate and switch to 4 on 4 in an attempt to survive? Mags would wet his pants and petition to become the Commish of the new, new NHL. He'd bring back emails he saved from 2005 stating that the NHL should go 4 on 4 and tell the whole world "I told you so". Stay gold, Mags. Stay gold.
Now...that's not a true statement. But what if it was? There is an article on ESPN today (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3520860) stating that LeBron would consider playing in Europe if the price was right...and by right I mean $50M.
The five of us who started this website often argue about this. What if the European leagues become successful in their attempts to snatch up high profile stars from the NHL? With today's salary cap, the max contract a player in the NHL could receive is $11.34M per year.
What if a Russian team offered an NHL star $25M per year? Impossible? Far from it. With the new Russian Super League and Czech teams shelling out big money for washed up players, I think it is closer and closer to becoming a reality. Throw in the weakness of the US dollar and I think it's only a matter of time. What is $25M to us is only €16M to them (feel free to convert to whatever ridiculously-named currency is appropriate).
So what does that mean to the NHL? It could mean big trouble. Fortunately for them, their three biggest stars (Crosby, Ovechkin, and DiPietro) are locked in to contracts through 2013, 2021, and 2022. (Just kidding about DiPietro but had to throw it in there for a laugh...since Garth Snow and the Islanders have given me so many over the years). But what happens in 2013 when (hypothetically) Crosby is on pace to break all of Gretzky's records and he gets an offer for $30M a year for 10 years from Omsk to play side by side with the 84-year old Jaromir Jagr? Crosby...the face of the NHL and the player the NHL has built their "new" NHL around.
What happens then? Does the NHL crumble? Probably not, but it would most likely mark the beginning of the end. What happens next? Does the NHL become desperate and switch to 4 on 4 in an attempt to survive? Mags would wet his pants and petition to become the Commish of the new, new NHL. He'd bring back emails he saved from 2005 stating that the NHL should go 4 on 4 and tell the whole world "I told you so". Stay gold, Mags. Stay gold.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Best NHL Captain
Great poll. I saw that many people chose Lidstrom as the best captain. Personally, I think its Iginla but I am certainly not going to argue against Lidstrom. But let me ask this.....if Lidstrom and Iginla were on the same team, who you put as the captain.
I would choose Iginla for a number of reasons. Both Iginla and Lidstrom have lots of the same great qualities. They both consistently play hard and are considered league leaders at their respective positions. Both seem like decent guys in that no one ever says a bad thing about them. The reason I choose Iginla is simply his toughness. He is a superstar that is constantly standing up for his teammates....fighting for them if need be. That for me is the tiebreaker.
Lecavlier would be another one I would choose over Lidstrom for the same reasons. I think he is still in "A" in tampa bay....anyone know why?
I would choose Iginla for a number of reasons. Both Iginla and Lidstrom have lots of the same great qualities. They both consistently play hard and are considered league leaders at their respective positions. Both seem like decent guys in that no one ever says a bad thing about them. The reason I choose Iginla is simply his toughness. He is a superstar that is constantly standing up for his teammates....fighting for them if need be. That for me is the tiebreaker.
Lecavlier would be another one I would choose over Lidstrom for the same reasons. I think he is still in "A" in tampa bay....anyone know why?
Get Your Popcorn Ready
The good folks at OFB (On Frozen Blog) have picked up on a tremendous programming move by the NHL Network: Gretzky Week. Set the DVR (especially for the Top 10 Gretzky moments) and get your popcorn ready.
http://www.onfrozenblog.com/2008/08/05/programming-fit-for-a-king/
Any chance they'll have a special on his daughter? It's okay to look. She is 19:
http://www.onfrozenblog.com/2008/08/05/programming-fit-for-a-king/
Any chance they'll have a special on his daughter? It's okay to look. She is 19:
Proof ESPN doesn't care about hockey
As noted earlier, the ESPYs had two references to the NHL in the entire broadcast (Nash Best Move & Wings Best Team). It was the only sport that didn’t have a player of the year (even soccer and Nascar did). Well, apparently there was an NHL player of the year. It just didn’t air. ESPN awarded it to Sydney Crosby and it just shows that ESPN doesn’t follow or care about hockey.
Look, Crosby is ridiculously good and I’m not saying that he isn’t the best player in the world. But awarding the player of the year to him in 07-08 just shows that ESPN awarded it to the most marketable and well known player – not the one who performed the best in 07-08. They don’t care about hockey. It was the logical choice for non-hockey fans, but the wrong choice if you care at all.
-He missed 29 games, 35% of the season.
-Ovechkin scored 65 goals (without a doubt, he should have won the ESPY)
-Zetterberg and Datyuk were great in the regular season, and sick in the playoffs (they also should have won it over Crosby)
-Malkin (although terrible in the playoffs) carried the Pens in those 29 games Crosby was out
Look, Crosby is ridiculously good and I’m not saying that he isn’t the best player in the world. But awarding the player of the year to him in 07-08 just shows that ESPN awarded it to the most marketable and well known player – not the one who performed the best in 07-08. They don’t care about hockey. It was the logical choice for non-hockey fans, but the wrong choice if you care at all.
-He missed 29 games, 35% of the season.
-Ovechkin scored 65 goals (without a doubt, he should have won the ESPY)
-Zetterberg and Datyuk were great in the regular season, and sick in the playoffs (they also should have won it over Crosby)
-Malkin (although terrible in the playoffs) carried the Pens in those 29 games Crosby was out
Monday, August 4, 2008
Stay in bed, Petr...Stay in bed.
So apparently Petr Nedved has been invited to Rangers' camp: (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_petr_nedved_gets_ranger_tryout.html)
Not sure why, especially since he has put up only 37 points since the lockout. Is putting up 10-15 points per year worth even getting out of bed? Probably not if your wife looks like this:
Not sure why, especially since he has put up only 37 points since the lockout. Is putting up 10-15 points per year worth even getting out of bed? Probably not if your wife looks like this:
51-year old Kelly Klein? Really?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08012008/gossip/pagesix/cougar_chaser_122471.htm
Apparently, Sean Avery is really getting into fashion these days. Literally. But is tagging Calvin Klein's wife the best way to do it? 
Plus, she is 51. I mean, she is pretty hot for a 51-year old, but she is 51. If you're going to go for a 50+ year old, at least go for Christie
Plus, she is 51. I mean, she is pretty hot for a 51-year old, but she is 51. If you're going to go for a 50+ year old, at least go for Christie (54) 
. I think she is single. http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/25/brinkley-im-dating-again-no-more-whackjobs/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
