Calgary lowest in desirability for UFAs?

[icecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Didn't know that made him a travel agent, weather man and personal life adviser to NHL players.

Nobody claimed it did, nor do I necessarily agree with this particular article.

But when a guy is basically calling Bourne a ######, when in fact he knows a lot about hockey, that poster needed to be called on it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Didn't know that made him a travel agent, weather man and personal life adviser to NHL players.

It's an opinion article, and given that the guy played with a bunch of NHL players over his career it's probably a pretty educated opinion on the general view guys have on certain cities. Shocking as it may be, I imagine much of these viewpoints is formed on imperfect information.

[dissentowner]

You would think high end UFA's would avoid the NYR like the plague given the evidence that going there will ruin your career.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The premise of the article is ridiculous. I am sure a winning organization makes a big difference (or the perception that it is improving), but weather? Seriously? That has to be waaay down the list. They're hockey players for chissakes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The premise of the article is ridiculous. I am sure a winning organization makes a big difference (or the perception that it is improving), but weather? Seriously? That has to be waaay down the list. They're hockey players for chissakes.

Most guys aren't going to come right out and say it, but I'm sure that weather and the way of life in their home city is certainly a big factor. Bryzgalov pretty much threw Winnipeg out as an option in an interview a few years back because of the weather (and lack of parks, oddly) and he's from Russia. They're hockey players sure, but they're still human.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The premise of the article is ridiculous. I am sure a winning organization makes a big difference (or the perception that it is improving), but weather? Seriously? That has to be waaay down the list. They're hockey players for chissakes.

Are you nuts? Money is first obviously. Then winning. After that, I bet weather has gotta be up there somewhere.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by icecube

Are you nuts? Money is first obviously. Then winning. After that, I bet weather has gotta be up there somewhere.

Not nuts. Southern teams aren't swarming with free agents, and northern teams aren't losing free agents because of the weather. Weather is important when you are planning a vacation, not a career. Given the original (ridiculous) premise, I would think strip clubs would rank higher.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Not nuts. Southern teams aren't swarming with free agents, and northern teams aren't losing free agents because of the weather. Weather is important when you are planning a vacation, not a career. Given the original (ridiculous) premise, I would think strip clubs would rank higher.

Southern teams also haven't been winning much lately. I'd say that factor ranks WAAAAY ahead of any other, which is why I can't really argue Calgary's spot, unfortunately.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by valo403

The US has seen more migration because it's a bigger country and has historically offered more opportunities.

Except that Canada is bigger than the US.

Unless you mean "livable" area, which is actually the argument you're arguing against - while the climate of the zone within 300 km of the border is much like that of the northern US, once you get into the sub-arctic and arctic, human settlement is marginal. So Canada's climate is very much why it has far fewer people and historically less migration than the USA, just like Sweden doesn't have as many people as Italy even though they are roughly the same size.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by valo403

Southern teams also haven't been winning much lately. I'd say that factor ranks WAAAAY ahead of any other, which is why I can't really argue Calgary's spot, unfortunately.

Fair enough, but that is my point, winning matters, weather not so much.

[Coach]

Yeah I really think weather factors very little into a UFA's team decision. Maybe a bit moreso if they have families, but the players barely live in the city as it is. Theyre constantly travelling, and spend summers wherever they want. It seems like most have homes in some hot/summer vacation spot. Winning I think would be first and foremost on the list for any player. Personal opportunity may rank higher depending on their age, skill level, overall personal outlook on life.

As a poster said earlier, most NHL players come from Canada, Northern US or Northern Europe. They are more than used to crappy cold winters I'm sure. And the cold in Calgary is vastly over-exaggerated. Some days are cold yes, but they are much fewer and far between than people seem to know (or care to hear).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by jammies

Except that Canada is bigger than the US.

I think he means economically.

[PeteLFan]

Listen I love Calgary as well it's a great city live in and enjoy it, but if I'm a top free agent getting a choice between coming home and playing for the flames or go to Los Angeles I'm going to LA.

Living in a warm climate, by the beach, and lot and lots of women in the Silicon Valley yeah it's a easy choice, plus winning hockey.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Listen I love Calgary as well it's a great city live in and enjoy it, but if I'm a top free agent getting a choice between coming home and playing for the flames or go to Los Angeles I'm going to LA.

Living in a warm climate, by the beach, and lot and lots of women in the Silicon Valley yeah it's a easy choice, plus winning hockey.

Not always. In fact not long ago, LA was one of the leagues laughing stocks. Another southern failure. They were not a prime UFA destination. Even with all the glorious city perks. Yes I would choose LA now, but 7-8 years ago Calgary was probably a better option.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jammies

Except that Canada is bigger than the US.

Unless you mean "livable" area, which is actually the argument you're arguing against - while the climate of the zone within 300 km of the border is much like that of the northern US, once you get into the sub-arctic and arctic, human settlement is marginal. So Canada's climate is very much why it has far fewer people and historically less migration than the USA, just like Sweden doesn't have as many people as Italy even though they are roughly the same size.

Matty C nailed it

[jammies]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think he means economically.

I don't think he does, and it's bigger economically because there are more people, which is an effect of immigration and not a cause. Well, I guess it's a feedback effect to some extent, where more immigration = more people = more opportunities = more immigration and so on. But the original reason the USA had more people is because the climate all down the east coast made it easy to settle in the US, whereas Canada's east coast was cold and barren and the only really good accessible land was in the St. Lawrence valley. Then as time went on, Canada was settled in a thin strip of mild (relatively) climate along the border and the USA was more-or-less completely occupied

[Coach]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't think he does, and it's bigger economically because there are more people, which is an effect of immigration and not a cause. Well, I guess it's a feedback effect to some extent, where more immigration = more people = more opportunities = more immigration and so on. But the original reason the USA had more people is because the climate all down the east coast made it easy to settle in the US, whereas Canada's east coast was cold and barren and the only really good accessible land was in the St. Lawrence valley. Then as time went on, Canada was settled in a thin strip of mild (relatively) climate along the border and the USA was more-or-less completely occupied

Population size, economy size, average waist size, pretty much every way except by actual land, the US is bigger, I think was the point.

And yes that is why, the weather was warmer in the eastern US and down through the south and thus, easier to settle... In the 1600's, when you had to chop wood and dry meat to survive the winter. These are NHL hockey players. They go from their 3 million dollar house, to their $100,000 car, to their state of the art training complex/stadium. Or to their team jet. The life of an NHL hockey player is pretty comfortable no matter what city he plays in I think. Detroit is a literal hole, yet attracts big name players. Why? Because they win.

(And yes I know Detroit has "nice areas" every city has "nice areas". The richest postal code in Canada is barely west of Calgary.)

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I thought he was really hard on Ottawa as well. It's a really nice city and has a better climate than the western Canadian cities.

Ottawa has a much colder average January temp than Calgary.

BTW Arable land is the reason USA has way more population than Canada. That has more to do with geography than climate. You can't farm the canadian shield.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Ottawa has a much colder average January temp than Calgary.

BTW Arable land is the reason USA has way more population than Canada. That has more to do with geography than climate. You can't farm the canadian shield.

Which is strange because if you cross the border at Coots and compare the land immediately on either side, Canada has many farms and ranches while the American side looks like a desert. Just something I noticed earlier this summer.

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Which is strange because if you cross the border at Coots and compare the land immediately on either side, Canada has many farms and ranches while the American side looks like a desert. Just something I noticed earlier this summer.

I think that has to do with water rights. IIRC there was a treaty signed and Alberta gets to use the Milk River and Montana gets to use the St. Mary's. My uncle is a farmer on the Montana side (though much further east of Coutts) and he complains about this all the time.