Bettman's Interview with Duhatschek - Nov-15, 2013

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

back to the article: I don't see how Bettman can say that he's too scared to risk putting a team in Toronto. "Think long-term, not short-term" Really? He thinks a team in Toronto might fold within 30 years? Yet he would put a team in Kansas City in a nanosecond if there was an owner with some money..

There's no rational explanation, short-term or long-term, why there isn't another team in the Toronto area besides the Leafs not wanting the competition. A new team would sell out a decade of season's tickets in about an hour.

[SuperMatt18]

I don't think Bettman can talk about it too much, which is probably why he always dances around the question or just puts the suggestion down.

Of course he would like a second team in Toronto, but he likely can't say much since they need an aggreement with the Leafs before they even pursue that as an option.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Players who have a strong loyalty to the team >>>>>>> 35 per cent roster turnover every season and free agent mercenaries.

Do you actually believe that's true or is this just a product of a different era? Your entire posts reeks a little of nostalgic thinking but this comment sticks out. If circumstances were similar I think the guys way back when would have shown less loyalty to be paid more too. The opportunities just weren't there.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Do you actually believe that's true or is this just a product of a different era? Your entire posts reeks a little of nostalgic thinking but this comment sticks out. If circumstances were similar I think the guys way back when would have shown less loyalty to be paid more too. The opportunities just weren't there.

Players tended to stick around teams longer, and that helped build chemistry. Today, teams will try to keep a strong core together, but the secondary roles are interchangeable and get swapped out frequently. Definitely a financial thing, but the result is less cohesion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The overall product is poor. People just follow their teams. It's not a North American thing. It's a hockey thing. Why? Because they can't stomach how bad other NHL games are. They will stomach it for their team but that's all.

The product is just fine come playoff time. I will even watch a Coyotes game voluntarily during the playoffs. This is why I feel it's more about the general lack of intensity in the regular season than anything else. Just too many games, both for the players and the fans. The quality goes up and down way too much, mostly down.

When I watch a soccer game, the same team generally brings much closer to the same effort every night. It's just easier to be in focus and in full health 40 times per year than 80 times per year.

Now MLB is of course somewhat of a counter-argument to this, but it's a sport with a lot of downtime for each player, very few things to keep track of at any one time (which makes it mentally easier), plus it's a relatively non-physical game for a team sport.

I'm 100% with you on the randomness of the calls. This I think is the single biggest problem hockey has. However, this is more of a general hockey phenomenon as far as I've seen, not just an NHL thing.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Players tended to stick around teams longer, and that helped build chemistry. Today, teams will try to keep a strong core together, but the secondary roles are interchangeable and get swapped out frequently. Definitely a financial thing, but the result is less cohesion.

Yeah, I know that they did stick around but I don't believe it had much to do with loyalty. If those guys had the financial opportunities these guys had, the results would have been the same me thinks.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yeah, I know that they did stick around but I don't believe it had much to do with loyalty. If those guys had the financial opportunities these guys had, the results would have been the same me thinks.

Are you suggesting we live within some sort of economic system, wherein the acquiring of wealth is strikingly paramount? Well if that isn't the most ridiculous thing I've read before lunch today!