The Canadian teams suck

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

The American teams mainly have Canadian players playing on the rosters, so I don't know why Canada freaks about not having a cup that much. It really bites though because we've had 4 opportunities to get the SC back in Canada, we're Just really snake-bitten in the 21st century.

1. CGY lost in 7 (2003-2004)
2. EDM lost in 7 (2005-2006)
3. OTT lost in 5 (2006-2007)
4. VAN lost in 7 (2010-2011)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but all three of the game 7's, the Canadian team was up 3-2 in the series and somehow lost the last two games.

The only hope this year is the Canadiens and I really don't think they have a shot when you got Boston to beat if you beat Tampa Bay. I don't even think they will beat Tampa Bay either. The western conference just has so many good teams yet again, that another American team will yet again win the cup.

It also doesn't help that the odds a Canadian team will bring back the cup is 23.3%.

Oilers were down 3-1 in their series and won game 5 and 6 to force game 7

[indes]

The Canadian team that mattered the most this year won it all!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

One theory in other threads is that CDN markets don't have the patience for proper builds.

Ultimately, location is just coincidence. Just as it was coincidence that a Canadian team reached the final three years in a row. Just as it is coincidence that all three California teams are ridiculously dominant.

When you get down to it, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto have generally incompetent management. Ottawa's taken a step back, and Calgary is at the nadir of a rebuild. In most cases, that's just bad personnel decision, which has no border.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

We always see lists and articles explaining how around 50% of revenue comes from the seven canadian teams. All seven teams are in all in the top half of the league in revenue per team (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are in the top five I believe). However, money doesn't seem to buy victories north of the border.

With a salary cap, you can only spend so much on talent, although all the Canadian teams should be able to afford to spend to the cap ceiling. The one advantage the Canadian teams should have is being able to hire top notch management, coaching, and scouting. Not to mention the benifit of seeing CHL prospects play in your own rink in markets like Calgary and Edmonton. However, like you pointed out, the Canadian teams continually fall short when it comes to drafting.

Does the location and climate limit the potential for Canadian teams?

I may be generalizing here, but let's look back at history for each team in the last 20 years.

Toronto - why they have not been very good at drafting perplexes me. There really is no reason. The economic hardships faced by other Canadian teams don't necessarily come into play for Toronto. They simply sucked, and I haven't looked into it much at all. Posters who have followed Toronto can enlighten us on that one.

Montreal - Should have been considered much like Toronto as being 'relatively unaffected' by the climate during the 90's-early 2000's. However, they were. Ownership issues, a horrible lease deal that had them paying 11 million a season (or something like that - though I can't quite remember exactly through which years). I can definitely see that they probably cut their drafting and development department.

Ottawa - this was a new franchise that had the 'luxury' of entering the NHL at the start of the '92/93 season. What I mean by that, is that they started with the mindset that they needed to build through the draft, so I would imagine their drafting and development program was somewhat robust (makes sense - but I don't have the numbers). They did quite well in their history for the most part - Yashin, Alfredsson, Spezza, Redden, and numerous other important pieces. They were a team that I would say was built through the draft, and supplemented well through trades/FA signings. Again, they did well because they entered that 'dark period' in the best possible position - a lower salary coupled with a brand-new interest from a market hungry for hockey, and the direction of requiring to build from the draft.

Vancouver - I may be wrong - but I don't think they were bleeding much money through the dark ages. I wouldn't say they were healthy - but they were in a much better position than most Canadian teams. I do think they probably had cut their drafting and development programs by some margin to help stay afloat, as I don't think they were impervious to the market conditions like Toronto was.

The other teams you can generalize as being the same - Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. They all ran the risk of losing their organizations (and of course, in Winnipeg's case, they did - and not counting Quebec who lost their team as well, but no point in including them here as they do not exist now). Edmonton almost lost their organization to Houston, but was saved by a public ownership group - the Edmonton Investors Group. Calgary almost lost their organization to Portland. These teams were massively struggling in every possible facet related to running an NHL team.

In Calgary's case (and I am generalizing here to include Oilers and Jets - which may not be 100% accurate, but I am guessing it was much the same), they cut their drafting and development budget substantially in an effort to stay afloat financially. They went from one of the best drafting (if not the very best drafting) team in the NHL, to one of the worst (possibly the very worst). You could see the immediate impact over subsequent years in their drafting records. I think that in hindsight, Calgary did very well in drafting and development GIVEN THEIR BUDGET (emphasis on budget here - they were poor at drafting, but I would bet that their dollars spent divided by number of NHL players drafted was actually pretty decent). They still managed to draft and develop enough legitimate NHL players - but not nearly enough to actually be much good. I think most NHL teams had between 8-10 scouts in North America alone at the time - Calgary had 1 full-time scout, and 2 part-time scouts when Darryl Sutter took over as GM.

Not only did their scouting department get cut, but the Flames shared their AHL affiliate with other NHL organizations through periods of their existence. I believe Carolina was the last team that Calgary shared their AHL affiliate with. They simply did not have a development program.

In Calgary's and Edmonton's case in particular (with Winnipeg moving, and seemingly drafting decently in Phoenix since, while the 'New Winnipeg' from Atlanta being a budget team when they relocated to Winnipeg - may not be exactly the same scenario here) they suffered financially.

It was just 'enough' I guess that they survived in Canada. It wasn't until about 2002 or so that the fortunes started changing somewhat for the Canadian teams. Darryl was often criticized for being a terrible drafting GM - but he had little to work with. As the team's financials started doing better (especially after the fabled '04 run that launched this team far into the black again), the Flames slowly (too slowly, I think) started expanding their drafting and development programs. You can really see a linear progression over the years - it came very slowly, but it did start happening. Slowly but surely, NHL players started trickling in as the team adjusted its' drafting philosophies, and went through capable (and often, incapable it appears) scouting staff. I am not sure where Calgary ranks in terms of its' drafting and development program today - there hasn't been this much depth and skill in the prospect pool since mid-to-late 80's - but I think we can all agree that it is substantially better than it has been through most of the 90's and early 2000's.

I do think that some teams were slow to adjust - Calgary and Edmonton for sure - possibly Vancouver. Winnipeg has a lot of good young talent on the team, so it is tough to include them here - American teams had less pressure to compete now and Atlanta probably had more of an emphasis on drafting during its' hisotry. Montreal is a team that was slow in adjusting, but probably drafted better than any Western Canadian team. Again, you have to go back in time and look at their scouting department year-to-year starting from the early 90's to accurately gauge if it was incompetence, or a symptom of cost-cutting, through each team.

I do think that it takes a relative short period of time to dismantle a solid drafting and development department, and it takes a much longer period of time to build one up. Prospects take time to develop, and it may take a few years to realize that what you are doing is not working, or you run the risk of changing something that perhaps was working very well, but wasn't given the time to show its' worth (for instance, you may have a couple of very good scouts adept at picking prospects in the later rounds through whatever methodology they employ, but they get fired before the prospects develop and transition into the NHL, and replaced by a new scouts who may very well be incompetent).

Ottawa I think has been the best Canadian team in regards to drafting over the years - and that is why I say they had the relative 'luxury' of entering the NHL when they did, when their focus was on drafting. Calgary (and other teams) had their focus on maintaining a certain level of competition (spending money on trying to keep their own stars) - in hindsight a focus they simply could not continue on (MacInnis, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Suter, etc., all left one by one as they simply took too much of the budget to allow the Flames to fill-out their roster) - but the market pressures were there in those markets to do just that. In hindsight, the Canadian teams should have focused on drafting and development (except Toronto, who were still making money relative to the US teams). It was a critical error I think on every other franchise in Canada. Instead of trying to remain competitive (Oilers coming out of their dynasty years, Calgary coming out of its' Stanley cup year, Vancouver was a competitive team going to the Stanley Cup final in the first half of the 90's, etc. - Canadian teams were dominant), these teams should have 'blow it up' and started a rebuild - would have had cheaper younger talent that would have remained competitive, and would probably have saved the organizations money.

Why Toronto has been so inept at pretty much everything is bewildering to me. They have more resources than 95% of the teams. They did not suffer through the 'dark ages' in Canada much. They exist in a area of the world that is the 'hometown' (generalizing Ontario as a hole, not just the city itself) that produces the most hockey talent in the world, easier signing FAs before the salary cap world, and being able to out-spend even the majority of the US franchises during that time on drafting and development - in my opinion, they have been the biggest failure of an organization for the last 30 odd years.

My bet? Unless the economy in Canada collapses and the dollar plunges again, you will see dominant Canadian teams again. Many have accepted that rebuilding is necessary, and the market is more accepting to that. The salary cap will ensure a reasonable level of competition now (though Edmonton with their terrible records over the last 'x' amount of years and Buffalo this year being one of the very worst teams of the modern era are in direct conflict with that theory). The teams like Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal that have all seen a huge influx of investing into those programs should eventually become successful again, and the ones that haven't will continue floundering (or at least the ones that seemingly haven't developed a sound drafting and development program - maybe there isn't a positive correlation with having a big budget in drafting and development and seeing positive results, but there does appear to be a very positive correlation with having a very small budget with respect to drafting success).

Just my take on the Canadian teams' struggles relative to their drafting/development programs from the late early 90's through to now. Maybe some of it makes sense, maybe none of it does - but either way, sorry for the very long post!!

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I also don't think the undesirability of playing in Canada (especially Western Canada) should be underestimated. Teams like Edmonton, Calgary, or Vancouver could've offered Chara the moon and they still probably wouldn't have gotten him, and that has been a crucial factor in Boston being able to retool quickly.

I think it's a huge factor, especially for the Alberta teams. Those of us that live here think it's great, and it is for the common man. However, if you are a millionaire athlete, would you pick Calgary or Anahiem? Edmonton or Tampa Bay? Calgary or Manhattan? Edmonton or Chicago?

Also, someone posted on here that Brian Burke said that FA steer clear of Calgary because of the old building and the fact that the Flames don't have a dedicated practice facility. That is one thing that you would think the Flames and the Oilers could easily accomadate. Both teams have great revenue streams. Why wouldn't either of these teams build a practice facility?

[Red John]

Glad to see the Canadian teams failing hard, when a Canadian team finally wins the Cup hopefully its the Flames and frankly that isn't too crazy of a prediction to make.

The other Canadian teams have either a bad core or a poor choice of players to build around which is the workings of bad management combined with some bad luck.

Toronto chose to build around Phil Kessel and Dion Phaneuf. Is anyone surprised that team chokes hard in the clutch? Clarkson and Bozak contracts, Grabovski buyout...terrible moves from a bad GM.

Ottawa's goalie is a true Jeyll and Hyde guy and always will be, so you'll get good year - bad year from them but they really have no true superstars besides Karlsson and he's a one-dimensional guy. Traded a 1st rounder for a winger who can't spell intense. Just picked the wrong players to build around. Spezza? Really?

Winnipeg - mediocre team and core all the way through and likely will be for a long time. Ladd, Wheeler, Kane, Byfuglien, Bogosian, Enstrom - those are awful players to be building around. They're great complementary pieces but not core guys.

Montreal - Bergevin seems to be a bright guy and they're drafting well so hence the best canadian team right now but the insistence on a French coach and French players in that fishbowl will likely limit how far they ever go in the playoffs. A clear step below the contenders in the East.

Vancouver - enough said. Headed for a decline tied to a core that never did get it done in the clutch.

Edmonton - a rotten core in a rotten organization. The joke of the league.

Calgary - seem to be on the upswing, will be interesting to see who they hire as GM and what he chooses to do with the coach etc. moving forward. Could be the next great Canadian team but a lot has to go right in the next couple years. Cautious optimism.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

In Calgary's case (and I am generalizing here to include Oilers and Jets - which may not be 100% accurate, but I am guessing it was much the same), they cut their drafting and development budget substantially in an effort to stay afloat financially. They went from one of the best drafting (if not the very best drafting) team in the NHL, to one of the worst (possibly the very worst). You could see the immediate impact over subsequent years in their drafting records. I think that in hindsight, Calgary did very well in drafting and development GIVEN THEIR BUDGET (emphasis on budget here - they were poor at drafting, but I would bet that their dollars spent divided by number of NHL players drafted was actually pretty decent). They still managed to draft and develop enough legitimate NHL players - but not nearly enough to actually be much good. I think most NHL teams had between 8-10 scouts in North America alone at the time - Calgary had 1 full-time scout, and 2 part-time scouts when Darryl Sutter took over as GM.

Not only did their scouting department get cut, but the Flames shared their AHL affiliate with other NHL organizations through periods of their existence. I believe Carolina was the last team that Calgary shared their AHL affiliate with. They simply did not have a development program.

Great points concerning Calgary. It was great to see as many as eight Calgary Flames draft picks in the line up at times this season. There were times (going from memory here) that there where as little as one or two Flames picks in the line up during the Sutter years.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ultimately, location is just coincidence. Just as it was coincidence that a Canadian team reached the final three years in a row. Just as it is coincidence that all three California teams are ridiculously dominant.

When you get down to it, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto have generally incompetent management. Ottawa's taken a step back, and Calgary is at the nadir of a rebuild. In most cases, that's just bad personnel decision, which has no border.

It must be more than mere coincidence. A CDN team has not won the cup since 1993. One CDN team will make the playoffs this year (and MTL probably couldn't crack the top 8 in the West).

All things being equal, a CDN team should win the Cup 23.3 % of the time. I suppose a CDN team that won a few Cups in succession could put the law of averages back in order.

[CaptainCrunch]

The way I see it

Calgary

Strengths - Culture, work ethic, younger players have stepped up this year, coaching, top 3 blueliners, 2nd to fourth line and bottom four dline prospects, goaltending prospect depth
Weaknesses - Still lack the high end turn around the franchise prospects, depth , first line talent, goaltending only because we're early into that game.
Prognosis - Still a few years away, but depending on drafting and development could be a shorter rebuild then we thought

Vancouver

Strengths - top end talent, steady blueline
Weaknesses - Torts could be the wrong coach, aging core looks to be declining, offense all over the ice, depth past the top two pairings on the blueline and the top line up front, goaltending, prospect cupboard is pretty bare past their top couple of talents, their GM seems to be directionless
Prognosis - no matter what they do they're heading into the dark years, whether they embrace that or not is a big question

Winnipeg

Strengths - Have some exceptionally good young talent, have some nice prospects in the funnel
Weakness- Not a lot of depth, their goaltending has let them down, while Paul Maurice is a great coach, he just doesn't seem to be on his game. GM is too tentative
Prognosis - As their young players mature they might become that perennial 8 to 10 place team.

Toronto -

Strengths - Scoring, they have nice depth up front, they get some nice offense from the backside, Bernier is a good starter. They are a fairly young team that's positioned nicely for future success.
Weaknesses - Their prospect depth is terrible, their backup goalie situation is a disaster, Their coaching this year hasn't been good. Defensively as a blueline and a team they're as bad as the Oilers. They seem to have a complacent lineup that doesn't work hard. Poor mix of players that just isn't gelling. Phil Kessell is a great goalscore, stop end of story.
Prognosis - I believe they're going to be a team that has to change their chemistry and make up on the fly. Nonis is going to have to make a bold change or two. Too many big contracts might handcuff them down the road. I thin they are weak leadership wise. They're not serious contenders right now, and their fanbase is showing some impatience. They will be one of those teams that has to fight tooth and nail to make the playoffs as a lower seed and I don't see the strength or desire to do that.

Ottawa

Strengths - Good young lineup with lots of neat pieces throughout, They've got a very good coach with a long leash. They've got some players that are on the verge of breaking out. Very good long term prospect pool. Offensively really really explosive.
Weaknesses - Injuries and goaltending really derailed them this year, They're not overly tough or physical to play against. Alfredsson leaving left a major leadership vacuum. Defensively they are a disaster.
Prognosis - This was a team that should have stepped forward this year, but stepped way back, but their future still looks pretty bright. Another team that really needs to find an identity but there is no reason why they can't compete for a top spot in the east if they can fix their goaltending.

Montreal

Strengths - A bold GM, Great depth and a great puck moving blueline, they have gotten stellar goaltending and that should continue for a bit of time yet. They picked up some nice pieces at low costs, but could lose those pieces in the off season. Their blueline is very mobile and they have a philosphy based around puck movement and they do that well. They have a very deep prospect pool.
Weaknesses - I don't like their size, Subban hasn't been as good as last year. I don't know if they can compete in a long series against a big team. I think their coach is a moron and they win in spite of him
Prognosis - Right now the strongest Canadian team, and they should be able to continue that for a few years. Their GM has done an excellent job.

Edmonton

Strengths - They have a new building coming.Their jerseys are aerodynamically sound. Hair care and grooming with that team are through the roof. A cheerleading media pool
Weaknesses - Everywhere, first of all this is a team that had spent to the cap and emptied their prospect pool, they expected to compete this year. From senior management to coaching to ownership this is a directionless team with no identity. They have no depth past their top two line winger spots. All of their 6x6 young players have seriously regressed and look like they've given up. Their prospect pool is almost empty. I thought they had fixed their goaltending but Scrivens has fallen back to earth hard behind that blueline. This is a team with no identity and as much as I like Ferrence as a person, he's been a disaster as a captain. From the outside I can't think of many free agents who will want to sign there, nor will players waive their clauses to play there, that means change is going to be expensive if at all. The top end young guys appear to be either lazy or spoiled.
Prognosis - Grim, There are multiple wars happening with that franchise and even if they fire Eakins I doubt they can attract the type coach that they need as the franchise is a coach killer now. Lowe seems more concerned with winning the public relations battle then fixing things. Their prospect pool has become pretty uninspiring due to terrible player development and continually drafting first isn't going to fix that as Hall, Eberle, RNH, Yak and Schultz have all taken serious steps back and don't seem to actually want to win. This team could be a bottom feeder for 5 to 10 more years if they don't do a attitude adjustment with this franchise. Maybe the best move might be to trade one of Hall's best friends, but that could be seen as a reward to the traded player.

[PeteMoss]

Uh oh... even the Captain has given up on the Leafs

Lance Hornby ‏@sunhornby 1h
The Day The Music Died ... Randy Carlyle said there was a noticeable absence of loud dressing room tunes before today's sombre practice.

[Sylvanfan]

Let's face it....sign a couple UFA's, make a big trade and create some buzz about your team in the offseason and a Canadian team sells a lot of tickets before the season even starts. Edmonton has been one of the most active teams since the start of the season signing Gordon, and Ference and trading nearly every fringe player they can.

Fans have patience to deal with putting together a properly built roster, but I don't think the owners and management in these markets do. Rather than risk playing in front of 15,000 fans at the end of the year owners demand that their GM's try to create buzz to sell those extra 2000 tickets a game to make money that season.

Tambellini was doing nothing, letting things shape themselves...he got axed, mind you he changed his coach every year...another thing that seems to plague Canadian teams, the number of coaches they have all had in the last 10 years. The Flames get some okay pieces falling into place with Coates...he got axed...both times replacing these guys with first time GM's. So when they did fire one guy...they just kept replacing them with new inexperienced people.

GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs should be the primo job in the NHL...is Dave Nonis really the guy that should be doing that job?

Owners in Canada keep making stupid decisions with who they hire for management. I think Calgary bringing in Burke was a good move, hopefully they give him time and let him get the people he wants.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The one advantage the Canadian teams should have is being able to hire top notch management, coaching, and scouting. Not to mention the benifit of seeing CHL prospects play in your own rink in markets like Calgary and Edmonton. However, like you pointed out, the Canadian teams continually fall short when it comes to drafting.

Does the location and climate limit the potential for Canadian teams?

Given the overall poor drafting and development record of Canadian NHL teams over the last 15 years or so, I'm starting to wonder if even management and scouts who have a choice are reluctant to work in Canada. The climate, anonymity, and lifestyle in American markets could put Canadian franchises at a disadvantage even when hiring the off-ice NHL talent. And there's the spousal factor too - if you've lived and worked in the U.S. in your younger days, you probably have an American spouse. And we know how reluctant American women are to move to Canada.

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Fans have patience to deal with putting together a properly built roster, but I don't think the owners and management in these markets do.

Agreed. Canadian owners seem more acutely sensitive to pressures to win, and more likely to meddle in hockey operations, or pick GMs who will tell them what they want to hear ("we're only a couple pieces away..."). So there's greater temptation to quick fix problems with free agents and hasty trades, which is not the best strategy when you have to overpay to attract free agents because of the market.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

It must be more than mere coincidence. A CDN team has not won the cup since 1993. One CDN team will make the playoffs this year (and MTL probably couldn't crack the top 8 in the West).

All things being equal, a CDN team should win the Cup 23.3 % of the time. I suppose a CDN team that won a few Cups in succession could put the law of averages back in order.

Well, all things are not equal. Pretty much every Canadian team other than Toronto was at a major disadvantage throughout the mid and late 90s and early 2000s due to the dollar being so low. After the 04 lockout, three Canadian teams have reached the final in eight years, and two reached game 7. At present, there is an unusual concentration of terrible management north of the 49th. It will probably be a year or two before this equalizes out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I think it's a huge factor, especially for the Alberta teams. Those of us that live here think it's great, and it is for the common man. However, if you are a millionaire athlete, would you pick Calgary or Anahiem? Edmonton or Tampa Bay? Calgary or Manhattan? Edmonton or Chicago?

Also, someone posted on here that Brian Burke said that FA steer clear of Calgary because of the old building and the fact that the Flames don't have a dedicated practice facility. That is one thing that you would think the Flames and the Oilers could easily accomadate. Both teams have great revenue streams. Why wouldn't either of these teams build a practice facility?

I read an article a couple of years ago that said the average around the league was 15 scouts per team, 2-4 pro scouts, the rest amateur scouts.

Calgary had 11 scouts, and this was after they had expanded their scouting staff.

I believe the same reason they don't invest more heavily into the franchise is that they don't really feel the need. Good lease agreement, fans in the building, jersey's being sold.

I'm sure they want to win, but, winnings costs money whereas middle of the pack doesn't really.

I think part of the reason they don't invest in things like a practice facility etc is that they don't feel there is need. Either they don't think they can compete in free agency anyway, which might be a valid perspective, or they don't want to.

I think that too, is part of the culture of the organization that is changing. I'd say a new emphasis on team building excursions is part of that.

Edit: and it might be a big part of what CliffFletcher is saying about having a difficult time attracting the off-ice personnel as well as players. If you're not attracting personnel who are in touch with the cutting edge around the league and what that means, maybe no one is saying "uh, we should have a practice facility."

If you're running the organization more as a business than a hockey club, it could be easy to overlook details like that.

[Tinordi]

Teams don't build practice facilities because they provide zero marginal revenue. If you're a business are you have only so much money, you're going to use that money where it will return the greatest amount of dollars back. A practice facility provides you with no dollars back so it's basically a non-starter.

Now if you could entice some elected officials to build it for you then now you're talking...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Teams don't build practice facilities because they provide zero marginal revenue. If you're a business are you have only so much money, you're going to use that money where it will return the greatest amount of dollars back. A practice facility provides you with no dollars back so it's basically a non-starter.

Now if you could entice some elected officials to build it for you then now you're talking...

Not necessarily. A practice facility has a tangible benefit if it attracts good free agents which in turn leads to winning. Playoff games are a much bigger boost to bottom line growth have any other revenue stream as I see it.

It isn't frivolous and I don't think they see it as such. However, you're in the right ballpark when looking at ROI in that it's murky to know the answer, so they may assume minimal. Having a team with a winning tradition will do more to attract free agents than a practice facility, so it's likely on the back burner

[TjRhythmic]

I kind of look at post lockout, once the dollar evened out, and a cap was put in Canadian teams stopped being a feeder league for the bigger American teams.

Me personally I don't think it's so much management issues with the Canadian teams, some of it yes, but not so much. I think it's as simple as that there is more American teams then Canadian teams, so common sense says that American teams should and will win the cup more then Canadian teams

Same with drafting. The American teams have a better chance at drafting a top player because their is just more American teams.

I'm sure others have many fine points, but for me personally it's just numbers... More American teams, better chance of reaching the finals, winning the cup, and drafting top players.

No different then other sports. There is more elite American basketball players then Canadian because there is more Americans playing basketball then Canadian. Football, same thing.

Or, that it's easier to score 20 goals putting 200 shots on net, then it is putting 100 shots on net.

[sun]

Originally Posted by strombad

Well yeah, you did. I was just quoting you:




And these are pretty good as well:

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Having a team with a winning tradition will do more to attract free agents than a practice facility, so it's likely on the back burner

I don't think I have ever seen a free agent quote the practice facility as a reason for choosing a team.

Biggest reasons seem to be:

1.Money
2.Travel
3.Climate
4.Winning Team
5.Lifestyle/Family desires
6.Role on team

Money and travel seem to be the biggest deciding factors IMO. It explains why Boston, and the Rangers out draw the LA's and Anaheims in the free agent market.

[kevman]

I figure a lot of it has to do with pressure. Too much pressure from the fans and media in Canada for teams to succeed. Every little thing about players, management and the teams as a whole is scrutinized all day every day. I remember reading an interview from Shane Doan a few years ago and when asked whether he'd like to play in Canada he said "I love it here, I live on a giant ranch outside of town and get to live a normal life..." Outside of the Mike Richards and Jeff Carters of the NHL I think a lot of hockey players, like most people really, thrive and would rather play out of the lime light. You know, where they can have a 5 game slump and not be torn apart by every local media outlet and fan. Or where they can go out for dinner with their spouse and not end up on the front page of the paper.

That's not to say there are not rabid fans in the US it's just they're fewer and farther in between. Canadians put the weight of the world on our hockey teams and I believe they really suffer as a result.