I\'m just tired of hearing....

[hockeyislife]

How Gary Bettman is ruining hockey.

Why does everyone blame him for everything that is wrong in hockey? Do people really think that he controls the league and what it does?

Bettman is the commissioner of the NHL; the day to day face that we see. His job is to represent the owners of the NHL. He doesn\'t make rule changes. He doesn\'t implement policy. He doesn\'t move franchises from Canada to the US.

What he does is do what the owners want and what they tell him to do. That\'s his job. That\'s the job of the commissioner in any sport.

So really, if we want to blame people for the current state of the game, or why Canada won\'t be getting another franchise any time soon, put the blame where it belongs.

[doulos]

After watching some great playoffs almost from start to finish (perhaps with the exception of the third round) I think hockey is as exciting and interesting as it has been in a long time.

Some great storylines, marketable athletes and a lot of fun. I can\'t ask for too much more then that as a fan (well except a Stanley Cup for my Oilers, but let\'s get real...)

[The Comish]

Yeah, but he\'s sooooooo easy to hate. No hockey background. Lawyer. Always looks smug and arrogant. Always spinning happy lies about the health of the NHL and it\'s franchises in the face of ownership problems and teams losing money hand over fist.

You\'re not wrong...entirely. I think his US strategy was too ambitious and expansion happened far too quickly. This league would be better served with 24 teams, that way each one would be more talented.

Set the upper cap at $100M, we all know you can\'t buy a Stanley Cup winning team (can\'t force chemistry on hockey players), see the NY Rangers for details. This way, teams can keep a team together if they want and actually make hockey trades instead of making financial transactions and employing capologists. We might even have a legitimate dynasty again, a team all the others fans absolutely hate, but respect, ala Islanders, Oilers and Canadiens teams.

[doulos]

Yeah if he had an NHL09 player he would have a really high slimy rating.

[wpggrown]

hockeyislife wrote:

How Gary Bettman is ruining hockey.

Why does everyone blame him for everything that is wrong in hockey? Do people really think that he controls the league and what it does?

Bettman is the commissioner of the NHL; the day to day face that we see. His job is to represent the owners of the NHL. He doesn\'t make rule changes. He doesn\'t implement policy. He doesn\'t move franchises from Canada to the US.

What he does is do what the owners want and what they tell him to do. That\'s his job. That\'s the job of the commissioner in any sport.

So really, if we want to blame people for the current state of the game, or why Canada won\'t be getting another franchise any time soon, put the blame where it belongs.

Thank you for posting this!
I felt compelled to write the exact same thing on tsn.ca today after reading all the stupid posts .

I also posted how you just can\'t pick up and move a team without it affecting the whole league in regards to divisions, div-rivalries, scheduling, and team travel. Balsille is trying to force a team, and it seems like many fans just can\'t grasp how much this move will affect the other franchises.

On a side note, what\'s with all the conspiracy theorists lately? \'Bettman wants his golden child to win\', \'the league wants pittsburgh to win\' , \'the refs have money on pitts\', etc.? It\'s unreal!

[lanky]

The Comish wrote:

Yeah, but he\'s sooooooo easy to hate. No hockey background. Lawyer. Always looks smug and arrogant. Always spinning happy lies about the health of the NHL and it\'s franchises in the face of ownership problems and teams losing money hand over fist.

You\'re not wrong...entirely. I think his US strategy was too ambitious and expansion happened far too quickly. This league would be better served with 24 teams, that way each one would be more talented.

Set the upper cap at $100M, we all know you can\'t buy a Stanley Cup winning team (can\'t force chemistry on hockey players), see the NY Rangers for details. This way, teams can keep a team together if they want and actually make hockey trades instead of making financial transactions and employing capologists. We might even have a legitimate dynasty again, a team all the others fans absolutely hate, but respect, ala Islanders, Oilers and Canadiens teams.

there have been dynasties since those three...

what about detroit?

new jersey?

even in the cap world, teams can be successful year after year. They just have to avoid making stupid decisions. The dynasties of the old days were built on the backs of 5-6 guys on each of those teams with the rest being role players... smart/well run teams can do the same setup today. Look at the following examples:

Washington: w - ovechkin/semin, c - backstrom, d - green, g - varlamov
Pittsburgh: c - crosby/malkin, d - gonchar/letang, g - fleury
Detroit: c - datsyuk, w - zetterberg, d - lidstrom/rafalski
Anaheim: c - getzlaf, w - perry/ryan, d - pronger

i could go on and on... each team signs their core players to long term deals and fills in the cracks with role players... this is very similar to how things were done with past dynasties... the core was established, and role players were added to achieve continued success.

The same can be done whether there\'s 12 or 30 teams.

(for the record, i think that the league expanded to expeditiously as well... the NHL should have been much more deliberate and responsible with their expansions).

[The Comish]

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/htmlt.../dyntm00.shtml

I guess it depends on your definition of dynasty. Mine jives with the NHL\'s version. Check out the link above, no dynasties since the Oilers five Cups in six years.

Just for a comparison:

The Oilers from 1983-84 to 1989-90 had six Hall of Famers (7 if you include Sather).

The Islanders had five Hall of Famers (7 if you include Arbour and Torrey)

The Canadiens from 1975-76 to 1978-79 had NINE Hall of Famers (11 if you include Bowman and Pollock)

Compare that to the New Jersey Devils three Stanley Cups from 1994-95 to 2002-03. So far, Only Scott Stevens and Brodeur (plus Lamoriello) is a lock to go to the Hall, plus Fetisov and Larionov played for one of the Cup seasons are also in the Hall.

The Red Wings Cup success has been too spread out to be considered a dynasty, but their long term success is to be admired.

Even your Washington Capitals, how many Hall of Famers do you see on that team? Ovechkin? Sure. Backstrom? Meh, too early to tell. Semin? Unlikely. Green, too early to tell. Okay Fedorov, but it looks like he\'s already bolted for Mother Russia.

Even Pittsburgh. Crosby, Malkin, sure. Gonchar, maybe. Fleury, Staal, not likely. Anyone else seem Hall worthy? Nope. No dynasty potential here.

If Detroit wins this year, then based on last year\'s win, have a slight chance at a three-peat, but as you so astutely pointed out, Hossa is most definitely gone due to cap constraints. As a fan, I hate that.

The cap makes it impossible to have a dynasty. Impossible.

[STONE.]

The Comish wrote:

Set the upper cap at $100M, we all know you can\'t buy a Stanley Cup winning team (can\'t force chemistry on hockey players), see the NY Rangers for details.

The Rangers had one of the highest payrolls in the league the year they won it (1994)...

...and during the Wings\' run in the late 90s and early 2000s, they had one of the highest payrolls in the league as well (almost 27 million over the league average in 01-02).

Money doesn\'t guarantee Cups, but increases the odds immensely.

[pensfan]

The Comish wrote:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/htmlt.../dyntm00.shtml

I guess it depends on your definition of dynasty. Mine jives with the NHL\'s version. Check out the link above, no dynasties since the Oilers five Cups in six years.

Just for a comparison:

The Oilers from 1983-84 to 1989-90 had six Hall of Famers (7 if you include Sather).

The Islanders had five Hall of Famers (7 if you include Arbour and Torrey)

The Canadiens from 1975-76 to 1978-79 had NINE Hall of Famers (11 if you include Bowman and Pollock)

Compare that to the New Jersey Devils three Stanley Cups from 1994-95 to 2002-03. So far, Only Scott Stevens and Brodeur (plus Lamoriello) is a lock to go to the Hall, plus Fetisov and Larionov played for one of the Cup seasons are also in the Hall.

The Red Wings Cup success has been too spread out to be considered a dynasty, but their long term success is to be admired.

Even your Washington Capitals, how many Hall of Famers do you see on that team? Ovechkin? Sure. Backstrom? Meh, too early to tell. Semin? Unlikely. Green, too early to tell. Okay Fedorov, but it looks like he\'s already bolted for Mother Russia.

Even Pittsburgh. Crosby, Malkin, sure. Gonchar, maybe. Fleury, Staal, not likely. Anyone else seem Hall worthy? Nope. No dynasty potential here.

If Detroit wins this year, then based on last year\'s win, have a slight chance at a three-peat, but as you so astutely pointed out, Hossa is most definitely gone due to cap constraints. As a fan, I hate that.

The cap makes it impossible to have a dynasty. Impossible.

A couple points on this - first, you are comparing modern hockey, which we can all agree is a diluted talent pool, with the \'golden age\' when there was more skill for each team. Without doing the math I would suspect that 4 or 5 HOFers in your lineup today is equivalent to 7-8 back then. When all is said and done the Penguins (just randomly picked a team ) could be a dynasty...time will tell if some of these second teir players can push themselves into the HOF - I would say it is too early to tell if Staal, Fleury & Letang have what it takes but if a couple of them do then the Pens would certainly have the talent to be considered a dynasty. They are also not done winning...so in 3 years lets revisit this - it is much easier to look to the past and point out a dynasty than it is to look to the future to find one...