Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Never the Fan’s Fault:

Bunk. Whatever the Leaf problems – and I don’t think they are as bad as the Toronto media makes out – none of them can be laid at the feet of the fan. The fan can’t do anything about the fact that corporations will buy all the tickets win or lose, and the fan can’t force the league to put another team in southern Ontario.

Furthermore, while the Leafs may make a ton of money with a mediocre team, they would make much more with a Stanley Cup Champion. Even if that was not the case, the hockey people hired want to win just as much as the hockey people in every other city. Perhaps more, simply because the pressure in that market is so unrelenting. Finally, I don’t think anyone can accuse the Leafs of being unwilling to invest. If anything they have been too willing to spend money over the years. They haven’t necessarily spent wisely, but they have spent.

I almost want to agree with Tom here, but there are a couple of problems with his assumptions here.

First problem: corporations may well buy most of the seats, but someone inside that corporation is making the decision to buy them and is allocating the money to pay for them. And that person is very likely a FAN, or they would be spending the money somewhere else. Corporate spending starts with a fan who decides to do the spending, because it’s a lot more fun to get their company to pay for the tickets than paying for them directly.

Second problem: there have been studies in baseball (I’ll try to find references, I don’t have them handy) that show that the MOST PROFITABLE teams tend to be teams with really strong fan bases who play .500ish baseball but never spend the money to go out and Win The Big One. Two words: Chicago Cubs.

And the Chicago Cubs are a great analogy for the Leafs, because of the real core of the second problem with what Tom says: it’s true that the hockey people hired want desperately to win — but the people that hire them want to make money. In Chicago, it’s the Tribune, in Toronto, it’s the Teacher’s Pension plan. And if you look at both organizations, the “Hockey people” and “baseball people” in management tend to turn over fairly frequently, because they come in thinking they can fix the organization, and they quickly learn that their bosses don’t really want them to, because it’d cost money….

I think you’re seeing similar problems with Sather in Edmonton — After years of buying in expensive free agents who didn’t perform well enough, he finally started to restructure the team towards home-built youth and good drafting, and you saw that team really improve. And this year? Way overpaid for some free agents and they’re struggling again. Back to the Good Old (or Bad Old) Rangers. Not because Sather went senile again, but, I think, because his uber-bosses told him they wanted “names” to market around, and that was more important than actually winning hockey games. New York is, after all, a Marquee city, and when you have a Marquee, you need Marquee names.

So I wouldn’t be suprised if Sather left New York fairly soon. He tried to fix the team, and then something made him go off and start buying expensive free agents again. I don’t think that was Sather’s idea, either, although he won’t say so.

Players Need to Take Responsibility:

“There’s always talk about a lack of respect [among NHL players],” Ference added, “but the biggest question is if guys understand how much trust is involved in playing hockey – trust between you and your opponent.

If you ask me, the “Players Need to Take Responsibility” mantra is bogus. The history of the league is full of players who’s career was based on not having respect for other players. Stop to think that of the old-timers who talk about “respect” and the “good old days” you have Bobby Clarke, the guy who once broke an opponent’s ankle on purpose, and Phil Esposito, who when he’s not talking about players needing to respect each other on XM radio, is telling stories of fondly remembered players from the old days who’s specialties included enthusiastic stickwork (especially to opponent’s groin area or head) and guys who used their elbows as weapons of mass destruction.

Now, having said that, respect between players is an important aspect of the game, but the reality is, there have always been a subset of players who’s job is was to “stir it up”, or disrupt the game — or simply didn’t care what happened to someone on the other team.

After all, esposito loves to talk about the Good Old Days when players on different teams didn’t talk to each other — and some who carry the grudge forward to today. And teams that has to take turns in the dining cars on the trains to avoid the inevitable fights.

When was the last time you heard about two NHL players fighting outside of a game environment, anyway? Yet for some reason, the old days had a higher level of respect than today does. Hmm. Selective memory, perhaps? Perhaps.

the problem isn’t respect, although that’s the word people are using. The problem is that there are (and always have been) players who’s job depended on them being willing to stretch (or ignore) the rules — and beyond that, we have to remember that the teams are judged based on winning, and players are giving jobs based on their willingness and ability to make teams win, and frankly a player that isn’t willing to do “whatever is necessary” to win is a player looking for a job. A player that puts “respect” above helping his team win is likely an ex-player.

That’s why the league gives out the Lady Byng with an embarassed smile every year. Because Sportsmanship is a nice concept, but winning games is what counts. And Sportsmanship often gets in the way of winning.

Now, I’m all for the NHLPA getting involved with teaching players to be more respectful (or more correctly, more AWARE) of the implications of the kinds of dirty hits going on — but until that kind of play hurts a team’s ability to win, this is all nudge-wink land. Players will talk the talk, teams will talk the talk, the league will talk the talk, and when the whistle blows and the game starts, players of marginal talent will go out and push the envelope (and yes, I’m talking about you, Jordin Tootoo) and if someone gets hurt, well, that’s someone else’s problem, because the alternative is Tootoo not having a job in the NHL (and an NHL paycheck).

So you can talk about players learning to respect each other — maybe Bobby Clarke can give a few lectures here — but until the league structures the rules and penalties so that it’s in the team’s best interest to “encourage” it’s players to cut it out, it’s simple: they won’t.

For the record: the Downie suspension is a great start. The league needs to keep it up. I’d also like to see the league suspend that roster spot, too. That would DEFINITELY get the team’s interest in a way simply suspending the player won’t. Once you do that, you can bet Coaches will get involved in “teaching respect” and GMs will be more careful to sign “respectful” players. Until then — it’s all talk, because if it helps your team win, then that’s what REALLY matters.

(and that’s frankly how it SHOULD be; which is why the rules and enforcement need to be structured so that the best way to win is to win with respect. If it’s not within the rules, it ain’t gonna happen)

KuklasKorner : Canucks and Beyond : Must NHL Players Be Puppets?:

In short, when a hockey player expresses a personal opinion that offends anybody at all, there’s an attitude that it should be kept behind closed doors; that he’s undermining the team somehow.

That’s because — well — it does. Or at least, can.

This subject really deserves a longer, deeper discussion, but I tend to think that people who don’t “get” this sort of thing didn’t spend much time in a locker room in a competitive league.

For a team to function to its potential, the members of that team have to buy into the idea of “what’s best for the team”. Think about some of the catch phrases you hear out of athletes and coaches all of the time: “I have my role”, “we have to follow the system”, “do what’s best for the team” etc.

That’s not just cliche (but it IS cliche, as well!) — it’s what makes a team work. Players have to commit to the best interests of the team OVER their own personal best interest. As a simple example, do you honestly think any sane player PREFERs laying down and blocking shots when they could be scoring goals? You really think fighters prefer playing six minutes a night and fighting?

So when a player then “breaks rank” (notice the military symbolism here — the dynamics of a sporting team and a military organization are quite similar here; both are structured so encourage individuals to bond with their team and work to the team’s ultimate benefit over personal benefit, on the assumption that the individuals gain benefit from the success of the team, for some larger good), what message is that sending? That this player isn’t part of the team, is above the team, hasn’t committed to the team.

Well, heck, that does kinda sound like Kovalev his entire career, no? Oh, never mind.

But speaking out can cause problems. If you think about it, even a noted loose cannon like Brett Hull tended to include himself is in commentary on the team (“we suck! Oh god, do we suck!”), but more so, he tended to speak at league issues and maintain the players vs. teams dynamic. And yes, Hull did get himself in deep, too, and not all of the teams he was on functioned well as a team. the question that would need to be asked was whether his public outbursts were because the team wasn’t committed to itself, or whether it caused that, and what might have been said privately before he chose to take it public.

When a player joins a team, he gives up part of his individual by committing it to the team. this is no different than what we do when we join a company and go to work for them, or share a life with a partner and family. There are things that you do within that group that you don’t splash over the pages of a newspaper or a blog. Ditto a hockey team. Or a football team. Or any team.

Kovalev shot his lip here, and screwed up. What he really did, and why he’s being criticized by his team, is show he’s not really committed to the team. This IS the kind of thing that gets hashed out in the locker room, not blabbed to a reporter — unless it’s one of the “spokesman” members doing so for a purpose, and Kovalev is definitely not someone the team has defined as “speaking for the team”.

But then, is anyone surprised that Kovalev isn’t on the same page as his teammates? Has he ever been?

But this isn’t about being a “puppet to the man” and toeing the league’s happy-happy line. It’s about committing to the team and your teammates. A functioning team is in many ways its own individual with its own personality, and members OF that team have to give up some of their own individuality to make the team function. And when they don’t, you have a room of individuals, not a team, and it’s a rare team that succeeds without that commitment.

On the Forecheck: Bouncing Balls – NHL Statistics, Analysis, and Opinion:

Thanks again to Richard Lawson at the Nashville Post, we have word that Jim Balsillie is still working hard to purchase the Nashville Predators, this time by sending a note to the Nashville Sports Authority that claims that if he owned the team, “the existing arena operating agreements will require no changes whatsoever unless they benefit the Authority and the residents of Nashville.”

Is this an effort to undermine the current Freeman/Nashville negotiations, or indeed a genuine change of heart on Balsillie’s part? His representative also wrote in that note,

Okay, anyone who thinks the Balsillie offer is on the up and up, please raise your hand. I have a bridge for sale. Cheap. One owner. Only drove it to church on sunday.

This offer is perfect for Balsillie’s long-term goal of getting this team to Hamilton. It’s designed to screw up the local ownership’s push for fixes to the deal by giving the local politicos an easy out for avoiding looking like they’re subsidizing the team to people who don’t want to invest in it. After all, Balsillie will take it without changes or subsidies.

Of course he will. it leaves him with a lease trivially easy to break in a year or so, after the “white knight” comes to the realization it’s not going to work. His protestations to try to make it work notwithstanding, he doesn’t have to screw this stuff up to make the lease breakable, he can do it merely by doing a good faith effort, suck up the losses for a couple of years, and then break the lease.

Given this second round in is something like $25m less in the price for the franchise? that’s a nice chunk of change he can invest in letting the team lose money, no? And in the end, the money he pputs in is about the same, but he has a free pass out of town.

His offer to bring in local owners? Sure — they’re just as easy to buy out again later. It’s nice eye candy, but it doesn’t mean anything.

And that assumes a few things.

First, it assumes that once he gets them to nuke the deal with the locals, he doesn’t come in and start negotiating. And what leverage do you have once the other owners get told to stuff it and leave?

Second, it presumes he’s actually going to follow through on his offers. What if he doesn’t? Or if he does them badly?

Third, it assumes the NHL will approve him as an owner. Given you can pretty much bet that Balsillie as an owner will someday lead to a lawsuit over moving the team to Hamilton, I think it’s far from given the NHL will let him join the club at this point.

We aren’t even talking about whether moving a team to Hamilton is good for the league. that’s an entirely different argument…

If Nashville falls for this gambit by Balsillie, they WILL lose the Predators. Maybe not for a couple of years, but they will. And they’ll deserve to. Now, with the other ownership group, will the Predators be saved? Maybe. Maybe not. But with Balsillie in the house, you KNOW you have no chance.

San Jose Mercury News – Sharks take early lead, hold off Canucks:

“Last night was the best I felt yet,” Roenick said after Friday’s practice of his 9:47 on the ice against Edmonton. “My body’s actually really good. The hands are what have to come. It’s controlling the puck and making moves and holding onto it.”

Roenick took note of the fact he was on a line with two of the speedier Sharks.

“It’s kind of ironic how the oldest guy is on the fastest line. I don’t know where they get those jet-pack skates yet. I haven’t found them. I’ve just the old-time skates that weigh three pounds each.”

Roenick sure seems to have come into camp with the right work ethic and attitude. He’s definitely winning me over, not just because he’s played pretty well (unlike the game I saw in pre-season), but because he’s handling it with, well, the classic and good side of Roenick. After scoring his two goals, he was interviewed on TV by Drew, who more or less asked “two goals? What about that?”

To which Roenick replied “Blind squirrels and acorns”.

So far, the sharks actually look pretty good, and Roenick may make it tough to get Setoguchi back in the lineup when healthy. I didn’t expect that. I’m not going to complain.

One thing I’m enjoying — Thornton said he was going to shoot more this season, and he is. His goal last night is a classic of this; you could see the Canucks settle back and protect the pass a bit, leaving him a lane to shoot, assuming he was going to dish it off. He lasered it off the post an in; Luongo had no chance (he really had no chance on all three goals, IMHO). Teams are going to have to figure this one out and stop cheating on the pass — and when they do, expect Cheechoo’s goal numbers to take off, also.

I’m not exactly sure how you can defend someone who can shoot that accurately if you give him a little time, and pass as well as he does if you try to get in his face and pressure. I’m going to enjoy watching teams try.

OH, and sorry, Alanah. Really.

(heh)

Update: I was sent email by someone who says that this was, in fact, discussed and agreed to by the board of governers and in her words, “passed almost unanimously”; which may, if true, imply something like “passed except for MSG”. Assuming this info is correct, and I believe it is, then MSG is in the wrong here by choosing to litigate to override the majority decision. It also implies:

1) Larry Brooks is wrong, which is, of course, unprecedented. Probably because he got his information from MSG sources and didn’t verify it. Probably because it fits his biases anyway…

2) I’m an idiot for using Larry Brooks as a source, especially without verifying the information with Al Strachan.

I”m going to let this simmer a bit and think through the implications, probably write a new piece later. But Im’ going to leave this one alone, with this update, rather than rewrite it, since I think it has a lot of interesting info in it as is.

HockeyNation:

n fact, Brunt may have published a primer on Tuesday for the Commissioner to study, featuring a couple of troubling developments for the league bureaucracy to examine and sort out. Some percolating issues, which try as he might, don’t appear to be on the verge of going away any time shortly.

In his Globe and Mail column on Tuesday, Brunt examined the state of the league as they prepare to drop the puck on another chase for Lord Stanley’s mug. His findings show that the league is doing quite well in Canada, where the suddenly skyrocketing loonie is making for a cash flow bonus that provides for more dollars in the Canadian franchise treasuries, while the southern teams begin to feel the pain.

Included in his column on Tuesday were a couple of interesting brush fires that have flared up this week for the league to address. The on again/off again saga of the Nashville Predators sale seems to have moved into the death throes again this week. As the new council in the Nashville area, has not smiled beneficially on some of the “changes” that the Preds would like to make to such things a lease arrangements and other financial subsidies that the city is underwriting to keep the Preds part of the Nashville scene.

Brunt also examined the washing of some dirty laundry heading into opening night, examining a Larry Brooks story for the New York Post, which reported that Madison Square Garden chief executive officer James Dolan has been busy blasting the league office for incompetent handling of the NHL brand. Dolan who seems to enjoy controversial roles these days, took time out from the legal woes that have befallen MSG to drop a little diversionary bomb at the doorstep of Gary Bettman.

Dolan believes the Rangers do a far better job selling their product in all of its permutations than the league ever could. Said Doolan, “we believe that the league continues to squander opportunities to improve our business and solidify and grow our fan base.” He pulled out some interesting numbers to back his case, recounting how some 93 per cent of the NHL overall revenue (up from 91 per cent before the lockout) is generated by the teams, with only 7 per cent generated by the league.

In effect, he’s probably wondering what the NHL office is doing to not only justify its existence to improve the game on a wider agenda.

(Continued from part 1….)

The MSG lawsuit is fascinating me. The one question I had I couldn’t find an answer to until Larry Brooks documented was this: did the Board of Governors approve this centralization of the web sites? Or did Bettman initiate this on his own? If it was the former, then the MSG lawsuit is groundless — but it turns out, from reading what Brooks said, that Bettman was given a charter by BoG to work on extending league revenues, this seems to be something added to the plan without formal approval (to quote brooks: ” Slap Shots also has been told that while Bettman had been granted previous authority by the Board to proceed with the league’s business plan, the commissioner has proceeded to implement and expand the plan without the necessary vote that would allow him to do so. “).

I think MSG has a point. A big one.

Excuse me while I set the wayback machine to, well, way back. About 1994. Laurie and I had a meeting with some people folks from the Sharks to show them a neat new technology — something called a browser and a web site. We felt that as the team “in silicon valley” one way to get involved with and connect with the region was to be an innovator in technology. They were very interested. And yes, we were hoping we could get involved and help them innovate. As it turned out, they did get going, but in a different part of the organization, and with a different group working for them. In retrospect, that was great for us (our year doing the web geeking for the IHL SF Spiders, and working with the folks who did the same for the Ice Dogs, cured me), but at the time, we weren’t quite so sanguine. And to be honest — I don’t think the Sharks have ever innovated here, or taken a leadership role in the league. Other teams, especially the Capitals, have done more, sooner. THAT bothers me, because I think it’s an opportunity lost for the Sharks, not just in growing into the regional community and business economy, but it was an opportunity for the Sharks to build influence and help set agendas inside the league and board of governors, and I think they missed it. They ended up being followers, not leaders here. (memo to San Jose Sharks web staff: that freaking LANDING PAGE is so 1999. Please, please, please, kill it. thank you)

Of course, we also have to remember that the Sharks MAIN purpose in life is to win hockey games, so keep that in perspective. I do — now.

When we were working for the Spiders, we spent most games with the staff; the management team came from the Warriors, so they had a lot of experience from the NBA. At the time, the NBA had been doing what the NHL is doing now: centralizing control in league offices, to the point where the league had final say on how a team could use its own logo. This follows the lead of the NFL, where frankly, you can’t sneeze without league office approval.

This works for the NFL, since the NFL is in reality a league driven by common revenues shared out to the teams — thank the glass teat for that. Every other league has wanted to tie into that glass teat, too, with better or worse success. Right now, bluntly, I wouldn’t be looking to the NBA as a model for how to run a sports league.

We tended to talk sports business a LOT during those games — it’s long been an interest of ours (Laurie’s MBA is in Sports Management involving financing stadium upgrades), and let’s face it, the hockey pretty much sucked…. And the league centralization was one of the topics, because of what the NBA was doing. you can imagine, by the way, how popular it was among the team organizations…

So now here we are a decade or so later, and the NHL’s following down that path, too. the web site is just one facet of this — you can also see the fingers of central control in the new jersey designs, and I don’t think it’s a good thing. But that, as Alton Brown would say, is another show.

Personally, I think it’s very important for the league to take ownership of league-wide issues, and that includes league marketing and promotion. you can’t depend on the teams to do what’s in the best interest of the league. I also think it’s useful for the league to have a central set of services — including web sites — that act as sort of a “minimum level of acceptability” for teams uninterested or unwilling to invest in their own systems. Give them a default setup they can plug and chug for the cheapskates and the incompetents, so the league doesn’t look stupid because of bad implementations by their franchises.

You know, the new web sites? the centralized stuff? It’s — OKAY, I guess — but man, it’s so damn generic.

But the MSG situation isn’t that. We’re now getting into the problem of whether the league can prevent from going beyond generic lowest-common-demominator web site, and whether teams can market their own way above and beyond what the league is doing.

The league is now saying “no, we’re in charge”, and MSG is saying “oh, f— you”. I’m with MSG here. If this issue had been hashed out by the Board of Governors and the plan voted forward, I’d be backing the NHL — they might be wrong, but they chose this path, and I’d say give it a shot and see what happens. But instead, if Brooks is correct, this is being implemented based on what can only be called feature creep of a more general mandate. And this kind of issue is too important NOT to have been talked through at the BoG level and there have been a formal buyoff.

Because we’re not talking about web sites here. We’re talking about who’s in charge. The league office — of which Bettman is the head — is now going to the teams and declaring they’re in charge, and that the teams have to do it the league way. I have no problem when this is involving league-wide intiatives and marketing, but to take the next step and start telling teams they can’t go beyond those league initiatives? I have a real problem there.

It’s one thing for the league to set minimum standards and policies, and work with the lesser teams to come up to those standards. It’s another when the league starts taking the progressive teams and pulling them back and preventing them from innovating or excelling. It’s almost like a classroom where the smart kids are told to quit reading extra, or ahead, or doing extra homework, so that everyone gets the same grades in the end. Phht.

So I’m with MSG here. Teams should be in control of the team marketing message and destiny — and the web site is a crucial aspect of that. To me, it looks like Bettman is exceeding his granted authority by attaching new initiatives to an old business plan, and frankly, I don’t see that this is something that is good for the NHL; it’s a power play to centralize power in the league, and the NHL has traditionally been a league powered by the teams, not by the league office. While I think having the teams run it creates its own set of problems (ask Hamilton fans about it!) Bettman seems to be willing to force the league into a generic mediocrity in the name of centralizing power in the league office (i.e., him).

What’s going to be REALLY fascinating is figuring out who’s going to fall on which side of this battle. At first approximation, this is going to be big team vs. small team; the high-revenue teams will support MSG for obvious reasons, and the less successful teams that depend on revenue sharing will likely back Bettman. But I doubt it’s that simple in the details, and this could well turn into a flash point that may determine Bettman’s future as commissioner. The issue of team control vs league control is a sensitive one, a true minefield, and only time will tell whether Bettman has the map to negotiate that minefield properly here, or whether he’s going to step in it.

That it’s actually gone public and turned into a lawsuit? that alone indicates to me this has gotten really serious; these are things handled privately in back rooms. that it hasn’t been indicates that MSG is ready for a fight, and thinks it has backing among other teams to win. And if Bettman KNEW he was going to lose, he’d have cut a deal. So my gut tells me right up front the Board of Governors is divided and it’s too close to call.

And I’m wondering what the worst case scenario here would be. Can you imagine, for instance, this getting to the point where MSG says the hell with it and sells the team?

I can. And so Bettman better tread warily here. The big-revenue teams have this tendency to trod on the league and dictate policy at the smaller revenue teams — but then, the top five teams or so are the ones making the finances of the league fly, and so they SHOULD be able to have more sway. but in this case, I think those teams are right.

We’ll see. but I’ll bet most fans are watching the Nashville situation and thinking that’s the big problem. And I’ll bet Bettman hopes they continue. Here is where the real fight is, kids. Adn the gloves are off.

HockeyNation:

n fact, Brunt may have published a primer on Tuesday for the Commissioner to study, featuring a couple of troubling developments for the league bureaucracy to examine and sort out. Some percolating issues, which try as he might, don’t appear to be on the verge of going away any time shortly.

In his Globe and Mail column on Tuesday, Brunt examined the state of the league as they prepare to drop the puck on another chase for Lord Stanley’s mug. His findings show that the league is doing quite well in Canada, where the suddenly skyrocketing loonie is making for a cash flow bonus that provides for more dollars in the Canadian franchise treasuries, while the southern teams begin to feel the pain.

Included in his column on Tuesday were a couple of interesting brush fires that have flared up this week for the league to address. The on again/off again saga of the Nashville Predators sale seems to have moved into the death throes again this week. As the new council in the Nashville area, has not smiled beneficially on some of the “changes” that the Preds would like to make to such things a lease arrangements and other financial subsidies that the city is underwriting to keep the Preds part of the Nashville scene.

Brunt also examined the washing of some dirty laundry heading into opening night, examining a Larry Brooks story for the New York Post, which reported that Madison Square Garden chief executive officer James Dolan has been busy blasting the league office for incompetent handling of the NHL brand. Dolan who seems to enjoy controversial roles these days, took time out from the legal woes that have befallen MSG to drop a little diversionary bomb at the doorstep of Gary Bettman.

Dolan believes the Rangers do a far better job selling their product in all of its permutations than the league ever could. Said Doolan, “we believe that the league continues to squander opportunities to improve our business and solidify and grow our fan base.” He pulled out some interesting numbers to back his case, recounting how some 93 per cent of the NHL overall revenue (up from 91 per cent before the lockout) is generated by the teams, with only 7 per cent generated by the league.

In effect, he’s probably wondering what the NHL office is doing to not only justify its existence to improve the game on a wider agenda.

(part one of a long piece on these two issues facing Bettman — Nashville and the MSG lawsuit…. Stay tuned for part 2)

Over in baseball-land, there have been fans calling for Selig’s head since he was named commissioner; baseball has, much to their dismay, simply ignored them and continued to follow Selig, and has shown really nice financial numbers and seems to be doing well. Challenges? Yes, such as the steroid issue — but all in all, baseball’s doing pretty well (and I say that as a “not a Selig fan” person).

Which is a good reminder who the Commissioner works for. Fay Vincent’s failing was that he actually thought he represented the fans, and his real bosses wouldn’t put up with it forever.

Ditto Bettman. But in this case, it’s not so clear how his support with the bosses is going. but I felt I had to point out right up front that the commissioner isn’t working for the fans, unless doing things for the fans fits the larger agenda. They never have, never will.

Now, having said that… To me, the Nashville “problem” isn’t. Bettman has made his position clear on this up front, and it’s the same position he’s had with other teams (Pittsburgh, and for those with shorter memories, Edmonton during the worst of the exchange rate crisis) that were at risk of moving. The league position is simple: you do whatever you can to keep a team from moving, until it’s clear it’s not going to work. At that point, you figure out where to move the team.

the “new ownership problem” is really not Bettman’s problem. It’s Leopold, the owner of Nashville. Let’s not forget that Leopold negotiated with Balsillie in secret, hiding it from the league until there was an agreement in place. Why? Because both sides knew the league wouldn’t support what they intended to do, which was move it to Hamilton, and Balsillie wanted to get the PR machine going to try to force Bettman’s hand. Didn’t work.

Now, Leopold’s trying to work out a deal with a local “white knight” group (which actually includes a major backer of the Kansas City group — that should have told you up-front how strong the Nashville group’s finances were, folks). For those with short memory, we’ve done this before, in a town called Winnipeg. We went through the love/hate live/die cycle with the Jets, with a local group coming in to buy and “save” the team, going to government for help in making it financially viable, and finding out, ultimately, that it wasn’t going to happen.

Now, the same is happening in Nashville. And we’re now seeing the government say “well, maybe not”. That particular game of chicken isn’t over, but it looks really unlikely that the prospective owners will get what they want. I expect the deal to fall apart.

None of this is really Bettman’s fault, much as the Canadian press loves to pillory him (THAT is an essay for another time; I’m getting pretty damn tired of the Canadian press whining about hockey in America and ripping on Bettman for his sin of — gasp — not being Canadian. Pretty much everything else about why they hate him falls from that fact, folks).

This is business. It’s how these things work. Bettman is letting the people of Nashville decide if they (a) want the Predators, and (b) are willing to pay full price to keep them. Don’t forget: Leopold’s been subsidizing that team heavily since inception; the region’s gotten the team at a discount (not unprecedented, the Sharks have lost some money every season also — it comes down to how much and whether the ownership is willing and able to do it). Now, we’re trying to find out if the Predators are viable in the town, and whether fans will support them at a ticket price that’s going to support the team. Neither, frankly, seems to be true.

What you end up with once this process is done (painful for fans, but typical for business situations, actually. and let’s not forget, this is a business based on the game of hockey), you’ll have a lame duck team in Nashville, and no fight by the region to keep them. They were given their best shot, fair and square, and it didn’t work. To a good degree, all of this is a vaccination against lawsuits and all of the legal pain a team move might cause — because Leopold and the league can point and say “we tried!” — and they did. Balsillie would have had a much harder time of it, by the way, but was willing to simply throw money, guns and lawyers at it to make it work, and be damned with the PR. the NHL isn’t quite so — straightforward.

Now, officially, Bettman has no “plan B”, he’s working on saving the team for Nashville, as he did in Edmonton, as they tried (and failed) in Winnipeg and Quebec, due mostly to currency exchange problems. Unofficially, I’ll bet the Kansas City move is already being talked about — informally.

The rest is just letting the process finish out, which, since lawyers and contracts and PR and governments are all involved, has to happen. Fan response in Nashville seems to be hovering around “well, it was fun while it lasted”, so I expect this is the last year for Nashville in Nashville.

I’m not surprised. If you look at how Winnipeg went down, it was a very similar way. White knights riding in on armored horses, only to, well, have to think about it once they see the size of the dragon. Public displays of loyalty by fans, drives to buy tickets. Lots of theater — but theater doesn’t change the financial reality, and eventually the real part happens when the people who write the checks (the current owner, new prospective owners, arena and local governmetns) sit down to talk money. And frankly, you probably could have guessed this — if Leopold could have found a way to make this work, he would have. And didn’t. He’s not a bad owner. In fact, he’s one hell of an owner and the NHL really is going to lose a good one when he moves on.

So nobody should be surprised that since he didn’t get it done, nobody else is going to, either. And Bettman has very little role in all of this, except to take the criticism of Canadian journalists and of bloggers looking for someone to blame. But then, that’s his job, to take the bullet for the board of governors while they pull the primary strings.

continued in part 2…..

Time for me to make a fool of myself, although we won’t have firm evidence for at least a few weeks…. Time for me to predict the season.

First, the western conference:

None of last year’s playoff teams really got worse, and this is going to make the west a tough conference again. I’m predicting 95 points to make the playoffs at all.

Division winners:

Central: Detroit (and most points in the west, and president’s trophy)
Pacific: San Jose (2nd seed)
Northwest: Vancouver (third seed)

is it possible for only one team in the central to make the playoffs? Probably not. St. Louis is better, but not a playoff team. Chicago is better, too, but not this year. Nashville, I worry that the ownership issues will get in the way. And I’m not convinced Columbus is good. But changes are, one other team will put it together and make a late spot. Since I’m rooting ofr them, I’ll choose the Blues in 8th.

4th seed: Anaheim
5th: Dallas
6th: Colorado
7th: Los Angeles
8th: St. Louis

Right now, who comes out of the west is a pick’em among Detroit, San Jose, and Anaheim. It depends entirely on who gets lucky and who stays healthy and who avoids the traps each team has:

Detroit: will hasek stay healthy? If not….

San jose: will they work out the consistency problems? Will Navokov perform to expectations? Will Cheechoo bounce back?

Anaheim: Guigiere? and when will Niedermeyer come back? Selanne too, probably.

I have an issue about players who sit out until mid-season or later and then roll in for the playoffs; Forsberg made it work, and I expect Niedermeyer will do something similar. If Selanne doesn’t retire, he’ll come back later, too; I’m guessing both will rejoin Anaheim at some point, or they’d have formally hung it up. And they’ll be fresh for the playoffs, and taht’s scary.

Now, I don’t think this is fair for the fans or the game, but it’s legal, and if you’re good enough, you obviously can get away with it. I hope the practice doesn’t expand, but you can see advantages for teams, too — salary cap savings and better play in the playoffs when others are tired. Now, should this be changed? Can it? I think it’s something the league needs to think about and monitor. I’m torn, personally. maybe there’s some date beyond which if you aren’t on the roster, you have to clear waivers to join in? Or maybe if a team and player can actually pull this off, we should congratulate them.

but I don’t think the fans are getting a fair shake. And I worry we’ll start seeing older, key players turn this into the hockey equivalent of the designated hitter. And how do you explain it to that player who spent four months busting his butt for the team, to be dropped from the lineup when the stud decides he’s ready to play?

urgh. It’s always something…

Anyway, eastern conference:

Atlantic: Pittsburgh
Northeast: Ottawa (2nd)
Southeast: Washington (3rd)

again, it turns into a crapshoot quickly. I like what the capitals have done — and they play in a pretty weak conference. It’ll help, but they’ll be a lot better, too. No gimmee.

I’m guessing 90 points to make the playoffs.

4th seed: Buffalo — they won’t suck as much as some buffalo fans worry.
5th seed: NY Rangers
6th seed: New Jersey
7th seed: Boston
8th seed: Carolina

I like the Senators to come out of the east this year, personally. But Ottawa or the Rangers might make it intersting. I keep waiting for Martin Brodeur to get hurt or get human, but it may not matter, the rest of the team isn’t as impressive as it has been.

And right now, if I had to bet, I’d bet the Sharks to take the cup. It’s what I do. But there are easily six teams that can take it depending on luck and happenstance, and I wouldn’t be disappointed. Much.

San Jose Mercury News – Team looking forward to full-strength Rivet:

His illness was mentioned in passing after he was traded to the Sharks in February because the illness had forced him to miss his last nine games with the Montreal Canadiens.

But once he got to San Jose? Rivet played and the assumption was he had recovered.

Not so.

“I was never healthy, not in the slightest,” Rivet said. “As time went on, it just got a little worse and worse. The energy level and strength wasn’t there. It took a lot out of me.”

Rivet, a steadying influence on a young defense, still showed the Sharks enough to be rewarded with a four-year, $14 million contract. Now that he has finally gotten past the sickness, Rivet is eager to demonstrate his full capabilities.

“When I first got here, I jumped right into the fire and tried to do the best I could to help the team compete,” Rivet said. “But now I feel great and I’m looking forward to starting the season healthy.”

Rivet is a vocal, assertive presence on the ice – a good thing for the Sharks, who are still youthful on defense with
Advertisement
regulars such as Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Christian Ehrhoff and Matt Carle.

I seem to be the only person not worried about the Sharks blueline this year. Not taking anything away from Scott Hannan, but in the context of the Sharks, replacing him with Rivet is an upgrade.

No, Rivet is not as strong defensively but the Sharks weakness on the defense last season, and in past seasons, was the lack of offense from the blueline, to the point that Patrick Marleau spent power play time there last year.

I will happily give up some “stay at home” minutes for an upgraded power play, and that’s what we’ve done. Hannan and McLaren play very similar styles, solid shut-down guys. Given the rest of our talent on the blueline, we really didn’t need both; McLaren brings more size and physical play, but I won’t call him the “better” guy — very closely matched, actually.

Rivet should also be a useful advisor to the kids on how to grow their offensive potential — no offense to Robb Zettler or anyone else on the Sharks, but until you get to Doug Wilson himself, it’s hard to find someone in the organization who knows how to score from the blueline to coach the kids — and I think that’s shown in past season. Rivet is going to be a help for guys like Carle and Vlasic.

With Davison as the 6th defenseman, I think we’ll be fine. I can think of a lot of teams wishing they were worried about someone like Davison being their 6th Dman; as long as Vlasic and Carle play decently, we’ll be fine. If they don’t, Hannan wouldn’t be the solution anyway.

throw in Doug Murray as a 7th guy, and wild card Sandis “Sandis! No!” Ozolinsh — who knows what’s going to happen there, but make him your 8th guy and go for a ride.. That’s not a bad group to open the season with, and if Davison and Murray don’t prove up to the task the Sharks have cap space to go get someone to fill in the gap.

The big knock on both: foot speed, but Davison makes up for it with some ability to predict the play, and Murray makes up for it with an immense physical presence — don’t ever get near him with your head down, not even in a restaurant). Either one could be a 12 minute a night guy, and I noticed the Sharks working with Davison on penalty kill in pre-season. If the Sharks helped him gain half a step, he’ll be fine.

I know some fans argued the sharks needed to get someone in the off-season (I was a bit surprised they didn’t go for Souray, but then, lots of teams didn’t, and he signed later than expected, for less than expected, with an unexpected team, so something seems to have scared teams off that the press didn’t know about (wow. unprecedented). Maybe his agent had bad breath or something…). That goes against the general philosophy of the Sharks, though, which is to grow from within. Your prospects need to know they have a legitimate chance to make the team, and you don’t do that if you’re constantly going over them by bringing in outsiders to fill the roster.

So instead, if you have someone you think can do it — let them play, but maintain the ability to be flexible based on how things work out. Davison and Murray both have done the black aces thing, without complaint, without whining. Reward them and see what happens. If it works, great. If not, the Sharks have options — AND it means everyone down in Worchester hoping to make the team will feel they have a real chance to do so, and that makes them better, more motivated players. Compare that to a team like the Leafs, where prospects pretty much can guess their best shot at an NHL job is as part of a trade to another team…

So for me, I’m headed into the season very happy. Now, all the Sharks need to do is execute to potential and stay healthy…

update: I realize I wrote the above while completely forgetting about Alexei Semenov. He’s starting the season on the IR with a funky back, but that’s another piece to the depth puzzle that gives the Sharks more options.. (hat tip: Sharkspage)