The good ol' hockey game

Well, it might not have been a pretty one, but I will take the win. Well fought on both sides, and hey, it's Boston-Montreal - if you don't walk away upset with something and didn't have your blood boiling during the game at least once, then you probably aren't a fan.

 

Hahaha, oh man, that was great Oli, thanks for the laugh. Embellishments aside (yes PK, we are all looking at you), the first thing I thought when I heard that press conference was, "Doesn't this guy know that Marchand is on his team?"

And in the face of all that, I really didn't think it was that bad last night. Obviously Julien is going to be angry, but I didn't see any extreme one-sidedness on calls either way.

 

I am disappointed Prust is going to be out for two weeks, but figured something like that after seeing the injury last night. He brings a lot of the size and grit that has been really lacking on the team for the past few years. George, how is your schedule looking these days with TekSavvy?

 

It's not finalised, the vote is going to take place today actually, but I don't foresee the Board having any major problems with it, seems to make much more sense, and should appease a lot of the owners' complaints. If you haven't seen it, here is a breakdown of the teams geographically (the divisions shown are not accurate, but are from last Dec.):


*In the proposed realignment Detroit and Columbus are shifted into the the Central and Atlantic divisions, respectively, and Colorado is shifted to the Mid-West.

Detroit is going to make the biggest change, and is finally sensible, like it or not as a fan on either side. I'd still like to see some shuffling of course, and we need to sort out the Phoenix/Quebec thing, as that will noticeably affect it. The obvious flaws I see are having the two Florida teams in the 'Central' division, whereas teams like Columbus are on the 'Atlantic.' But mainly the only specific change I would like to see is to drop the playoff structure they have proposed. I think they ought to adopt a best to worst seeding - it makes up for some many greater rivalries and in the end better matchups, plus it is essentially the 'more fair' system and negates all the BS with having advantage for being the best in a conference of shitty teams, versus the worst of the best teams. Scheduling for the playoffs aside, they could make it work. Other sports have went this way and it is only logical.

Looking at it now, I actually like the realignment model proposed in December a lot more. The east coast teams are already very strong, and it makes more sense to spread that out, especially given the conference playoff set up.

Here we go, found an updated version of the realignment map.

 

Neither was I. And I still think we don't really need any teams south of the Mason-Dixon line. And St. Louis I am giving a bare pass with that. Everyone knows Nashville is bust, and you might as well extend that into the desert too to eliminate those teams. I mean, if there are locals on here that are fans, feel free to disagree with me, but it seems the markets have spoken for themselves. This whole experiment has been Bettman's folly. People just aren't that interested in hockey in the southern US, and in the meantime, league revenues are propping up all these franchises. Less teams = better hockey.

Well we already have the two conferences, and as the current issue is travel times, if you remove the divisions within those conferences completely, you are talking even more travel than now with the current matchups - so I don't think that is the way to go.

Interesting facts: the Toronto Maple Leafs remain the top (most valuable) franchise [valued into a billion dollars by Forbes] despite not having won the cup since 1967, and barely making the playoffs in a decade. And the three most profitable teams (Toronto, NYR, and Montreal) account for 83% of the league's income. 13% of the franchises lost money last season.

 

^ I like the way the man thinks. The Wild is one that really gets my goat, it is not even a thing, it is a conceptual idea. [see 'war on terror'] Who approved that, or the logo for that matter? Terrible, terrible naming. Anaheim is a strange one; not that we need three teams in New York, but having two teams next to each other in southern California has always seemed odd to me. But they've made it work (sort of) so I will leave them be for this rant.

Here is some more data from a late 2012 report. I realise I erred in my earlier estimation, it was actually 13 out of 30 teams that lost money, which is shocking even to me.

NHL finances by the numbers or The Business of Hockey for a team-by-team value breakdown.

As for Florida, if they are going to keep up, then it seems they should be folded in to a division with the southern Atlantic (e.g. Wash, Col, Pitts, Car) and the Midwest w/Nashville [for now]. Combine the other Central and Atlantic teams, and maybe move Winnipeg to the Pacific - I know it's far but the rivalries make more sense.

 

I am curious as to what the thoughts are regarding Daugavins' shootout attempt last night against Rask (shades of Phil Bourque). While technically it would have resulted in a legal goal [apparently] it is a pretty chintzy move, and that kind of stuff doesn't seem to honour the 'skill' that I think the shootout is supposed to be about. But, that said, he came very close to scoring, and by the rulebook this would have won them the game.

In an all-star or exhibition game sure, but when the points count so much in a shortened season? Hard to say.

 

Should be a good game, from two very strong teams. That is, if all the 'Irish' aren't too in their cups to notice already.