Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Impact of a lockout on the Canucks?


Boudrias

Recommended Posts

I'm supposed to be going to Vancouver for the first time in over 8 years at the end of October (last time I went was during a summer).

October means hockey. That means if there's a lockout, I'll be supremely annoyed if I don't get to see a Canucks game. Honestly, if in the first time in nearly a decade I'm in Vancouver and there's no hockey when there should be hockey, it would be so rubbish to not see a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I'm supposed to be going to Vancouver for the first time in over 8 years at the end of October (last time I went was during a summer).

October means hockey. That means if there's a lockout, I'll be supremely annoyed if I don't get to see a Canucks game. Honestly, if in the first time in nearly a decade I'm in Vancouver and there's no hockey when there should be hockey, it would be so rubbish to not see a game."

Always the option of the Giants...at least those guys are playing hockey; not fighting over how many millions others are getting meanwhile collecting their own millions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lockout adds a year to the Sedins and likely a late pick again for the Canucks. This means a smaller window for "our time" as well as a shallow prospect pool to make up for retiring stars. Luongo trade (if it hasn't happened) would be more difficult to make possible. One positive is guys like Jensen and Kassian get a year to play against men and develop properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to topic; The NHL house has troubles...

The NHL as an organization, as well as the union has a vested interest in markets like Phoenix and Columbus, also Tampa, Carolina, Dallas... As an aside, problems in Jersey, on the Island etcetera appear related to fiscal and management issues the league should not be correcting in the CBA. The link is the regional television markets that drive TV deals for the league and that the union has card carrying members in regional markets. Never mind that the league wants to recover some of its losses as current owner in Phoenix. On face value; without tv deals and union members to support, the league has no business in markets which are not self supportive. But they share this burden, so the drum beat is on for revenue sharing.

Just try and tell that to owners in NY, Philly and Toronto...

So will the union brothers take another 20% hit to support their siblings in the desert as being asked? Because the league as a whole made money. I dont think they should; we should be looking at markets that support teams.

I personally believe 2knd teams in Toronto and Chicago seem to be opportunities where teams could be self supporting. Maybe Houston which has a bigger market, corporate oil money and it occasionally freezes. It beats retraction, which is still a better option IMO than supporting dud franchises. I firmly believe poor mans teams in PHX etc are ultimately doomed to mediocrity because they cannot generate their own revenue for players. Even if tv revenues take a short term hit by loosing such regional audiences, if they become competitive moving to markets that support them the product will get better. There is nothing like heated play off battles and rivalries, it would bring the TV back when markets support teams and they can afford players. Us icebound hounds of the great white north cheer to watch the NBA battles that matter on TV. US markets would do the same with compelling hockey. We need competitive markets and rivalries not significant levels of revenue sharing.

Except?...

I like versions of MLB. Teams that exceed the cap match the excess into a luxury tax. Then the big revenue teams (the Ed Snyder's of the world) are making their own decision to pay into revenue sharing. Does anyone believe they won't? The Yankee's spend to their hearts content, 3 or 5 other teams also blow the wad and suddenly there is a very decent contingency to distribute! Fehr comes from baseball, I would be surprised if this does not surface.

And one net result is profitable teams like the Canucks should have more money to spend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shorter season will bug the fans but it will help the Canucks this year.

First off, we will not be as burnt out by the end of the year.

Second, we need Kesler back and this will just about be perfect.

Third and most importantly, all the teams will be experiencing the same BS

so it not exactly as if other teams have an advantage over us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money losing teams will suffer the least, short term anyway.

Most lose less money by keeping their doors closed vs. playing!!!

Long term you have to wonder what a prolonged work stoppage will do to their already scant fan base

In the mean time I'm choked at players, avg player makes 12K a game top earners up to 100K a game.

Giving the player more of the revenue will only cost the fan more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all appearances there will be no hockey come October. While the Canucks are relatively healthy financially there are many USA teams that are on the edge of failure. PHX, NJD, NYI and CBJ to name a few. It appears the NHL is serious about getting its house in order this time.

Sitting a year impacts the Canucks as their playoff timeline is now not 3 or 4 years from now. Even completing a trade for Luongo will probably nopt happen until a settlement. IMO a lockout hurts the Canucks more than most teams. What say you all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lockout for 3-4 months would end up helping the Canucks....

1) Vancouver's travel schedule is the worst in the NHL. Therefore a shortened season would keep players fresher for the playoffs. Seems as though every year, the canucks just run out of gas near the end.

2) There's a few bubble players like Tanev, Kassian, and Schroeder, who have a legit chance of cracking lineup, to get some additional seasoning in the AHL. 20-30 games could really do wonders.

3) It gives more time for Ryan Kesler to train and heal up.

4) It would give Schneider a reduced work load which would help his development as he has not played a full season yet.

Although if the season was fully cancelled, i agree, it would take one more chance the canucks have at a cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as it would suck for the Canucks, the rest of the NHL and their fans, I personally believe it will hurt the employees of the teams the most.

Think about it, for every player, there is probably 20-30 (rough estimate) employees working behind the scenes. Whether they are in charge of security, maintenance, selling food and tickets, etc. I think it will be very damaging to them since they are making what, 30-50k a year? And now they will lose their jobs (arenas are closed except for occassional concerts and stuff) because there are two groups of millionaires and billionaires fighting over a contract that will give each side more profit?

Sounds stupid to me..and I really feel bad for those that will be forced to find new jobs to support their families

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...