ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Agreed, but having Rocky there as opposed to Bill helped. Bill was simply not going to spend any money. Bettman has been pushing hockey in the US since he took the job. In that light, he's succeeded. Having Canada being able to subsidize his journeys down there is an added bonus. Agreed that both teams have gotten preferential treatment via reffing non-calls, but imho their insane energy levels at times screamed PED abuse. In either case, it is definitely a blessing to be a player on either one of those teams as of late. Those guys are spoiled. And yes, a Bruin Kassian would be slapped on the wrist and held up to be a symbol of what hockey is supposed to be. What a joke of Canucks Homerism at its finest. No matter how you look at it Kassian deserved his suspension for what he did to Gagner. Marchard the rat low hits salo and gets 2 games. Hammer and Ballard have done the same thing in the past and have only got "clipping" calls for. Every team including LA and TOR believes the league is out to get them and misses "calls, suspensions" not just the teams that don't win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 The only benefactor CHI receives is by having drafted great franchise players after being terrible for so long, Just as PITs has benefited from Sidney. From personally knowing Keith hawks are just a hard working team, with a good mixture of skill, youth, and leadership , you can't honestly compare Vancouver roster and CHI and no think that they are the better teamAsk Keith what he and the rest of those spoiled players and ex-players have taken over the years to help 'em out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 What a joke of Canucks Homerism at its finest. No matter how you look at it Kassian deserved his suspension for what he did to Gagner. Marchard the rat low hits salo and gets 2 games. Hammer and Ballard have done the same thing in the past and have only got "clipping" calls for. Every team including LA and TOR believes the league is out to get them and misses "calls, suspensions" not just the teams that don't win what did chara get when he sandwich someone's head from the bench? What did Boychuk get when he rotate a puckless Raymond and smash his back against the wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 What a joke of Canucks Homerism at its finest. No matter how you look at it Kassian deserved his suspension for what he did to Gagner. Marchard the rat low hits salo and gets 2 games. Hammer and Ballard have done the same thing in the past and have only got "clipping" calls for. Every team including LA and TOR believes the league is out to get them and misses "calls, suspensions" not just the teams that don't win No. A Bruin Kassian would get the same treatment as a Bruin Lucic, who rammed Miller, concussed him and got nothing but a parade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 ^ It takes more than drafting and a coaching change to get to the level of success the Blackhawks have had recently. A lot of teams pick good picks and have good coaching. They have benefitted from quite a lot of other things going their way. Their player development is unbelievably good, for starters. It's one thing to merely pick Saad and Shaw, but it's a bit more to see them mature almost instantaneously into full-flight NHLers. imho if Bill was still in charge and not Rocky, this miraculous player development, the cup wins, the signings... all of it... Would not happen. That was the point when their entire regime started improving exponentially. Good for the league though. Before that Chicago was a waste of a big market franchise. They needed that arena filled again. Your right he must have been on PED beucase he has such a great rookie year. But wait he must still be using them since he's having a better year this year. BUT he was also hoping and had a chance at making the US olympic roster and they test for PED's at the Olympics. Why would he continue to use it knowing he couldn't play in sochi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ask Keith what he and the rest of those spoiled players and ex-players have taken over the years to help 'em out. Keith is a Canadian Olympian meaning they test for that and would be kicked off the team. So nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 You do realize hockey isn't a game that the strongest are the best. We'd have teams full of George Laraque's running around. PED do not improve the natural hockey sense and skill set. Something a player like Patrick kane has. Kane the same player who won the conn smythe last year as the best player in the playoffs. And before you go off thinking PED make super players. Just remember captain America is a mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Keith is a Canadian Olympian meaning they test for that and would be kicked off the team. So nothing. ... For the ones currently going to the Olympics... Besides, the good ones all know how to get around any testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 ... For the ones currently going to the Olympics... Besides, the good ones all know how to get around any testing. Not at the olympic, something taken very seriously. And that's what your theory relies on. He knows how to out smart the world Olympic committee who sole job it is to enforce this rule of zero tolerance of PED, but the good ones all know how to get around it. Strong basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 You do realize hockey isn't a game that the strongest are the best. We'd have teams full of George Laraque's running around. PED do not improve the natural hockey sense and skill set. Something a player like Patrick kane has. Kane the same player who won the conn smythe last year as the best player in the playoffs. And before you go off thinking PED make super players. Just remember captain America is a mov Already acknowledged. The NHL already had it's steroid era. It has progressed into using more advanced PED's that fit better into the game's speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes I have. I told you that you were wrong and then I showed you why you were wrong. Twice. I'm just saying if you can't back up your ridiculous theories just don't put them out there. Here's a third time for you so pay attention. The Chicago Blackhawks became a better team because of their drafting when they were the bottom feeders of the league. Look at the players they drafted and then look at when they all cam into their own. It's a clear timeline. You mix that drafting with some good trades and a much better coach and you get what we have now. Let me spell it out now since you keep missing it. 2002: Duncan Keith Drafted 2003: Seabrook Drafted, Crawford Drafted 2004: Bolland and Bickell Drafted 2005: Trade pile of garbage for Patrick Sharp 2006: Drafted Toews 2007: Drafed Kane 2008: Coach Q takes over. (Team makes playoffs) 2009: Hossa signs contract with the team until he's dead. At which time his children must become water boys until they are 40. Are you seriously going to continue to ignore this? Get back to me when the oilers sign a coach who makes them win a load of cups and turns around all their fortunes in one season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batmania Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Get back to me when the oilers sign a coach who makes them win a load of cups and turns around all their fortunes in one season. Meaning what? That you have no actual response? You're not suggesting that just because the oilers got a few top picks they are in the same category of drafting are you? I sure hope not because that would be silly. Show me a list from the oilers like what I gave you. I bet you can't. The Hawks tanked seasons and took 8 years and build a powerhouse in all facets of the game. The oilers tanked seasons and picked up great offense and still have horrible D and mediocre at best goaltending. (and that's only because they managed to sign a guy nobody else would. It doesn't matter who the coach is in that case because that team don't float. You can't take a garbage team and introduce just a coach and expect anything to happen. Now if the oilers improved their goaltending a bit (perhaps a tandem with Bryz like what STL has.) and somehow replaced their entire D core with the exception of J Shultz with actual top 4 D men and somebody to play with J.S. in the bottom 2 then it would be comparable. But to even suggest those two rosters are even remotely close in talent is ridiculous. This is getting sad. I feel you're just posting now for the sake of posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Meaning what? That you have no actual response? You're not suggesting that just because the oilers got a few top picks they are in the same category of drafting are you? I sure hope not because that would be silly. Show me a list from the oilers like what I gave you. I bet you can't. The Hawks tanked seasons and took 8 years and build a powerhouse in all facets of the game. The oilers tanked seasons and picked up great offense and still have horrible D and mediocre at best goaltending. (and that's only because they managed to sign a guy nobody else would. It doesn't matter who the coach is in that case because that team don't float. You can't take a garbage team and introduce just a coach and expect anything to happen. Now if the oilers improved their goaltending a bit (perhaps a tandem with Bryz like what STL has.) and somehow replaced their entire D core with the exception of J Shultz with actual top 4 D men and somebody to play with J.S. in the bottom 2 then it would be comparable. But to even suggest those two rosters are even remotely close in talent is ridiculous. This is getting sad. I feel you're just posting now for the sake of posting. Just like I said Edmonton won't turn their fortunes around with one coaching signing I am sorry if you missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batmania Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just like I said Edmonton won't turn their fortunes around with one coaching signing I am sorry if you missed that. Of course they won't. Just like Chicago didn't do it with just a coaching change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Of course they won't. Just like Chicago didn't do it with just a coaching change. Yes I have. I told you that you were wrong and then I showed you why you were wrong. Twice. I'm just saying if you can't back up your ridiculous theories just don't put them out there. Here's a third time for you so pay attention. The Chicago Blackhawks became a better team because of their drafting when they were the bottom feeders of the league. Look at the players they drafted and then look at when they all cam into their own. It's a clear timeline. You mix that drafting with some good trades and a much better coach and you get what we have now. Let me spell it out now since you keep missing it. 2002: Duncan Keith Drafted 2003: Seabrook Drafted, Crawford Drafted 2004: Bolland and Bickell Drafted 2005: Trade pile of garbage for Patrick Sharp 2006: Drafted Toews 2007: Drafed Kane 2008: Coach Q takes over. (Team makes playoffs) 2009: Hossa signs contract with the team until he's dead. At which time his children must become water boys until they are 40. Are you seriously going to continue to ignore this? The team didn't just make the playoffs they went all the way to the conference finals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batmania Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The team didn't just make the playoffs they went all the way to the conference finals You're reaching. I was just saying that there was a coaching change and that was also the year they made the playoffs after missing a few years. And yeah they made the playoffs. Once a team makes the playoffs they have a shot. Otherwise the Presidents trophy would be the Stanley cup. The team made the conference finals because they had been under achieving under Savard. (They also got a pretty easy ride in the second round unfortunately and then got trounced in the conf final.) His style wasn't bringing out the best in many of those players. (perhaps that's what big bill hired him for.) You are still; for the second night in a row, trying to pick at things here. Look at that list. Look at the team they built. After you've looked at it and since you refuse to provide anything regarding Rocky having a better relationship with the league that Bill had; just stop using Chicago as an example for your theory regarding ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Bill "Dollar Bill" Wirtz was famously frugal, being named the 3rd-greediest owner in all of sports, and was blamed for the 2nd-longest cup doubt in NHL history. During his reign the Hawks were the worst franchise in the NHL. Bill was having the Hawks perpetually 'building through the draft' for 41 years. That goes well beyond the Toews, Kane, Keith core drafts. This was not to get the team better through the draft. It was a means to be forever frugal. What changed after his death and Rocky took over is that the Hawks became way less frugal. They started spending, bigtime. Spending on coaching (JQ), management, (Stan and Scotty) free agents, keeping their own players paid well, scouting and player development. ie. Everything changed for the Blackhawks after Bill's passing. If Bill was still alive today, it is an absolute certainty that the Hawks would not be as successful they are currently. This is a fact. They would not have signed Hossa. They would not have traded for Campbell. They would've lost at least a couple elements of their core group by now. They would have Denis Savard for a coach instead of JQ. They would not have the Bowmans onboard. And they would not have the outstanding drafting and player development they have today. ie. The arena in Chicago would still be empty! To claim that the Hawk ownership change meant nothing is asinine. Of course the NHL loves Rocky more than Bill. Financially, esp. He's making the league a ton more cash. They went from bottom-feeding value to elite value in a few short years. Good Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Bill "Dollar Bill" Wirtz was famously frugal, being named the 3rd-greediest owner in all of sports, and was blamed for the 2nd-longest cup doubt in NHL history. During his reign the Hawks were the worst franchise in the NHL. Bill was having the Hawks perpetually 'building through the draft' for 41 years. That goes well beyond the Toews, Kane, Keith core drafts. This was not to get the team better through the draft. It was a means to be forever frugal. What changed after his death and Rocky took over is that the Hawks became way less frugal. They started spending, bigtime. Spending on coaching (JQ), management, (Stan and Scotty) free agents, keeping their own players paid well, scouting and player development. ie. Everything changed for the Blackhawks after Bill's passing. If Bill was still alive today, it is an absolute certainty that the Hawks would not be as successful they are currently. This is a fact. They would not have signed Hossa. They would not have traded for Campbell. They would've lost at least a couple elements of their core group by now. They would have Denis Savard for a coach instead of JQ. They would not have the Bowmans onboard. And they would not have the outstanding drafting and player development they have today. ie. The arena in Chicago would still be empty! To claim that the Hawk ownership change meant nothing is asinine. Of course the NHL loves Rocky more than Bill. Financially, esp. He's making the league a ton more cash. They went from bottom-feeding value to elite value in a few short years. Good Christ. Nobody is disputing the fact that Rocky, as owner, has made the Hawks a successful organization because of all the things you just mentioned. I, as others, were disputing the claim the the only reason for the Hawks recent success is the NHL had a better relationship with Rocky than Bill. You can add the hiring of John McDonough to that list of improvements. I have said before, if Bettman ever resigns, McDonough would get my vote for next commish. The guy is a marketing guru! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 The NHL has a better relationship with any owner willing to shell out the cash to improve the game in certain markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 If you spend the cash to help the league, you'll get help back from the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.