Hull was also asked about Canada's Supreme Court ruling last week stating that gay marriage was constitutional, allowing the federal government to call on Parliament to legalize same-sex unions nationwide.
"That's what happens in Canada when there's no hockey," Hull joked. "Guys have more time to hang out, talk about their feelings and fall in love with each other. I have nothing against it, but I'd rather be playing hockey."
Say what you want, but the guy is funny for sure.
The Rodent continues to offer stuff you can't get anywhere else.
Larry Brooks predicts the end of the world....er, hockey world as we know it.
The Wolf*Pack won an ugly 3-2 game last night and play again today.
The Russian team beat the NHL World Stars 5-4. They play again, The Russians have reportedly added the champion tough guy of their Superleague, Alexander Yudin of the Omsk club, to their roster to take on Worldstars' brawler Tie Domi.
I admit it....I have not studied the NHLPA proposal nor have I poured over sources and leaks on what the NHL might respond with. The whole thing is way too depressing for me. In my gut I believe the players have offered what seems to be proof of their desire to play with a 24% reduction in salaries (keep in mind, they have already been offered these contracts by the very same people who have locked them out) while the NHL seems poised to counter offer with the very same 31 million cap proposal that has been on the table forever.
I hope I'm wrong here but I just don't believe Bettman and Co. will move off the cap. As I wrote on the boards, I think it's funny that a group of successful business people (the owners) need a rule that prevents them from making bad financial decisions. In addition, the cap would allow a team to make horrible decisions and yet still maintain it's profitability. In other words, as an NHL owner you can suck as bad as anything has ever sucked and yet still turn a profit.
To me....that's fantasy hockey. No offence to the thousands of you who participate in the various fantasy hockey leagues.
----}- Bird
eMail this entry!
"As I wrote on the boards, I think it's funny that a group of successful business people (the owners) need a rule that prevents them from making bad financial decisions. In addition, the cap would allow a team to make horrible decisions and yet still maintain it's profitability."
What bad financial decisions have the Edmonton Oilers made? The Minnesota Wild? I can name 15 other NHL teams without said skeletons in their closets yet you're saying every team should pay for the poor decisions of say the New York Islanders?
Posted by: James on December 12, 2004 03:22 PMJames,
I recently read an article (slam maybe?) that listed all the bad decisions made by the Oilers. I don't know the Wild is losing money and please name the other 15 for me.
As to the Islanders....they sure have made some bad ones, along with the Rangers. And what I'm saying is that other teams shouldn't have to pay. If the Rangers want to issue higher than normal contracts (I'm being kind) and still not see the playoffs in 7 years, they should be free to do so.
I'm not sure what your point is.
----}- Bird
Posted by: Bird on December 12, 2004 04:52 PMThe Oilers have to compete using a $30-mil payroll with team with a $70-mil payroll. That alone doesn't make any sense.
And by bad decisions, I mean out of line free agent signings. Those are the moves that increase salaries, and they are not being made by low payroll clubs. The high payroll teams are the ones creating a need for a cap.
Posted by: James on December 12, 2004 10:22 PMActually, the Hurricanes offer to Federov, could be considered a lot more damaging than any free agent spree.
Posted by: The Great Dane on December 13, 2004 04:47 AMPerhaps you should check the payroll of the two teams that went to the finals last season. None of the big spenders were there...no Rangers, no Flyers or Wings. Even the Leafs weren't there.
Sorry, high payroll doesn't equal winning.
It equals high payroll....that's all. AND....NO ONE forced these teams to take on such a high payroll. Look, I understand that there are some small market teams having money issues. A lux tax can help there and I'm all for that. I want Edmonton and Calgary in the NHL. The Tampa Bay club are the world champs.....I want them in too. Perhaps some clubs shouldn't be....but that's for another discussion and contraction is NOT on the table here. But the hard cap, designed to keep all existing teams profitable is a bad idea IMO.
The NHL expanded so the existing owners could collect the entrance fees.....not because it was good for the game.
Aw.....I give up.
----}-
Posted by: Bird on December 13, 2004 09:43 AMI'm not trying to be unreasonable and say that the league needs a $31-mil cap (that's ridiculous). What I will say is that Calgary and Edmonton should not be experiencing money problems considering how hardcore their respective cities are. There are a million hockey fans in each city, yet tickets are too expensive for the games to sellout every night and their rosters are too weak to compete.
Let's face it, Calgary's run to the Cup was an anomaly for that club. They had missed the playoffs for eight consecutive seasons prior to that and lost far more money than gained during last season's run. As for money not equaling success, teams in the top 10 in payroll are twice as likely to make the final four than teams in the bottom 20.
Posted by: James on December 13, 2004 03:32 PMhttp://mirtle.blogspot.com/2004/12/high-payroll-equals-success.html
Posted by: James on December 13, 2004 04:07 PM
|
Recent Articles
|
|
|