Why the NHL is Struggling and teams like the Leafs are suffering.

by MapleLeafs85 on Nov 18, 2008 12:57 PM EST Comment 23 comments

After reading the analysis on From the Rink about the Boots mess and then about the Islanders potentially needing to be sold or re-located has made me think about the state of the NHL. I live in the States much like a few of us loyal readers here at PPP. There is a huge reason why the Leafs haven't won a cup since the Original 6 has turned into the Original 30 something.

There is a huge dearth of talent in the NHL. After looking at a bunch of the 4th line players and healthy scratches in the league right now I've noticed that many of these guys really don't belong in the league. There are just too many teams in the league. We all know that the NHL needs to contract a few teams in the South.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the NHL is more than happy to take money from potential owners who want to own a team. Unfortunately wanting to own a team shouldn't be enough to actually own a team, however in this day of the NHL this is all that is needed. Because of this phenomenon there are (were) owners like Boots owning a team in a town like Nashville. Here's a thought, name another league (other than the NFL) that has a team in Nashville. The answer is none because it's a town that can't support a team for 40 something games a season. Why can't the NHL realize this. Furthermore, it's been seen over and over again that Florida can not handle a major franchise in any league for more than a few years at a time, yet they keep on gaining teams. Two years of good revenues is not worth 5 years of bad revenue multiplied by multiple teams. It's not fiscally sound and it destroys competition in this league.

Now how does this relate back to our beloved Leafs?

We are a team that like the Rangers and the other Canadian franchises that are the glue to the NHL. What is the thanks we get? Lower quality players later in the draft, higher competition for free agents, and idiotic ownership groups handing out idiotic contracts that teams cannot compete with (15-year deal worth $67.5 million for DiPietro.) It's no surprise that we haven't won a cup since 1967. Even though Toronto has had moronic owners, they simply weren't idiots who were willing to throw away the franchise by hog-tying themselves with ridiculous contracts with players and arenas.

All I have to say is I'm 23 biology student with no interest in business whatsoever and I'm smarter than Gary Bettman and about 40% of the Owners in this league, which is why this beautiful game will be locked into mediocrity for years to come.

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: gary bettman, nhl contraction

Comments

Funny thing

With the WHA at its peak in the mid/late 70s, there were 30 professional teams in hockey. Post-WHA, that number contracted to 21 and we got the explosive hockey of the 1980s.

(And all everyone did through the 1980s was grouse about how lousy the hockey was because there were so many goals and wasn’t it great when it took a lot of talent to score 20? Be careful what you wish for….)

Leaf, the universe and everything.

by 1967ers on Nov 18, 2008 1:46 PM EST reply actions

And all everyone did through the 1980s was grouse about how lousy the hockey was because there were so many goals and wasn’t it great when it took a lot of talent to score 20?

that sounds awfully familiar…

Making stuff up since real Leafs news is far too depressing

by loser domi on Nov 18, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

I don't care about the numbers of goals

or even the ability of goalies to keep the score down. I want good hockey, whether that means 1-0 games every night or 6-4 games every night. The game is a lot slower, with poorer puck handling and mediocre shooting ability by the vast majority of players.

"Holy crip!! He's a CRAPPLE!!!"

by MapleLeafs85 on Nov 18, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

I Respectfully Disagree

I think the talent level is heads and tails above anything we’ve ever seen in hockey. Remember that 20 years ago, players were still taking summers off to do nothing but drink beer and fish. Now we have the all year athelete, at peak physical condition (save for Wellwood and Penner…) even in the off season.

I would say, the globalization of hockey has actually made the talent pool deeper than ever before, and that there is much less margin for error in the game today than there ever was, at any time since the 67 expansion.

Anybody throws me against the boards I'm gonna piss all over myself.
The Left Coast Lock

by blurr1974 on Nov 18, 2008 1:58 PM EST reply actions

I just don't like the fact that

the overall talent pool may have become deeper, but that talent level is really at the marginal 2nd line/3rd line forward or 4-6 d-man area.
It’s interesting how 25+ years ago, it was the teams that had the greater front end talent that were really taking the league over. While now, front level talent gets you to the playoffs, but it’s the mid-range talent that gets you the cup. In all honesty, with fewer teams, it’ll be the other way around again, which is why the good ol’ days were actually good

"Holy crip!! He's a CRAPPLE!!!"

by MapleLeafs85 on Nov 18, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

the "good ol' days"

is a myth propogated by the certain scribes and play by play announcers in MSM.

that sounds vaguely like the people who pine for the “original” Norris, Smythe divisions" when in actuallity, it didn’t come into play until 1974 (a good year, I’ll admit) and lasted for 19 seasons. Granted, that is, for the most part, a majority of our exposure to hockey as fans, but in the scheme of the NHL (around since 1917 I think…) it’s really a blip.

The “high flying” days of of the 80’s were more a result of a lack of high end talent, than a glut. It just so happens, that talent was centered in NYI and EDM for most of the decade

Anybody throws me against the boards I'm gonna piss all over myself.
The Left Coast Lock

by blurr1974 on Nov 18, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

Also – 16 of 21 teams made the post season. A regular-season loss here and there really didn’t hurt you all that badly and so the commitment to team defense was never there. Pond hockey resulted.

People complained all the time that the regular season meant nothing.

Well, now it means something. The losses in November can and will cost you a playoff spot in April. How do you win if you don’t have the best of the best? Play team defense and bust your hind end at it.

Leaf, the universe and everything.

by 1967ers on Nov 18, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

While now, front level talent gets you to the playoffs, but it’s the mid-range talent that gets you the cup.

This has ALWAYS been true.

The biggest difference I see now from what it used to be is that we don’t have the kinds of dynastic teams we once had. This means that there are now 6-7 teams in the hunt for a championship instead of two or three. The top-end talent is better spread around.

Leaf, the universe and everything.

by 1967ers on Nov 18, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Even though my last sentence claims I'm a savant

I’m really not, I just don’t remember as a kid that I would get bored watching a game. I would happily watch other teams that I had no emotional attachment to because the games were fun to watch with a lot of speed (even though the players were slower). Now, I have trouble watching Leafs games and it’s not because they’re a bad team, the game is just not free-flowing showcase of talent anymore. These systems that coaches are employing is not because they allow for teams to win, but a manner to compensate for players that can’t put the puck in the net (imho).

"Holy crip!! He's a CRAPPLE!!!"

by MapleLeafs85 on Nov 18, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions

"Slow Games"

That’s a result of players being coached as “pros” for the majority of their lives. It’s also a result of systems becoming more defensively focused, and thanks to François Allaire and the goaltending coach movement of the early 90’s.

I love end to end rushes as much as the next guy, but when I watch games of 80’s hockey, I see lots of guys out of position. That’s either due to them playing the man, and not the shooting zones, or from being dog tired and unable to keep up with those in better shape physically. Either or, I don’t think it’s “better.”

Anybody throws me against the boards I'm gonna piss all over myself.
The Left Coast Lock

by blurr1974 on Nov 18, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah. It’s a function of better coaching and players. Watch intramurals and you’ll see something resembling the 80s Oilers (at least with my team) with 5 men on offence at all times.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 18, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

Honestly, I think it’s because teams can’t afford the losses anymore.

If 22 of 30 teams made the playoffs (approx what it used to be in terms of %), you’d see more loosey-goosey fun hockey because the stakes aren’t as high. You can lose a couple without costing yourself a playoff spot.

Leaf, the universe and everything.

by 1967ers on Nov 18, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions

tee-hee

I’ve never enjoyed getting pushed in so much. You guys bring up valid points that I never really understood. I played net my whole life and really never bothered myself with the other positions. I guess I’m a fan of sloppy hockey. In the end though, this league is way too big, and even if that means that some of the fourth liners are out of a job, the game will benefit whether it becomes tighter or looser and more sloppy.

"Holy crip!! He's a CRAPPLE!!!"

by MapleLeafs85 on Nov 18, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions