Jump to content

NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator


The_Admiral

Recommended Posts

MOD NOTE: Folks, management would greatly appreciate it if you would be so kind as to engage in your increasingly rancorous debate over the issues surrounding the state of the Phoenix Coyotes franchise without resorting to labeling one another as "dick", "douche", etc.

Similarly, please address the merits - or, what you feel to be the lack thereof - in another community-member's arguments on this topic without labeling said points as "dick comments", etc.

Thank you in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I don't think any of their draft picks under NHL ownership have come up. Any graduated prospects were drafted well before then. The only recent draft pick I see is Ekman-Larsson, and he was 2009.

I don't like the way they're winning because it's bad, unentertaining hockey for most of us. Like I said, it's all about bringing the game down to the lowest common denominator. What they're playing isn't worth saving. I make no apologies that I like uptempo, edge-of-your-seat hockey with abundant scoring chances and amazing players doing amazing things. I do not like A Bunch Of Guys camping out at the blue line, getting a turnover, scoring on an odd-man rush, and then sitting back on a 1-0 lead forever. I think it's bad for me and it's bad for the game at large, having seen the last time much of the league had no greater aspirations than to grind the game down to a big nothing. It shouldn't be rewarded, and should in fact be better proscribed by the rulebook and officials. However, great seats still available.

OK, maybe drafted during this time was a stretch, (I honestly thought they had more), but they've developed these guys quite well. Tippett has really been able to cultivate guys like Yandle, Boedker, and Ekmund-Larsson. Look at Yandle's stats and just his overall reputation before Tippett got there. Boedker showed some talent in his first year, but from all accounts, Tippett has matured Boedker and made him a much better all around player. Ekmund-Larsson is really going to become something as the years go on, I believe.

I really think you mischaracterize the Coyotes offense. It's more than how you describe. There's a lot of cycle, a lot of grind, a lot of working up the offense to opportunities. It's not just sitting on the blueline for turnovers. It's not the prettiest offense, I'll agree. They really could stand to be more aggressive, and they do from time to time, and it's really effect. No idea why they don't press a little more sometimes. They really could. The other thing I'll agree with you on and I can't stand watching them do it (especially because it's the main reason for all the damn overtimes and tight games they've played) is the getting the lead and sitting on it for the entirety of their 3rd periods. They won't just push forward and land the knock out blow. They lock down and hold the fort. It's worked up to this point, but they really need to develop some sort of killer instinct to finish the thing off. I thought we started seeing that in Game 2, but it never carried over.

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULBUSMNT | USWNTLAFC | OCSCMAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never a team in Hamilton? I thought they were right after Quebec City in the race to Make It 30.

Have you looked at Blackberry stock lately? They're now behind Nunavut, which is putting together a preliminary bid for the Red Wings.

Really looking forward the Kootenay Blackhawks, you guys.

Wabush Blue Jackets! 2020 Stanley Cup Champions!

Bring the Cup back to Kenora!

"dick comments"

Well, it's bold, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it italic.

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying a game cant be fun if its 2-1 and the goalie is having a great game. You want wider nets back flips and scoring galore. You want nothing but home runs and slam dunks. You sir, Admiral and viewers like you is what makes ESPN and Sportscenter suck these days.

No, what Admiral is saying that he's fine with 2-1 games that feature goalies standing on their head. What he's not fine with is a 2-1 game in which one or both teams have proceeded to erect a hockey Hindenburg Line through liberal use of obstruction and interference.

It's impossible to think that hockey will consistently be offense offense offense offense. Teams will adapt, just as they always have. If I want to watch a whole bunch of bad no-check, no-strategy defense and odd-man rushes, I'll watch roller hockey or DVR the NHL All-Star Game and watch it until my eyes bleed.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose enforcing the existing rules would help. The type of stuff that passes as "checking" in the NHL is amazingly terrible, especially checking with the hands/forearms/elbows. Then again, it's been taught that way through all levels for years and years. Having been a USA Hockey ref, the amount of stuff I watch NHL players get away with is amazing.

Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop!

KJ BrandedBehance portfolio

 

POTD 2013-08-22

On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said:

When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why don't you address the facts, eh?

eh, why not? Im game. you have your "facts", heavily biased from one perspective, mind you, I have mine, biased the other way. Ever heard of optimism? It's a thing, I promise.

The team has never once drawn a profit, having flushed more then $400 million down the crapper since the moved to Arizona.

I don't know if those are facts or not to be honest, I'd like to see a source. I'm fairly sure that the Coyotes made money in their first 5 years in the desert. They had Roenick and Tkachuk and Khabbibulin and a playoff team. Problem was, America West Arena was not well suited for hockey. There were a lot of blind spot seats, and the rink barely fit in the place that was supposed to be for basketball. Problems, yes, I concede. Still, it was a high-quality on ice product and there was still interest in the team in the Phoenix area. The real problems started with mismanagement of the team at the turn of the century and when the team turned bad, I mean the post-kachina-jersey era was rough, not many good players, bad coaching, etc. Like I said before, Arizona fans fluctuate with how well the team does. People started to stop paying attention as the team turned to crap, at the same time there was a new, very necessary arena being built. When fans stopped going to see a bad team, they couldnt fill the seats and the loan that Glendale took out started to look bad. In reality, if they are selling out this area at the time (Like they are doing NOWW)... we may not have this problem today.

There's plenty of teams that are unprofitable. Many southern teams come in to mind, Dallas, Florida, etc. Some of it is because of lack of attendance, some of it's unstable ownership, some of it's the economy and consumer spending habits. Doesn't mean that all of the unprofitable teams in the league should up and move. The coyotes happen to be an extreme case of unprofitability, but the fanbase is there, the population is there, and what I would cite as ineffective marketing over a long period of time can be turned around. Also consider that the Westgate area is very nice and suited for hockey and a large amount of fans. It's built to accommodate hockey and if utilized to its maximum could be profitable in the long run.

Those seats will start being filled as of next year after this run.

Glendale is on the road to financial ruin, spending money they don't have to keep this team around. They've closed libraries to make the payments they promised the NHL.

The deal Jamison has on the deal would not relieve the financial burden on the city. Jamison would still demand tens of millions a year from the city to cover the costs of operating the team. So first libraries. What else? What other essential civil services are worth cutting or scraping to keep a sports team around?

Also, Jamison's deal violates Arizona state law.

Why would the NHL have a press conference announcing the intention to go through with an illegal deal?

Now I'm asking you, can you actually address these concerns? Or are you just going to be a naive, blind-to-reality MOD EDIT about it?

Yeah, you can name-call if you want, and if I want, I'll be "blind to reality". What you call naivety, I call optimism. What would you do if the Toronto Maple Leafs, were in bankruptcy? Would you give up all hope, interpret any news as a bad sign, and string up a rope to prepare yourself for the impending doom? Or, would you look on the bright side, interpret a press conference ANNOUNCING THAT SOMEONE HAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE TO BUY THE TEAM as a good thing, and maybe disregard a few less-than-promising figures about the financial standing of your team in the spirit of hoping that your favorite team isn't gone forever? But you can call me a "mod edit" for hoping for the best if you desire-- as long as it makes you feel better that the coyotes are staying.

Yeah, life's not a movie. Yeah, the team has problems. Sure. But there's always hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team has never once drawn a profit, having flushed more then $400 million down the crapper since the moved to Arizona.

I don't know if those are facts or not to be honest, I'd like to see a source. I'm fairly sure that the Coyotes made money in their first 5 years in the desert.

I remember that being mentioned on a major news source (TSN IIRC). I don't have any evidence; sorry, but I don't keep every newspaper clipping, show, and magazine article I learn something from with the intent to cite it on a message board a few years later.

Those seats will start being filled as of next year after this run.

I will hold you to that.

SigggggII_zps101350a9.png

Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. 

PotD: 29/1/12

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I have been on the move them already bandwagon, I'm just hopeful that this God for saking mess will be over & done with, if Jamison can turn the Yotes to a profit, hey more power to him, I wish him nothing but the best of luck on it. Although, I wonder with the new owners, I wonder if they'll go to change their name to Arizona instead of Phoenix like the rumors that have passed?

I do think Quebec will be back in the NHL, it just may be a little longer, hopefully not through relocation, but heck, the league has more to worry about this time *cough* Lockout *cough*

baltimoreravens.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, but I don't keep every newspaper clipping, show, and magazine article I learn something from with the intent to cite it on a message board a few years later.

Uh oh, looks like I'm going to need to be on the next season of Hoarders.

65caba33-7cfc-417f-ac8e-5eb8cdd12dc9_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like you, elliott, so I'm not going to be a total mahdeddit to you.

I don't know if those are facts or not to be honest, I'd like to see a source. I'm fairly sure that the Coyotes made money in their first 5 years in the desert.

No. They've lost money every single year. Additionally, the Jobberdome's most profitable season as a venue was 2004-05, when a grand total of zero NHL games were staged there. I think all this came out in bankruptcy court. Someone else can dig it up.

The coyotes happen to be an extreme case of unprofitability, but the fanbase is there, the population is there, and what I would cite as ineffective marketing over a long period of time can be turned around. Also consider that the Westgate area is very nice and suited for hockey and a large amount of fans. It's built to accommodate hockey and if utilized to its maximum could be profitable in the long run.

And also consider that Westgate has been foreclosed on because the developer ran out of money before he could finish it and nobody is renting there. I don't know how a lifestyle strip mall can be "suited for hockey" any more than the Hartford Civic Center Mall was, though. Like we've been saying for a while, suburban Phoenix is flush with patently idiotic real estate speculation predicated on realities that aren't realities anymore, like cheap gas to drive too far for things we don't need. You can't throw good money after bad down all these holes, and you shouldn't throw it down this particular hole because sports.

Basically, what they're looking at here is raising their sales tax to subsidize billionaires to own a team in the #4 sports league, in hopes that people will spend enough money at and around games--while being taxed more, mind you--that said increased sales tax will pay for the subsidies while also servicing the debt on the arena construction. This is like building a house and paying someone to rent it instead of them paying you like a normal landlord-tenant relationship, while you still have to pay for having built the house in the first place, in hopes that if they buy their groceries from you, you'll make everything up somewhere down the road, because if you didn't have someone to sell food to, you'd never pay off the contractors. How is this sane? It isn't, and neither is this Coyotes thing. At some point, you have to throw up your hands and admit the sunk cost. This is the logical, analytical thing to do. All this logic is confounded, however, by intangibles like "civic pride," where people will make terrible decisions based on a threat as superficially inane as "not being a four-sport major league town with the prestige that accompanies that distinction." Haha, what prestige. No one really cares. It's like the kid who only plays with a toy he doesn't like when another kid asks to borrow it.

And even all that is a false dilemma, anyway! Clown College has not-so-cleverly framed this as either conducting the aforementioned tenant-subsidizing-tax-raising-debt-covering pretzelf-ck, or just boarding up the windows and paying off the debt. With competent arena management, which the NHL has not been, you can figure out a way to make money on the building, which our HedleyLamarr has hinted will cost considerably less to run in the first place without a full-time ice plant. Or you can sell it for pennies on the dollar like Toronto sold the Skydome. Or just default on it, which, with the way their credit rating is plummeting, they might do anyway.

As the hundredth person for the hundredth time, I don't see any way this works at league-average prices and without illegal subsidies. It's just not a stable pro sports market, and the NHL is a, if not the, low rung on that ladder.

Why would the NHL have a press conference announcing the intention to go through with an illegal deal?

As has been postulated, to 1) keep selling tickets, 2) forestall relocation controversy for a playoff team, and most importantly 3) agree to a deal "in principle" with a prospective owner so that they can claim good faith efforts were made all along until An Unelected Watchdog Group We Stress Unelected Because Unelected People Never Ought To Do Anything Ever intervened and held up the corporate-municipal complex's "good-faith" deal, which shifts blame from the NHL (who sold the team away) and the city (who bungled everything as a matter of course) to some third-party bogeyman.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this deal goes through I propose they rename the club the Glendale Bandits (Banditos) as they will infact be robbing much of Glendale of their basic civil services, they can atleast attach the cities name to the team.

untitled-6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the NHL have a press conference announcing the intention to go through with an illegal deal?

Why not? They've done it before, trotting out the "new owner" after reaching a tentative deal, only to have the deal fall apart under its own illegal weight after the details were made public.

It's a transparent attempt to steer the conversation. The deal couldn't possibly be illegal - look, they finally have an owner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if those are facts or not to be honest, I'd like to see a source. I'm fairly sure that the Coyotes made money in their first 5 years in the desert. They had Roenick and Tkachuk and Khabbibulin and a playoff team.

And yet, they managed to lose money.

The team has not once turned a profit. It has lost money every year, even the first 5.

An inconvenient fact, but still very much a fact.

And that's why so many of us have finally come to the conclusion that the market cannot be saved. Even with a good team, even with playoff hockey, the facts have shown that the market is just not sustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.