Did Bettman force the Preds to break off talks with Balsillie?

[Brian in Boston]

Now look, it's one thing to say this is nothing but spin from Balsillie's side if there was no proof. There is proof, however. Emails to the particular parties involved paint the picture of Bettman doing all he could to force Liepold's talks with Balsillie to end.

E-mails between Messrs. Leipold and Rodier are "proof" of nothing except what those two gentlemen claim to have been the case.

Where are the e-mails from Commissioner Bettman to Mr. Leipold? From Commissioner Bettman to Mr. Rodier? From Commissioner Bettman to Mr. Balsillie? Where are copies of any correspondance Commissioner Bettman sent to any of the aforementioned gentlemen with regard to the sale and relocation of the Nashville Predators? Where are recordings of any of the phonecalls Commissioner Bettman made to any of the aforementioned gentlemen regarding these issues?

The only e-mails ESPN claims to have are those that were exchanged between Messrs. Leipold and Rodier. Said e-mails contain accusations and allegations regarding what Commissioner Bettman supposedly said to each of them. However, such e-mails don't constitute "proof" of Commissioner Bettman having said or done anything. One would think that if Commissioner Bettman had communicated directly with Messrs. Leipold, Rodier and/or Balsillie about such a hot-button topic as the potential sale and relocation of the Nashville Predators, particularly via e-mail, that someone amongst Messrs. Leipold, Rodier and Balsillie would have saved such communiques as a means of verifying Commissioner Bettman's stand on the issue.

In short, the e-mails between Messrs. Leipold and Rodier that ESPN apparently has in it's possession are, in point of fact, "proof" of nothing on the part of Commissioner Bettman. Rather, they are simply a record of what Messrs. Leipold and Rodier want each other - as well as the media and public - to believe have been the actions of Commissioner Bettman.

Copies of e-mails, letters or phone conversations confirmed to have been from Commissioner Bettman discussing these issues would be proof of his involvement in the Nashville Predators imbroglio. The e-mails of Messrs. Leipold and Rodier add-up to second-hand hearsay. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Fred T. Jane]

You there!

There will be none of that common non sense around here!!!

It's easier to say it with a picture.

[Brian in Boston]

When the Oilers were almost moved to Houston where was the zeal we see in Bettman today to keep the franchise in Edmonton? Where was this zeal when the Sens filed for bankruptcy? Make no mistake about it, Bettman fought tooth and nail to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh and the Preds in Nashville. I don't recall this zeal on his part to keep the Oilers in Edmonton or the Sens in Ottawa. I think the only reason he didn't push for those teams to head south was because he knew at the time he would have been crucified by the hockey media, and quite possibly the general sports media in the States as well (as the NHL was still somewhat relevant at the time). Essentially Bettman sat quietly in the background in regards to the Sens and Oilers. He didn't fight for those cities to keep their teams as he has done with Preds or as he did with the Pens.

Did either the Edmonton Oilers or Ottawa Senators relocate to American cities on Gary Bettman's watch? No. Yet, you're bound and determined to find some way to make the fact that they didn't move to the United States an example of his disdain for Canadian markets.

You've made a point of arguing that as Commissioner of the NHL Mr. Bettman wields considerable influence over the league's Board of Governors. If that is the case, and the Oilers and Senators didn't relocate, we can presume that Commissioner Bettman didn't push for those two franchises to be moved to the American markets that you feel he is enthralled by. He obviously felt that the league was better served by having the teams remain in their Canadian homes. Either that, or the Board of Governors ignored his wishes to relocate the Oilers and Senators to American cities, in which case we can presume that the BoG may very well ignore his "zeal" to see the Predators remain in Nashville and approve a move of the franchise to Hamilton.

Bottom line? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that Gary Bettman didn't have considerable influence to wield with the BoG in battles where Canadian franchises were allowed to stay North of the border, only to turn around and claim that he's capable of enforcing his will on the BoG in a battle to maintain a team in an American marketplace.

The fact of the matter is, Gary Bettman may well be the type of commissioner who would rather not see an existing franchise relocate - Canadian or American - unless absolutely necessary. He may be the type of commissioner who assesses the issues surrounding each potential franchise relocation on it's own unique merits.

No doubt the Preds will start the season with excellent attendance, but once the season gets underway with a team inferior to last year's, attendance will again slip to disappointing levels, and the team will again have to give away thousands of free tickets just so the Summit Center doesn't appear empty.

May I borrow your infallible crystal ball? I'd like it to tell me which numbers I should play in the lottery this week. I mean, "no doubt" indicates that the outcome you've predicted for the Nashville Predators during the 2007-08 NHL season is guaranteed to come to pass, right?

How much more money should be thrown into the bottomless pit of NHL hockey in Nashville?

I couldn't tell you. However, it seems apparent that Commissioner Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors feel that more money, as well as time and effort, should be expended on establishing an NHL franchise in Nashville than you do. I have to believe that they're going to be the folks who ultimately make the call.

But recognize how much Canadians mean to the NHL and the game of hockey, and how much the NHL and the game of hockey means to Canada. Down where you are it's just an other sport. Up here, it almost exceeds the simple status of a sport. It's part of our national identity.

And considering how many of our teams have headed south of the border (including Hamilton's only NHL franchise to date) you can't blame us for wanting to see a team move in the opposite direction.

I don't think any of us who were born and raised in the United States of America question the special relationship that Canadians have with the sport of ice hockey. We recognize that it is an intrinsic part of your nation's cultural identity. Further, I can't imagine that anyone blames you for wanting your country to be home to as many NHL franchises as is possible.

That said, in the era of modern major professional sports, the heartfelt desires of the fan-base - Canadian ice hockey fans included - isn't the sole, driving force determining decisions that are made by leagues and their member-franchises. To believe otherwise is naive. No matter how much Canadian fans love ice hockey, no matter how many Canadian fans want additional NHL franchises in their country, the simple truth of the matter is that the league's owners and commissioner are calling the shots for the league based on what they, the league executives believe is best. Lo and behold, they may not make those decisions based upon the criteria that you consider to be the most important. Hell... their decisions may fly in the face of all that seems reasonable. However, that doesn't change the fact that they're making those decisions. Right now, it appears that their decision is that they'd rather see Nashville be given additional time to prove itself as an NHL market than for Hamilton - or any other Canadian city - to acquire a relocated NHL franchise.

A final thought: You're awfully quick to accuse those of us who are American and support Nashville being given further time to prove itself as an NHL market of being irrationally biased against any further relocation or expansion to Canada. I mention this because your impassioned statement about ice hockey's place in Canadian culture indicates that your desire to see NHL franchises granted - either through relocation or expansion - to Canadian cities over American cities is hardly without a rather obviously emotional bias of your own.

[rams80]

*raises hand*

Point of order: It does snow in Kansas City in the winter.

Also...Clemente forgot the ever-popular "hockey doesn't belong in the hee-haw states." quote

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Bettman should do as a commissioner and what he actually does are two different things. When he wants a team to move, he facilitates the process and has even put roadblocks in front of those trying to keep the team, as he did with the potential ownership group in Winnipeg in the mid-90s. When he doesn't want a team to move, he puts roadblocks in front of those trying to move the team, as he did with Balsillie in Pittsburgh.

This is (somewhat) a case of apples and oranges. The potential ownership groups in Winnipeg, to my knowledge, did not have a plan to replace the Winnipeg Arena, whose age was the big reason the team moved anyway. That and it was the smallest market (and least performing) in Canada.

Pittsburgh did have a "plan" to get an arena replacement built, was only putting the team on the market because Lemieux did not want to be the "bad guy" who moved the team, and most importantly, is the best United States market for the NHL right now.

Nashville does have a modern arena, unlike Winnipeg, a bigger corporate presence than Winnipeg, and a much larger population than Winnipeg. Unfortunately, they are not in Canada, do not sell out games, and it only snows on occasion each year.

His motivation:

1. Taking a team out of Nashville and putting them in Hamilton reduces the NHL's American "footprint" which lowers the league's status as one of the major sports in the US.

And since there is more money in the US this is a problem why?

2. Moving the team means that Bettman is admitting he made a mistake in putting that franchise there in the first place.

Bingo. Especially this soon.

It is quite obvious that Bettman has a master plan for the league, and he has his hand in every transaction, trying to realize that plan.

He could have fooled me.

----------------------------------------------------------

I will point out something that got mentioned in The Rebel League. At the time when they were trying to merge some/all of the WHA teams into the NHL, Vancouver, Toronto (esp.), and Montreal kept opposing letting the Canadian WHA teams in because they felt that it would cut into their Canadian market share.

Why do you think the current Canadian owners don't feel the same way?

[Brian in Boston]

Please. Hockey was and is Canada's game. We exported it, and we play it better then anyone in the world. At the most hockey is an international game, but it is anything but an American game. And by no means is it a Floridian game.

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

[Roger Clemente]

Please. Hockey was and is Canada's game. We exported it, and we play it better then anyone in the world. At the most hockey is an international game, but it is anything but an American game. And by no means is it a Floridian game.

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

You realize that he's only going to understand, like, ten percent of what you just wrote?

[CJR]

You realize that he's only going to understand, like, ten percent of what you just wrote?

Well, 10% of 149 words is about 15 words. Lets see which they might be...

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

Yep, there's BiB with yet another attack on Canada.

[Fred T. Jane]

You realize that he's only going to understand, like, ten percent of what you just wrote?

Well, 10% of 149 words is about 15 words. Lets see which they might be...

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

Yep, there's BiB with yet another attack on Canada.

Oh dear... I'm still laughing!

[CC97]

Personally, I think Canadians should be very proud of their players that have helped their teams win the Stanley Cup MORE than where the team is located. Look at Anaheim, they have more Canadians on their roster than any other team when they won the Stanley Cup. Tampa had some pretty good Canadians on their roster, Lecavailier, St Louis. Would I love to see more NHL teams in Canada, absolutely, whether it be Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City, but I am far more concerned about the quality of players we produce and how we develop them, because that's where our (Canadians) source of pride comes from.

Very true, but what nationality are Gretzky's kids?

[DEAD!]

Personally, I think Canadians should be very proud of their players that have helped their teams win the Stanley Cup MORE than where the team is located. Look at Anaheim, they have more Canadians on their roster than any other team when they won the Stanley Cup. Tampa had some pretty good Canadians on their roster, Lecavailier, St Louis. Would I love to see more NHL teams in Canada, absolutely, whether it be Winnipeg, Hamilton or Quebec City, but I am far more concerned about the quality of players we produce and how we develop them, because that's where our (Canadians) source of pride comes from.

Very true, but what nationality are Gretzky's kids?

..... well... ummm.... have a look at Paulina, there's a different source of production and pride, (when it comes to DNA) ....

[IceCap]

Please. Hockey was and is Canada's game. We exported it, and we play it better then anyone in the world. At the most hockey is an international game, but it is anything but an American game. And by no means is it a Floridian game.

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

You realize that he's only going to understand, like, ten percent of what you just wrote?

You have an issue with me RC? At the very least have the decency to say it directly to me (or as close as you can get on an internet message board). As much as I dislike HL, at least he decided to engage me directly, rather then make snide side-line comments.

See, my issue with you is that you seem, to me at least, as the kind of guy who roots for a certain team, or says a certain thing, mainly because you get your jollies having people think you're the "weird one."

No doubt that you've probably been a true Ducks fan for many, many years, and your loyalty to that team is undeniable. I don't question your right to root for them, heck, I've never even been to California and I'm a Chargers fan. All that said, I have little doubt that you decided to adopt the Ducks as your favourite team only because you knew it would make people "do a double take" when they found that out about you. You knew stating the Ducks were your favourite team would cause people to look at you in a weird way, and you like that kind of attention. Now after years of following the team you've more or less "evolved" into a true fan, but your initial reason for your adoption of the Ducks as "your" team (from what I can tell) is part of what rubs me the wrong way about you.

The Wild's jerseys become the hottest seller after they're released, you come out and trash them, saying the rejected Blues' alternate and the LA Kings' BK sweaters look better. Everyone seems to hold the opinion that the Lightning's (soon to be old) set is bland and clip-art like, you say it's beautiful in its simplicity. People can't stand the overabundance of black in the previous Caps set, you go so far as to say the black caps sweater was the greatest sweater ever in the history of the NHL. See, with you there's a pattern. You're the kind of guy who promotes and embraces the unpopular decision because you like the feeling of being the "odd" guy. People say Gary Bettman is the worst commissioner in the history of the NHL, you say he's got an unfair rap and you'd like to have a drink with him. One or two times would be a coincidence, but it seems on almost every issue there seems to be a general consensus, you feel the need to say you think exactly the opposite. Now if someone happens to truly believe this or that, then by all means, they're free to express their opinion. But to take an opinion just because you like the feeling you get when people see you as the "odd" one pisses me off to no end. Essentially you're not furthering the discussion, you're just getting off on the way people see you.

Also, your little joke concepts. The ones where you whip them up in paint in two minutes, usually about something obscene or vulgar, and then everyone has a hardy laugh about how "random" RC is. Why is it we blast Patsox for posting PoS concept after PoS concept, mostly because he's knocking real concepts off the front page, but we allow RC to post his joke concepts, and then just say "it's ok, it's just how RC is."? Aren't you doing the same thing that Patsox does? Posting sub-par material in an attention grab, while pushing real concepts down the page?

Look, I know the above rant has nothing to do with the Nashville Predators, their possible relocation, and Bettman's possible influence in those matters. But if you can get away with your snide comment attacking me, I'm fully justified in my response. You're a talented artist, and your contributions to this community are undeniable. But you're not without fault, and your not above being called out on something some people may find annoying once you decide to take a pot-shot at one of those people.

And now, to BiB's original post, which I'm apparently unable to understand....

Please. Hockey was and is Canada's game. We exported it, and we play it better then anyone in the world. At the most hockey is an international game, but it is anything but an American game. And by no means is it a Floridian game.

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

So people are allowed to say baseball is "America's Pastime" but saying ice hockey is "Canada's Game" is somehow wrong? That's all I was saying. Perhaps I worded it to harshly, or in a poor manner, and for the misunderstanding I apologize. But that's all I was pointing out. You have -Helix- saying hockey is "his" game. That would be like me saying cricket is "my" game. I enjoy watching cricket, playing it is pretty fun, I guess you could call me a cricket fan, but cricket is by no means "my" game. So while -Helix- may be a huge hockey fan, he may enjoy watching it, and maybe even playing it, it isn't "his" game.

I never said only Canadians were qualified to comment on ice hockey, or anything even remotely close to that. I ask you, show me a quote where I said anything close to that. You simply misunderstood my response to -Helix-. I apologize for that misunderstanding, I probably could have picked my words more carefully, but what you assume I meant isn't what I was actually getting at.

[IceCap]

Gary Bettman could have used his influence as Commissioner to force the Oilers and Sens south. Had he decided to exercise that influence both teams would be playing in American cities. At the time, however, the NHL was still truly one of the Big Four leagues. Hockey was still receiving decent coverage in the general American sports media. To the media Edmonton and Ottawa were traditional hockey strongholds and moving them to untested American markets (Houston, in the case of the Oilers) would have gotten him crucified by the media, especially considering the Sun Belt expansion craze and the relocation of the Nords and Jets. Bettman was probably smart enough to see this. He knew if he pushed for the Oilers or Sens to go south he would get lambasted by the sports media, and due to negative publicity he might even lose his job. So rather then push for those teams to move south he just sat back and let the situations play out on their own. He had the influence to move them south, he just decided not to exercise it in the cases of the Sens and Oilers.

While he didn't actively push for a move south, however, he was by far the Gary Bettman we see today fighting to keep the Preds in Nashville and the Pens in Pittsburgh. In those cases he was in the papers and on sports shows saying "the team is staying where they are, and that's final."

Where was this zeal in the Edmonton and Ottawa cases? No, he wasn't actively pushing for the teams to move south (that we know of), but he wasn't out in the trenches doing all he could to keep the teams in place as he's doing now.

I'll agree to disagree here. IMO he seems like the type of commissioner who only fights to keep a franchise in place if it serves his vision of the NHL. To me that vision has Canada, and true American hockey fans as well, relegated to the sidelines.

May I borrow your infallible crystal ball? I'd like it to tell me which numbers I should play in the lottery this week. I mean, "no doubt" indicates that the outcome you've predicted for the Nashville Predators during the 2007-08 NHL season is guaranteed to come to pass, right?

That's my prediction as to what will happen, based on the Preds' past history of poor fan support. Maybe "no doubt" was to strong, but I feel very confident, based on Nashville's continued apathy toward the team, that the Preds' attendance will drop once the "We saved the Preds!" novelty wears off, and the "fans" realize that the 07-08 Preds are a far worse team then the 06-07 Preds.

Well I'm well aware in the end the NHL will make the final call. Since no member here is on the NHL BoG (to anyone's knowledge) this is essentially a discussion between fans. So from fan to fan, the Preds have spent eight real seasons in Nashville (the lockout obviously doesn't count). In those eight years the team has lost $70 million. How much longer, in your opinion, should the NHL continue to try and make pro hockey in Nashville work before relocation becomes the only real option?

I'm well aware the NHL doesn't care what the fans think, and they have their own twisted way of looking at reality. I know they decide what's what, and that the opinions of fans don't matter when we get right down to it. That doesn't mean, however, that I have to like it, or that I can't voice my displeasure with it.

Again, that's their call, and I doubt the opinions of fans, be they from Hamilton or Nashville, actually had an influence on that decision. But like I stated above, that doesn't mean I have to like that decision, or that I can't voice my displeasure regarding it.

George W. Bush and Stephen Harper weren't elected to office in the polls section of the CCSLC, but that doesn't stop us from discussing their policies from time to time, right?

If this was Nashville's third or fourth season, I could understand giving the team a little more time. We're in season number eight now. I've never completly bought the "we need a decade and a half to grow a fanbase" argument, but heck, I'll play along. IMO Nashville is such a dud we don't need to wait ten to fifteen years to see that as the case. My reasoning for accusing those arguing for the NHL to stay in Nashville as being "anti-Canadian" is two-pronged.

One, I see Nashville as a failed market, and any prolonged stay there will just amount to flushing more money down the drain. From where I'm standing the case of Nashville's failure is ironclad.

Now the highest bidder to buy the Preds (at one point at least) wants to move them to Hamilton, Ontario. I fully support this for a variety of reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now, including my high sense of Canadian patriotism, and hockey's place within the Canadian national identity.

I also realize that in its current shape the NHL is in no condition to expand (even though in the future expanding by two isn't out of the question). So for the time being relocation is the only way a city without a NHL team will get NHL hockey.

So sit back, and try to see things from my perspective.

1) Nashville is failing as a NHL market, and the owner wants to sell

2) The highest bidder (again, at one point at least) wants to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario

3) I'm ecstatic about this news, especially considering expansion to other Canadian cities is out of the question. So essentially this is one of, if not the, last chance Canada has at getting seventh team.

4) You have people who are pushing for the team to stay in Nashville. I see Nashville as such a spectacular failure that their insistence to keep the team in Nashville at the expense of a Canadian city has to be questioned.

I have to get going, so I'll close with this, I love my country, and I know how much hockey means to it. I want to see the country that invented and nurtured the modern game receive recognition for all it's done.

[Roger Clemente]

Please. Hockey was and is Canada's game. We exported it, and we play it better then anyone in the world. At the most hockey is an international game, but it is anything but an American game. And by no means is it a Floridian game.

I think this statement indicates just about all that there is to know about your mindset regarding the sport of ice hockey and the state of the National Hockey League.

Apparently, you feel that when it comes to discussing ice hockey and the NHL, the opinions of anyone but Canadian nationals are irrelevant. Heaven forbid that someone should hold an opinion on these subjects - and engage in backing said opinions up - if they don't agree with you 100%. It's all rather sad really.

Know this: there is plenty of room for reasoned, mutually-respectful debate on this subject. However, the content of your posts is threatening to cause this thread to degenerate into a rather one-sided harangue on your part. It's one thing to share - even defend - your opinion. It's quite another thing to dismiss any opinion but your own as hopelessly irrelevant and beneath consideration.

You realize that he's only going to understand, like, ten percent of what you just wrote?

You have an issue with me RC? At the very least have the decency to say it directly to me (or as close as you can get on an internet message board). As much as I dislike HL, at least he decided to engage me directly, rather then make snide side-line comments.

I never had an issue with you until you made this thread. Your gross over-bias against Gary Bettman in relation to a situation he was never officially proven to have influence in (and then against anyone who isn't a Canadian hockey fan) has made me question your reasoning.

See, my issue with you is that you seem, to me at least, as the kind of guy who roots for a certain team, or says a certain thing, mainly because you get your jollies having people think you're the "weird one."

No doubt that you've probably been a true Ducks fan for many, many years, and your loyalty to that team is undeniable. I don't question your right to root for them, heck, I've never even been to California and I'm a Chargers fan. All that said, I have little doubt that you decided to adopt the Ducks as your favourite team only because you knew it would make people "do a double take" when they found that out about you. You knew stating the Ducks were your favourite team would cause people to look at you in a weird way, and you like that kind of attention. Now after years of following the team you've more or less "evolved" into a true fan, but your initial reason for your adoption of the Ducks as "your" team (from what I can tell) is part of what rubs me the wrong way about you.

I would rather root for a franchise that has no significant history of their own then one that has a history so glorious it makes a great number of their fans act like arrogant pricks. (To do so, IMO, is like waiting till the race is over before better on the horse.) The Ducks, 14 years ago, qualified, as did Ottawa, Tampa Bay, San Jose and Florida. Essentially, it was a one in five chance at the time when the franchise was awarded that I would be rooting for them. Anaheim had the nicest uniforms IMO, so I settled with them. In every playoff run involving the five early 90's expansion franchises, I have rooted for Anaheim above all, but secretly wanted to see all five of them succeed. I rooted for Florida in 1996. Rooted for a Tampa Bay/San Jose final in 2004, rooted for Tampa Bay anyways in the final (bought the DVD). Wanted badly to see an Anaheim/Ottawa final in 2003. Didn't happen. Eventually did, and I couldn't have been happier with the end result. I have, at one time or another, owned Lightning and Senators jerseys in addition to the Ducks jerseys I own. I would gladly buy a Sharks jersey if they sold them. But this summer, I have no need to wear anything by my Ducks jersey, knowing nobody can say a word to it.

The Wild's jerseys become the hottest seller after they're released, you come out and trash them, saying the rejected Blues' alternate and the LA Kings' BK sweaters look better. Everyone seems to hold the opinion that the Lightning's (soon to be old) set is bland and clip-art like, you say it's beautiful in its simplicity. People can't stand the overabundance of black in the previous Caps set, you go so far as to say the black caps sweater was the greatest sweater ever in the history of the NHL. See, with you there's a pattern. You're the kind of guy who promotes and embraces the unpopular decision because you like the feeling of being the "odd" guy. People say Gary Bettman is the worst commissioner in the history of the NHL, you say he's got an unfair rap and you'd like to have a drink with him. One or two times would be a coincidence, but it seems on almost every issue there seems to be a general consensus, you feel the need to say you think exactly the opposite. Now if someone happens to truly believe this or that, then by all means, they're free to express their opinion. But to take an opinion just because you like the feeling you get when people see you as the "odd" one pisses me off to no end. Essentially you're not furthering the discussion, you're just getting off on the way people see you.

In regards to all those uniforms, those are my genuine feelings regarding them. Especially in regards to the Wild and Capitals, my feelings have been expressed passionately at length. I don't care if it is coincidentally against popular opinion, those are seriously how I've felt about them (and I shed a tear that the Capitals and Lightning are changing).

Regarding Bettman....true, some of the darkest moments of the game have occured on his watch, but people seem to place all the blame on him in situations that were not his (at least not JUST his) doing. Some of the smartest minds I know agree with me that Bettman was not the bad guy during the lockout. He was just the guy who had to make the tough decision that because nobody could agree on anything, the season was lost. I will gladly defend the right person in a wrong situation.

Also, your little joke concepts. The ones where you whip them up in paint in two minutes, usually about something obscene or vulgar, and then everyone has a hardy laugh about how "random" RC is. Why is it we blast Patsox for posting PoS concept after PoS concept, mostly because he's knocking real concepts off the front page, but we allow RC to post his joke concepts, and then just say "it's ok, it's just how RC is."? Aren't you doing the same thing that Patsox does? Posting sub-par material in an attention grab, while pushing real concepts down the page?

When was the last time I posted one? And, other than the Pissed-Off Octopusses of Newark which was obviously done in two minutes, if you look at them, you will see that I least put some effort into them.

Look, I know the above rant has nothing to do with the Nashville Predators, their possible relocation, and Bettman's possible influence in those matters. But if you can get away with your snide comment attacking me, I'm fully justified in my response. You're a talented artist, and your contributions to this community are undeniable. But you're not without fault, and your not above being called out on something some people may find annoying once you decide to take a pot-shot at one of those people.

Well, if you were offended by my snide remark, I do sincerely apologize. Understand however, that your actions and words used in the thread up to that point brought the remark upon you.

It isn't often that a person needs to defend their character, but whenever it does happen, it allows one to reflect upon themselves. I find it therapeutic and quite relieving. I thank you for this opportunity to reveal myself. And outside of this thread, I hold no ill will or grudge towards you.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[leedsunited]

Frankly, i'm not going to get into the whole "Canada is a better market for NHL hockey or not" argument that this thread seems to have devolved to. I will say that, nationality aside, we have a deep-pocketed prospective owner that is willing to buy a team that is struggling in its current market and take it to a market that would welcome the team with open arms. Take the Canadian issue outside of the argument, and this is a complete no-brainer. The NHL should be bending over backwards to welcome a moneybags guy like Balsillie into the fold (and raising franchise values in the process), regardless of where he wants to plunk the team. If it was good enough for the ownership in Phoenix and Denver to do so years ago, why can't he?

[IceCap]

Look, I know the above rant has nothing to do with the Nashville Predators, their possible relocation, and Bettman's possible influence in those matters. But if you can get away with your snide comment attacking me, I'm fully justified in my response. You're a talented artist, and your contributions to this community are undeniable. But you're not without fault, and your not above being called out on something some people may find annoying once you decide to take a pot-shot at one of those people.

Well, if you were offended by my snide remark, I do sincerely apologize. Understand however, that your actions and words used in the thread up to that point brought the remark upon you.

It isn't often that a person needs to defend their character, but whenever it does happen, it allows one to reflect upon themselves. I find it therapeutic and quite relieving. I thank you for this opportunity to reveal myself. And outside of this thread, I hold no ill will or grudge towards you.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Well I'm glad I could be of assistance

Seriously, if my post did help you gain a further understanding of who you are as a person, then I'm glad for that.

Also, thank you, I accept your apology. I would also like to apologize if anything I wrote offended you in any way. I'm sorry if I've misjudged your character. It's just that this is a passionate subject of debate (for me anyway) and your comment more or less backed me into a corner, which I perceived I had to get of by coming out swinging. If it matters, everything I said was stuff I had to get off of my chest, it wasn't like I purposely made anything up with the intention of being "extra" vicious. Again, I'm sorry if I misjudged your character, and I'm glad your (more then justified) response was both enlightening to me and therapeutic to you.

I would rather root for a franchise that has no significant history of their own then one that has a history so glorious it makes a great number of their fans act like arrogant pricks. (To do so, IMO, is like waiting till the race is over before better on the horse.)

I can see the reasoning behind that, like Canadian or American EPL "fans" who decide to cheer for Manchester United just because they're essentially the NY Yankees of English soccer. So I see your reasoning in that regard.

Let me assure you, however, that I didn't "pick" the Leafs as my favourite team because of their prestigious history. I'm a Leafs fan because I was born in Kitchener, Ontario, and the Leafs were more or the less the closest thing to a "home" team. Kitchener is very much part of Leafs Nation, so that's why I root for them. The fact that they have a prestigious history is just gravy. If I were from Atlanta I'd be a Thrashers fan, and I'd be a Ducks fan if I were from Anaheim (or any other LA suburb I guess). I decided to stick with the "home town" team. That's that. They happen to have a great history, I guess that's just luck on my part. If I were one of those fans who just latches onto the team with the most titles I'd be a Habs/Yankees/Argos/49ers/Celtics fan rather then a Leafs/Blue Jays/Ti-Cats/Chargers/Raptors fan.

[FiddySicks]

I would rather root for a franchise that has no significant history of their own then one that has a history so glorious it makes a great number of their fans act like arrogant pricks. (To do so, IMO, is like waiting till the race is over before better on the horse.) The Ducks, 14 years ago, qualified, as did Ottawa, Tampa Bay, San Jose and Florida. Essentially, it was a one in five chance at the time when the franchise was awarded that I would be rooting for them. Anaheim had the nicest uniforms IMO, so I settled with them.

This thought right here makes me seriously question YOUR reasoning.

[jkrdevil]

Frankly, i'm not going to get into the whole "Canada is a better market for NHL hockey or not" argument that this thread seems to have devolved to. I will say that, nationality aside, we have a deep-pocketed prospective owner that is willing to buy a team that is struggling in its current market and take it to a market that would welcome the team with open arms. Take the Canadian issue outside of the argument, and this is a complete no-brainer. The NHL should be bending over backwards to welcome a moneybags guy like Balsillie into the fold (and raising franchise values in the process), regardless of where he wants to plunk the team. If it was good enough for the ownership in Phoenix and Denver to do so years ago, why can't he?

The problem is this market is currently in at least 1 if not 2 current teams territory and the perspective owner has inferred in the past that he would sue or force his way in without paying the large territorial fees that have been payed in similar instances in the past (i.e. bringing in the Canadian Competition Council to investigate the legality of the leagues territorial rules). Plus there is an issue of what effect a team in this market will have on one of the teams near by (Buffalo) which this market is either their territory or just outside of it. You can see how this is a major issue for the league and how they might not a possible owner that might under mind the way the league (and all NA sports) operates. Because of these issues what is a no-brainer becomes an issue. If all things were the same and Hamilton was hundreds of miles from the nearest NHL city there wouldn't be this problem and they would have had a team years ago.

[Brian in Boston]

I apologize for that misunderstanding...

Readily accepted.

I probably could have picked my words more carefully...

Then you should strive to do so. Hopefully, that will go a long way towards alleviating your posts being misinterpreted.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that this thread is going to continue to devolve into a series of rather heated personal attacks, resulting in banishment to The Graveyard.

Bottom line? Everyone is asked to debate the issues as opposed to attacking each other. Everyone is asked to pick their words carefully when doing so.

That is all.

[twi]

Reading all of this, I must say that it's laughable that simply because I live in FL, or maybe just not in Canada, that hockey can't be "my" game. I guess it's not enough to play 3 times a week, pump literally thousands of dollars into equipment, icetime, etc., and make my living working in a store that sells only ice hockey equipment, merchandise, etc. If that doesn't make it "my" game, than nothing ever will, no matter what side of a border I live on. "My game" should denote your passion, recreation, whatever you see it as; it should not mean that one is so narrow minded to think they can own that which millions of people across the globe take joy from.

This may have already been mentioned, but as it pertains to Bettman protecting his markets I think it became (more) of a personal thing to him after the lockout. He came out promising to anyone that would listen that the current 30 markets were viable. A team moving only two seasons removed from the lockout would be disastorous. Bettman has to keep these 30 in their present locations or many people would look and say that the year off accomplished nothing. His life as commissioner is tied more tightly to the success of the current 30 markets more than anything else, imo. If more than 1 of them fail (especially in short succession) it will be seen as his vision of the NHL failing, and he knows this.

[The_Admiral]

When three markets failed in three years, that was okay.