The Sens/Leafs Rivalry

[Shane Does Art]

Game. Set. Match. Neon.

Now I begin to wonder what Neon thinks of my fanhood after the couple "debates" weve had.

Eh, I like you. Sometimes you seem more stubborn than I can be, but I mean, who isn't to some degree?

I'm just a tad jealous of Pittsburgh's success and the fact they have so many players we could use. I want Malkin, badly (not in a sexual way but in a way that he will play for the Leafs). He was having an MVP like campaign and now all the hard work he done will most likely be forgotten now that Crosby is back and he is no longer getting the ice time he was enjoying over the past few weeks. It is a shame though, he and Conklin kept that team in the running and it may end up that neither get the recognition they deserve. Thats why I want him to come here, because he'd be that player in the spotlight who gets whatever he wants essentially. Right now, if Ovechkin keeps the Caps in the running... man... he will sweep ALL the awards including the Rocket Richard, which, Crosby didn't get. That would be amazing. I think Malkin could have won the heart if he was the go-to man leading to the playoffs... but... if he can keep his point production up even with Crosby back in the line up, then he'd be my vote for MVP.

So yes, I want Malkin on my team damnit, we could use his MVP-like play!

And Pittsburgh needs to go back to the late 80's jerseys. Best. Set. EVA! Dark blue, black and a bright yellow crest? Beautiful!!!

Meh, your chance will come soon enough, there is no way they end up keeping their young core together Malkin will end up in New York or some other team offering the big bucks.

[maz]

Game. Set. Match. Neon.

Now I begin to wonder what Neon thinks of my fanhood after the couple "debates" weve had.

Eh, I like you. Sometimes you seem more stubborn than I can be, but I mean, who isn't to some degree?

I'm just a tad jealous of Pittsburgh's success and the fact they have so many players we could use. I want Malkin, badly (not in a sexual way but in a way that he will play for the Leafs). He was having an MVP like campaign and now all the hard work he done will most likely be forgotten now that Crosby is back and he is no longer getting the ice time he was enjoying over the past few weeks. It is a shame though, he and Conklin kept that team in the running and it may end up that neither get the recognition they deserve. Thats why I want him to come here, because he'd be that player in the spotlight who gets whatever he wants essentially. Right now, if Ovechkin keeps the Caps in the running... man... he will sweep ALL the awards including the Rocket Richard, which, Crosby didn't get. That would be amazing. I think Malkin could have won the heart if he was the go-to man leading to the playoffs... but... if he can keep his point production up even with Crosby back in the line up, then he'd be my vote for MVP.

So yes, I want Malkin on my team damnit, we could use his MVP-like play!

And Pittsburgh needs to go back to the late 80's jerseys. Best. Set. EVA! Dark blue, black and a bright yellow crest? Beautiful!!!

Late 70's, you mean?

Though those who decide the awards may forget Malkin, the folks here in Pittsburgh never will - hes more famous than ever, and his fame in this city rivals that of Sidney Crosby - which is an acheivment in itself because its hard to become famous in the critical eyes of Pittsburgh sports fans.

Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury are the three guys who, if all others left, would stay here. Shero & Co. are too smart to let them go.

Meh, your chance will come soon enough, there is no way they end up keeping their young core together Malkin will end up in New York or some other team offering the big bucks.

Being the overly optomistic pens fan I am, I think that Shero will find a way to keep him and other guys here. These guys still dont ask for alot, and more revenue is coming in now than in a long time - and will increase even ore once the new arena is here - so it may get to the point where the only them back would be the salary cap...but, who knows...

[Neon_Matrix]

Game. Set. Match. Neon.

Now I begin to wonder what Neon thinks of my fanhood after the couple "debates" weve had.

Eh, I like you. Sometimes you seem more stubborn than I can be, but I mean, who isn't to some degree?

I'm just a tad jealous of Pittsburgh's success and the fact they have so many players we could use. I want Malkin, badly (not in a sexual way but in a way that he will play for the Leafs). He was having an MVP like campaign and now all the hard work he done will most likely be forgotten now that Crosby is back and he is no longer getting the ice time he was enjoying over the past few weeks. It is a shame though, he and Conklin kept that team in the running and it may end up that neither get the recognition they deserve. Thats why I want him to come here, because he'd be that player in the spotlight who gets whatever he wants essentially. Right now, if Ovechkin keeps the Caps in the running... man... he will sweep ALL the awards including the Rocket Richard, which, Crosby didn't get. That would be amazing. I think Malkin could have won the heart if he was the go-to man leading to the playoffs... but... if he can keep his point production up even with Crosby back in the line up, then he'd be my vote for MVP.

So yes, I want Malkin on my team damnit, we could use his MVP-like play!

And Pittsburgh needs to go back to the late 80's jerseys. Best. Set. EVA! Dark blue, black and a bright yellow crest? Beautiful!!!

Late 70's, you mean?

Though those who decide the awards may forget Malkin, the folks here in Pittsburgh never will - hes more famous than ever, and his fame in this city rivals that of Sidney Crosby - which is an acheivment in itself because its hard to become famous in the critical eyes of Pittsburgh sports fans.

Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury are the three guys who, if all others left, would stay here. Shero & Co. are too smart to let them go.

Meh, your chance will come soon enough, there is no way they end up keeping their young core together Malkin will end up in New York or some other team offering the big bucks.

Being the overly optomistic pens fan I am, I think that Shero will find a way to keep him and other guys here. These guys still dont ask for alot, and more revenue is coming in now than in a long time - and will increase even ore once the new arena is here - so it may get to the point where the only them back would be the salary cap...but, who knows...

Haha, my bad. Pressed the wrong button.

I really don't think Shero is THAT smart... look what he gave up for Hal Gill!! The Hossa trade will also come back to bite them in the ass, giving away Crosby's linemate and some other clutch talent. Moving Esposito was a good move though because he was not going to get a chance to play on the big team for quite awhile, there is just no room for him. He may pull a Jay Feaster and Brian Murray and sign just a few guys to big, long (I know that sounds suggestive) contracts that will handcuff the team in the long term. It will prevent them from rounding out the team in areas in which they need improvement. Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Letang and Staal will all demand large, long term deals and frankly, they won't be able to attract much more big talent as they won't have the financial room for them. In addition, their depth in youth will slowly decline as they will have lower and lower draft pics and will most likely be trading more away for short term rental players, like what they gave for Hossa and even Gill!! Just look at Tampa Bay for what long term, big contracts will do to a team. Its crappy, but thats the nature of the league these days, and its so much harder to move those contracts these days as well. If they are going to be good, they have to do it soon otherwise they will be a long term flop with some big names on that roster.

And then we will land Malkin!! (kidding! (or am I?))

[maz]

Game. Set. Match. Neon.

Now I begin to wonder what Neon thinks of my fanhood after the couple "debates" weve had.

Eh, I like you. Sometimes you seem more stubborn than I can be, but I mean, who isn't to some degree?

I'm just a tad jealous of Pittsburgh's success and the fact they have so many players we could use. I want Malkin, badly (not in a sexual way but in a way that he will play for the Leafs). He was having an MVP like campaign and now all the hard work he done will most likely be forgotten now that Crosby is back and he is no longer getting the ice time he was enjoying over the past few weeks. It is a shame though, he and Conklin kept that team in the running and it may end up that neither get the recognition they deserve. Thats why I want him to come here, because he'd be that player in the spotlight who gets whatever he wants essentially. Right now, if Ovechkin keeps the Caps in the running... man... he will sweep ALL the awards including the Rocket Richard, which, Crosby didn't get. That would be amazing. I think Malkin could have won the heart if he was the go-to man leading to the playoffs... but... if he can keep his point production up even with Crosby back in the line up, then he'd be my vote for MVP.

So yes, I want Malkin on my team damnit, we could use his MVP-like play!

And Pittsburgh needs to go back to the late 80's jerseys. Best. Set. EVA! Dark blue, black and a bright yellow crest? Beautiful!!!

Late 70's, you mean?

Though those who decide the awards may forget Malkin, the folks here in Pittsburgh never will - hes more famous than ever, and his fame in this city rivals that of Sidney Crosby - which is an acheivment in itself because its hard to become famous in the critical eyes of Pittsburgh sports fans.

Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury are the three guys who, if all others left, would stay here. Shero & Co. are too smart to let them go.

Meh, your chance will come soon enough, there is no way they end up keeping their young core together Malkin will end up in New York or some other team offering the big bucks.

Being the overly optomistic pens fan I am, I think that Shero will find a way to keep him and other guys here. These guys still dont ask for alot, and more revenue is coming in now than in a long time - and will increase even ore once the new arena is here - so it may get to the point where the only them back would be the salary cap...but, who knows...

Haha, my bad. Pressed the wrong button.

I really don't think Shero is THAT smart... look what he gave up for Hal Gill!! The Hossa trade will also come back to bite them in the ass, giving away Crosby's linemate and some other clutch talent. Moving Esposito was a good move though because he was not going to get a chance to play on the big team for quite awhile, there is just no room for him. He may pull a Jay Feaster and Brian Murray and sign just a few guys to big, long (I know that sounds suggestive) contracts that will handcuff the team in the long term. It will prevent them from rounding out the team in areas in which they need improvement. Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Letang and Staal will all demand large, long term deals and frankly, they won't be able to attract much more big talent as they won't have the financial room for them. In addition, their depth in youth will slowly decline as they will have lower and lower draft pics and will most likely be trading more away for short term rental players, like what they gave for Hossa and even Gill!! Just look at Tampa Bay for what long term, big contracts will do to a team. Its crappy, but thats the nature of the league these days, and its so much harder to move those contracts these days as well. If they are going to be good, they have to do it soon otherwise they will be a long term flop with some big names on that roster.

And then we will land Malkin!! (kidding! (or am I?))

We didnt lose much in teh Hossa trade. Armstrong is a big lockeroom influence and physical presence on the ice - but oyu can find quite a few of those anywhere. And Christensen was crap in almost anything but breakaways. We needed a winger for Crosby and got one. We needed a defenseman and got one. And we dont need Esposito, were more than stacked up with centers. The most we lost on trade deadline day may have been a 1st roudn pick (and probably a late one, at that)

Staal, Malkin, Fleury, Crosby, etc. they arent greedy guys. Theyve all grown up as a team together these past years. They might want more, and demand more, but they dont get paid much now and probably (hopefully) wont ask for much in the future. But thers no telling what they think, what willhappen, and how that will affect what they think and want in the future. Youre right. Its likely theyll have to go eventually, but its not garanteed.

But, like I said, at very least, Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury will stay here. Itd be pretty stupid not to try to at least keep those three.

[Shane Does Art]

Game. Set. Match. Neon.

Now I begin to wonder what Neon thinks of my fanhood after the couple "debates" weve had.

Eh, I like you. Sometimes you seem more stubborn than I can be, but I mean, who isn't to some degree?

I'm just a tad jealous of Pittsburgh's success and the fact they have so many players we could use. I want Malkin, badly (not in a sexual way but in a way that he will play for the Leafs). He was having an MVP like campaign and now all the hard work he done will most likely be forgotten now that Crosby is back and he is no longer getting the ice time he was enjoying over the past few weeks. It is a shame though, he and Conklin kept that team in the running and it may end up that neither get the recognition they deserve. Thats why I want him to come here, because he'd be that player in the spotlight who gets whatever he wants essentially. Right now, if Ovechkin keeps the Caps in the running... man... he will sweep ALL the awards including the Rocket Richard, which, Crosby didn't get. That would be amazing. I think Malkin could have won the heart if he was the go-to man leading to the playoffs... but... if he can keep his point production up even with Crosby back in the line up, then he'd be my vote for MVP.

So yes, I want Malkin on my team damnit, we could use his MVP-like play!

And Pittsburgh needs to go back to the late 80's jerseys. Best. Set. EVA! Dark blue, black and a bright yellow crest? Beautiful!!!

Late 70's, you mean?

Though those who decide the awards may forget Malkin, the folks here in Pittsburgh never will - hes more famous than ever, and his fame in this city rivals that of Sidney Crosby - which is an acheivment in itself because its hard to become famous in the critical eyes of Pittsburgh sports fans.

Malkin, Crosby, and Fleury are the three guys who, if all others left, would stay here. Shero & Co. are too smart to let them go.

Meh, your chance will come soon enough, there is no way they end up keeping their young core together Malkin will end up in New York or some other team offering the big bucks.

Being the overly optomistic pens fan I am, I think that Shero will find a way to keep him and other guys here. These guys still dont ask for alot, and more revenue is coming in now than in a long time - and will increase even ore once the new arena is here - so it may get to the point where the only them back would be the salary cap...but, who knows...

Haha, my bad. Pressed the wrong button.

I really don't think Shero is THAT smart... look what he gave up for Hal Gill!! The Hossa trade will also come back to bite them in the ass, giving away Crosby's linemate and some other clutch talent. Moving Esposito was a good move though because he was not going to get a chance to play on the big team for quite awhile, there is just no room for him. He may pull a Jay Feaster and Brian Murray and sign just a few guys to big, long (I know that sounds suggestive) contracts that will handcuff the team in the long term. It will prevent them from rounding out the team in areas in which they need improvement. Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Letang and Staal will all demand large, long term deals and frankly, they won't be able to attract much more big talent as they won't have the financial room for them. In addition, their depth in youth will slowly decline as they will have lower and lower draft pics and will most likely be trading more away for short term rental players, like what they gave for Hossa and even Gill!! Just look at Tampa Bay for what long term, big contracts will do to a team. Its crappy, but thats the nature of the league these days, and its so much harder to move those contracts these days as well. If they are going to be good, they have to do it soon otherwise they will be a long term flop with some big names on that roster.

And then we will land Malkin!! (kidding! (or am I?))

We didnt lose much in teh Hossa trade. Armstrong is a big lockeroom influence and physical presence on the ice - but oyu can find quite a few of those anywhere. And Christensen was crap in almost anything but breakaways. We needed a winger for Crosby and got one. We needed a defenseman and got one. And we dont need Esposito, were more than stacked up with centers. The most we lost on trade deadline day may have been a 1st roudn pick (and probably a late one, at that)

Staal, Malkin, Fleury, Crosby, etc. they arent greedy guys. Theyve all grown up as a team together these past years. They might want more, and demand more, but they dont get paid much now and probably (hopefully) wont ask for much in the future. But thers no telling what they think, what willhappen, and how that will affect what they think and want in the future. Youre right. Its likely theyll have to go eventually, but its not garanteed.

But, like I said, at very least, Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury will stay here. Itd be pretty stupid not to try to at least keep those three.

Yah 8.7 Million is chump change.

And I don't know but if I remember correctly Crosby was doing fine with his line-mates, why they would go and get Hossa who will most likely be gone before training camp is beyond me.

So I don't understand how the only thing you lost at the deadline was a first-round pick. All you get for the long-term is Hal Gill, and Dupuis (I think he has a few more years.) that is if Hossa decides to go to a team who could offer him up to the same amount as Crosby. You think Ray Shero would offer the same amount of money to Marian that he offers to the "best" player in the league? Same with Malkin, chances are he'll be comparing himself to Ovechkin who got 10 million + , and I don't think Shero will want to give more money than Crosby gets to anyone.

Christ Edmonton couldn't even keep all of their guys together and there wasn't even a cap in place. But I suppose their owner would be to fault there.

[Neon_Matrix]

Same with Malkin, chances are he'll be comparing himself to Ovechkin who got 10 million + , and I don't think Shero will want to give more money than Crosby gets to anyone.

$7.1 Million?

[zig]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connected in anything but name and location.

EDIT - I should proofread

[TFoA]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

[Neon_Matrix]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connected in anything but name and location.

EDIT - I should proofread

In person I'm a pretty outspoken Leafs fan, on here, I'm more mellow about it. I do love to irk Sens fans though, and owning that Steve Downie jersey totally helps. I own too many leafs clothes to keep track of sadly.

[friarcanuck]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

[Neon_Matrix]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

[youcan'tseeme]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

I've never heard along those lines before either. It makes no sense, either. What reason would the league have for buying the franchise itself? Maybe they purchased the copyright of the team name/logo. But I highly doubt buying the team itself, as there is no motive for it.

[SenatorJake]

I did a bit of research on the reason why the original Senators left, and it's highly open to interpretation. It was the depression and attendance did drop, so we were both right. I don't understand how you conclude that attendance dropping during the biggest economic hardships of the 20th century, somehow means that Ottawa fans let their team down. Nowhere did I find anything to refute my claim that ticket prices skyrocketed. However, I did find an article from the Ottawa Sun, that said that ticket prices were, as a matter of fact, too high during the depression causing many fans to seek out cheaper ticket prices in minor hockey. This coupled with the fact that Ottawa was the NHL's smallest market at the time, (five times smaller than Toronto in 1927) resulted in the decline and eventual death of the original Senators. They sold all their players and fans who had never experienced the type of losing seasons that the Senators were having, simply lost interest.

So was it lack of fan interest or economic hardships that caused the Senators to die? It was both, but most importantly, it was the fact that at that time Ottawa was an extremely small market that simply could not compete with the likes of Boston, Detroit, New York, Montreal or even Toronto. Also, I found this little tidbit somewhat interesting, most Ottawa fans hated the fact that the NHL had expanded into the United States and attendance to the games against American teams was very low.

Also... ummm... PERSONAL ATTACK! AAAARGH! YOU SUCK & STUFF! (It just wouldn't be a Senator Jake post without it.)

[friarcanuck]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Just call it a batsh** loony conspiracy theory. It was mentioned on during the Senators/Kings game on Thursday by the Kings announcers, but even I know the statement holds as much water as a colander. All I have about the team being bought out/taken away from the owners is the merchandise. How can the original logos, be used by the league without paying out to someone or their estate?

I agree that the Stanley Cup banners in Scotiabank Place aren't owned by the Senators of today, but you can still honour them. Just like how there's a Blueshirts Stanley Cup banner in ACC.

If you need an example of a team being mothballed and resurrected as an "expansion" team, look at the Cleveland Browns. On paper they have the original Browns' history, but everyone knows they're an expansion team.

[Neon_Matrix]

I did a bit of research on the reason why the original Senators left, and it's highly open to interpretation. It was the depression and attendance did drop, so we were both right. I don't understand how you conclude that attendance dropping during the biggest economic hardships of the 20th century, somehow means that Ottawa fans let their team down. Nowhere did I find anything to refute my claim that ticket prices skyrocketed. However, I did find an article from the Ottawa Sun, that said that ticket prices were, as a matter of fact, too high during the depression causing many fans to seek out cheaper ticket prices in minor hockey. This coupled with the fact that Ottawa was the NHL's smallest market at the time, (five times smaller than Toronto in 1927) resulted in the decline and eventual death of the original Senators. They sold all their players and fans who had never experienced the type of losing seasons that the Senators were having, simply lost interest.

So was it lack of fan interest or economic hardships that caused the Senators to die? It was both, but most importantly, it was the fact that at that time Ottawa was an extremely small market that simply could not compete with the likes of Boston, Detroit, New York, Montreal or even Toronto. Also, I found this little tidbit somewhat interesting, most Ottawa fans hated the fact that the NHL had expanded into the United States and attendance to the games against American teams was very low.

Also... ummm... PERSONAL ATTACK! AAAARGH! YOU SUCK & STUFF! (It just wouldn't be a Senator Jake post without it.)

I... am floored. Is that why you have been MIA for the past few days?

I am impressed you actually looked into it this time. Give me either a few days (to rent out the book) or a few weeks to look at my copy to get the full info on the numbers prior to the depression. In addition, Toronto was the second smallest market in the League at that time and was not yet close to being the powerforce city it is now. Heck, at that time they had just become the Maple Leafs and were playing out of the Mutual Street Arena, which was pretty crappy compared to what was being built around that time. Keep in mind, Ottawa had a crappy arena too, but also offered the LOWEST pricesi n the league. From what I remember, once American teams came into the league, they began to sign away players because they had more money to offer to them than the smaller market Ottawa team, although, it doesn't make up for the fact they were still successful up until '29 (if I remember correctly). The fact that they couldn't sell out prior to their players being signed away while offering the lowest prices in the league and while they were making their last cup run points more to the fans than the economic situations of the time. But once the depressoin hit, every team felt the heat, but they still managed to attract fans and stay competitive. I also seem to remember Ottawa suspended operations in '33 before being sold... although I need to check this.

This is just from what I remember but give me some time and I'll get back and add to it or correct anything I got wrong.

Glad to see you have mellowed out... but I would appreciate an appology for that tirade you went on... and with that I believe this war will be over.

[Neon_Matrix]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Just call it a batsh** loony conspiracy theory. It was mentioned on during the Senators/Kings game on Thursday by the Kings announcers, but even I know the statement holds as much water as a colander. All I have about the team being bought out/taken away from the owners is the merchandise. How can the original logos, be used by the league without paying out to someone or their estate?

I agree that the Stanley Cup banners in Scotiabank Place aren't owned by the Senators of today, but you can still honour them. Just like how there's a St. Pats Stanley Cup banner in ACC.

If you need an example of a team being mothballed and resurrected as an "expansion" team, look at the Cleveland Browns. On paper they have the original Browns' history, but everyone knows they're an expansion team.

There is a St. Pat's banner because its the same team!

Just like how Phoenix honoured Bobby Hull as a Jet awhile ago because it is the same team. Toronto can do it because it is the same franchise.

As for Ottawa being allowed to use the "O" logo, I believe after a period of time it re-enters the public domain or something and is no longer owned by someone, or, the team sold it off to someone. I know the St. Pats identity has to be licenced to the league as the Leafs don't own it anymore (so I have been told). With the Browns, I think they actually bought back the identity or something. If I am wrong, tell me, but this is just from what I remember people saying on here before.

[friarcanuck]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Just call it a batsh** loony conspiracy theory. It was mentioned on during the Senators/Kings game on Thursday by the Kings announcers, but even I know the statement holds as much water as a colander. All I have about the team being bought out/taken away from the owners is the merchandise. How can the original logos, be used by the league without paying out to someone or their estate?

I agree that the Stanley Cup banners in Scotiabank Place aren't owned by the Senators of today, but you can still honour them. Just like how there's a St. Pats Stanley Cup banner in ACC.

If you need an example of a team being mothballed and resurrected as an "expansion" team, look at the Cleveland Browns. On paper they have the original Browns' history, but everyone knows they're an expansion team.

There is a St. Pat's banner because its the same team!

Just like how Phoenix honoured Bobby Hull as a Jet awhile ago because it is the same team. Toronto can do it because it is the same franchise.

As for Ottawa being allowed to use the "O" logo, I believe after a period of time it re-enters the public domain or something and is no longer owned by someone, or, the team sold it off to someone. I know the St. Pats identity has to be licenced to the league as the Leafs don't own it anymore (so I have been told). With the Browns, I think they actually bought back the identity or something. If I am wrong, tell me, but this is just from what I remember people saying on here before.

Sorry the St. Pats was an error. I posted it then tried to edit it cause I knew it was wrong. I meant to say the Blueshirts or Arenas or whatever they were called when they won the Cup in 1918.

[Neon_Matrix]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Just call it a batsh** loony conspiracy theory. It was mentioned on during the Senators/Kings game on Thursday by the Kings announcers, but even I know the statement holds as much water as a colander. All I have about the team being bought out/taken away from the owners is the merchandise. How can the original logos, be used by the league without paying out to someone or their estate?

I agree that the Stanley Cup banners in Scotiabank Place aren't owned by the Senators of today, but you can still honour them. Just like how there's a St. Pats Stanley Cup banner in ACC.

If you need an example of a team being mothballed and resurrected as an "expansion" team, look at the Cleveland Browns. On paper they have the original Browns' history, but everyone knows they're an expansion team.

There is a St. Pat's banner because its the same team!

Just like how Phoenix honoured Bobby Hull as a Jet awhile ago because it is the same team. Toronto can do it because it is the same franchise.

As for Ottawa being allowed to use the "O" logo, I believe after a period of time it re-enters the public domain or something and is no longer owned by someone, or, the team sold it off to someone. I know the St. Pats identity has to be licenced to the league as the Leafs don't own it anymore (so I have been told). With the Browns, I think they actually bought back the identity or something. If I am wrong, tell me, but this is just from what I remember people saying on here before.

Sorry the St. Pats was an error. I posted it then tried to edit it cause I knew it was wrong. I meant to say the Blueshirts or Arenas or whatever they were called when they won the Cup in 1918.

Turned into the St. Pats.

I don't have the book with me here, but I am currently reading one about how the NHA turned into the NHL by reforming without former Toronto franchise owner Livingston. (It's called "Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey" by Morey Holzman and Joseph Nieforth and it covers from like, 1912 till 1936 I believe, I don't fully know cuz I'm only half way through! lol). There was some weird technicality where that team came into the NHL, owned by someone else, and won the Stanley Cup their first year in operation. I cannot tell you though who turned them into the St. Pats - that I do not know off the top of my head. When I go home next I can check in that book (I stupidly left it there over reading week!!) to tell you who and how the St. Pats came into existence. I do think it had something to do with being owned by a Catholic guy, I just don't remember the details at all.

EDIT: Well, I got bored so I looked on wikipedia and found this for the meantime.

Early years (1917-27)

The National Hockey League was formed in 1917 in Montreal by teams formerly belonging to the National Hockey Association (NHA) that had a dispute with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts. The owners of the other four clubs – the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Quebec Bulldogs, and Ottawa Senators – had enough votes between them to expel Livingstone from the NHA. Instead, they opted to create a new league, the NHL, and effectively left Livingstone in the NHA by himself.

However, the other clubs felt it would be unthinkable not to have a team from Toronto (Canada's second largest city at the time) in the new league. They also needed another team to balance the schedule after the Bulldogs suspended operations (and as it turned out, would not ice a team until 1920). Accordingly, the NHL granted a "temporary" Toronto franchise to the Arena Company, owners of the Arena Gardens. The Arena Company agreed to lease the Blueshirts' players for the season until the dispute was resolved. This temporary franchise did not have an official name, but was informally called "the Blueshirts" by area writers and sometimes called "the Torontos" by fans. Under manager Charlie Querrie and coach Dick Carroll, the Toronto team won the Stanley Cup in the NHL's inaugural season.

For the next season, rather than return the Blueshirts' players to Livingstone as originally promised, the Arena Company formed its own team, the Toronto Arena Hockey Club, which was readily granted full-fledged membership in the NHL. Also that year, it was decided that only NHL teams would be allowed to play at the Arena Gardens.[2] Livingstone sued to get his players back. Mounting legal bills from the dispute forced the Arenas to sell most of their stars, resulting in a horrendous five-win season in 1918-19. When it was obvious that the Arenas would not be able to finish out the season, the NHL agreed to let the Arenas halt operations in February 1919 and proceed directly to the playoffs. The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season is still the worst in franchise history.

The legal dispute nearly ruined the Arena Company, and it was forced to put the Arenas up for sale. Querrie put together a group that mainly consisted of the people who had run the senior amateur St. Patricks team in the Ontario Hockey Association. The new owners renamed the team the Toronto St. Patricks (or St. Pats for short) and would operate it until 1927. This period saw the team's jersey colours change from blue to green, as well as a second Stanley Cup championship in 1922.

During this time, the St. Patricks also allowed other teams to play in the Arena Gardens whenever their home rinks didn't have proper ice in the warmer months. At the time, the Arena was the only facility east of Manitoba with artificial ice.[2]

[friarcanuck]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Just call it a batsh** loony conspiracy theory. It was mentioned on during the Senators/Kings game on Thursday by the Kings announcers, but even I know the statement holds as much water as a colander. All I have about the team being bought out/taken away from the owners is the merchandise. How can the original logos, be used by the league without paying out to someone or their estate?

I agree that the Stanley Cup banners in Scotiabank Place aren't owned by the Senators of today, but you can still honour them. Just like how there's a St. Pats Stanley Cup banner in ACC.

If you need an example of a team being mothballed and resurrected as an "expansion" team, look at the Cleveland Browns. On paper they have the original Browns' history, but everyone knows they're an expansion team.

There is a St. Pat's banner because its the same team!

Just like how Phoenix honoured Bobby Hull as a Jet awhile ago because it is the same team. Toronto can do it because it is the same franchise.

As for Ottawa being allowed to use the "O" logo, I believe after a period of time it re-enters the public domain or something and is no longer owned by someone, or, the team sold it off to someone. I know the St. Pats identity has to be licenced to the league as the Leafs don't own it anymore (so I have been told). With the Browns, I think they actually bought back the identity or something. If I am wrong, tell me, but this is just from what I remember people saying on here before.

Sorry the St. Pats was an error. I posted it then tried to edit it cause I knew it was wrong. I meant to say the Blueshirts or Arenas or whatever they were called when they won the Cup in 1918.

Turned into the St. Pats.

I don't have the book with me here, but I am currently reading one about how the NHA turned into the NHL by reforming without former Toronto franchise owner Livingston. (It's called "Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey" by Morey Holzman and Joseph Nieforth and it covers from like, 1912 till 1936 I believe, I don't fully know cuz I'm only half way through! lol). There was some weird technicality where that team came into the NHL, owned by someone else, and won the Stanley Cup their first year in operation. I cannot tell you though who turned them into the St. Pats - that I do not know off the top of my head. When I go home next I can check in that book (I stupidly left it there over reading week!!) to tell you who and how the St. Pats came into existence. I do think it had something to do with being owned by a Catholic guy, I just don't remember the details at all.

EDIT: Well, I got bored so I looked on wikipedia and found this for the meantime.

Early years (1917-27)

The National Hockey League was formed in 1917 in Montreal by teams formerly belonging to the National Hockey Association (NHA) that had a dispute with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts. The owners of the other four clubs ? the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Quebec Bulldogs, and Ottawa Senators ? had enough votes between them to expel Livingstone from the NHA. Instead, they opted to create a new league, the NHL, and effectively left Livingstone in the NHA by himself.

However, the other clubs felt it would be unthinkable not to have a team from Toronto (Canada's second largest city at the time) in the new league. They also needed another team to balance the schedule after the Bulldogs suspended operations (and as it turned out, would not ice a team until 1920). Accordingly, the NHL granted a "temporary" Toronto franchise to the Arena Company, owners of the Arena Gardens. The Arena Company agreed to lease the Blueshirts' players for the season until the dispute was resolved. This temporary franchise did not have an official name, but was informally called "the Blueshirts" by area writers and sometimes called "the Torontos" by fans. Under manager Charlie Querrie and coach Dick Carroll, the Toronto team won the Stanley Cup in the NHL's inaugural season.

For the next season, rather than return the Blueshirts' players to Livingstone as originally promised, the Arena Company formed its own team, the Toronto Arena Hockey Club, which was readily granted full-fledged membership in the NHL. Also that year, it was decided that only NHL teams would be allowed to play at the Arena Gardens.[2] Livingstone sued to get his players back. Mounting legal bills from the dispute forced the Arenas to sell most of their stars, resulting in a horrendous five-win season in 1918-19. When it was obvious that the Arenas would not be able to finish out the season, the NHL agreed to let the Arenas halt operations in February 1919 and proceed directly to the playoffs. The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season is still the worst in franchise history.

The legal dispute nearly ruined the Arena Company, and it was forced to put the Arenas up for sale. Querrie put together a group that mainly consisted of the people who had run the senior amateur St. Patricks team in the Ontario Hockey Association. The new owners renamed the team the Toronto St. Patricks (or St. Pats for short) and would operate it until 1927. This period saw the team's jersey colours change from blue to green, as well as a second Stanley Cup championship in 1922.

During this time, the St. Patricks also allowed other teams to play in the Arena Gardens whenever their home rinks didn't have proper ice in the warmer months. At the time, the Arena was the only facility east of Manitoba with artificial ice.[2]

From the Toronto Arenas Wikipedia page:

1918-1919 season

On 1918-10-19, Hubert Vearncombe, treasurer of the Arena Co. formed the Toronto Arena Hockey Club Company and applied for a 'permanent' NHL franchise. This was done so that the Hockey Club could operate separately, without the legal action which was brought against Arena Co., threatening to stop NHL play in Toronto. The Stanley Cup run had been lucrative for the Arena Co., and they had refused to pay any of the revenues to Livingstone, whose players they had used.

The owners paid nothing for this new temporary franchise; there was an agreement to split profits with the league until $5000 was received by the league. The players now knew that the club was in trouble, and several signed contracts with both Livingstone and Vearncombe, not knowing who would win out. Those players eventually would be sued by Livingstone as well.

This year, the club was not successful, falling to 5 wins and 13 losses, finishing last in both halves of the season. Attendance was especially poor, recorded as only hundreds for a February 4, 1919 game against the Canadiens. Several players left the team, including Harry Holmes, Harry Meeking and Dave Ritchie. This was partly due to the operations of the team, as most players were without legal contracts, as they were really still 'property' of the Blueshirts, and were being paid in cash.

The team wrote to Calder to end the season early, and the season ended after each team had played 18 games. The Toronto Arenas then officially withdrew from the league on 1919-02-20.[2] This left the two remaining teams, Montreal and Ottawa, to play a play-off for the league championship.

Footnote #2 references "Diamond, Dan (1991). The Official National Hockey League 75th anniversary commemorative book. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, pg.26. ISBN 0771067275. " I'd check it, but it's at my parents and I won't be visiting them till April.

This makes me want the authors of Total Hockey (that HUGE 1000+ page book that came out in the mid-90s) to come out with another edition. At least publish these kinds of stats in the internet. In another 30 years when I retire, I know what I'll be doing now.

[Webhamster]

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

Next time I'm at my parents' place I'm going to have to grab the VHS copy of the first Senators game from 1992 that I recorded and saw sitting on a shelf in the basement a few weeks ago. I hope it's still watchable because I swear I remember John Ziegler making a presentation during the pre-game that proclaimed the Senators were being "re-admitted to the league" and presented a certificate to Bruce Firestone confirming that declaration.

Of course, it would still just be symbolic but whatever. Does it really matter? Is it really worth arguing so vociferously about?

And, as far as the rights to the 'O' logo, I remember a story that the team had purchased the rights to the logo and name from the Gorman family way back when they got the franchise.