Back In The Game?

[STL FANATIC]

1. I don't see Gary Bettman passing the buck. (He's not really saying much of anything about it.) I see people within this discussion saying it's not really Bettman's fault. Those are two different things. I agree a leader needs to take responsibility, period, end of story. But that doesn't mean others can't be more rational in determining who's really at fault.

2. Additionally, I think you're confusing who's saying the other commissioners have considerable influence and who's saying that Bettman doesn't. I'd venture a guess that most of the people who are saying Bettman isn't the end all be all of NHL decisions would tell you the same thing for Bud Selig and the MLB, David Stern and the NBA, and Roger Goodell and the NFL. Further, you're simplifying things. Nobody's said he's just a puppet. He (and the other commissioners) clearly have influence. But ultimately they work for the owners and are subject to the owners will or firing. Additionally, the owners make most of the final decisions.

[IceCap]

1. I don't see Gary Bettman passing the buck. (He's not really saying much of anything about it.) I see people within this discussion saying it's not really Bettman's fault. Those are two different things. I agree a leader needs to take responsibility, period, end of story.

And the office of the Commissioner basically makes Gary Bettman the "leader" of the NHL. So he needs to take some level of responsibility and concentrate on actually fixing the problems leading to these league wide financial difficulties. You can't say "I agree a leader needs to take responsibility" and then say "Gary Bettman doesn't have to take responsibility." He's the boss. He's responsible if things go wrong under his watch.

FTR I do think he's capable of fixing things, or at the very least making a decent go at it. He's shown remarkable determination when he's had to (the Pens relocation crisis, the Lockout). He just needs to admit that the mindset he and the league have been working with for the past decade and a half isn't working. That mindset being that hockey can work ANYWHERE if given enough time and that the NHL can compete on the same level as the NBA, NFL, and MLB.

But that doesn't mean others can't be more rational in determining who's really at fault.

It's a collective failing. The NHL decided it wanted to play with the big boys when it came to the American pro sports scene and they found a commissioner, Gary Bettman, who's vision matched what they wanted to do. It's Bettman's fault because he's the Commissioner when these problems are popping up. He's the boss, that means he has to take the good and the bad.

It's the collective NHL ownership's fault for fighting to keep this sad delusion that they're really on the same level as the NFL, NBA, and MLB alive, long after it had been proven to be just that, a delusion.

2. Additionally, I think you're confusing who's saying the other commissioners have considerable influence and who's saying that Bettman doesn't. I'd venture a guess that most of the people who are saying Bettman isn't the end all be all of NHL decisions would tell you the same thing for Bud Selig and the MLB, David Stern and the NBA, and Roger Goodell and the NFL. Further, you're simplifying things. Nobody's said he's just a puppet. He (and the other commissioners) clearly have influence. But ultimately they work for the owners and are subject to the owners will or firing. Additionally, the owners make most of the final decisions.

Like I said, it's a collective failing. Bettman needs to take responsibility when things go south on his watch, and the collective NHL ownership needs to realize that the mindset they've been working with isn't working. Rather then trying to "grow the game" they need to focus on simple economic stability. And teams that lose $400 million in thirteen years and draw less then 7,000 fans to games do not fit in with a focus on economic stability.

As for the actual power structure of the NHL, yes, commissioners are subject to being hired and fired by the owners. The thing is though, they're hired to be the boss. It's more of a case where the NHL ownership hires Gary Bettman to formulate policies that they then follow, because they've hired him to essentially follow his leadership.

No, Gary Bettman isn't the end all and be all of the NHL. Neither is the collective NHL ownership though. It's more of a weird symbiotic power sharing relationship.

Either way, under the current regime things have gone south for the NHL. Despite Gary Bettman telling everyone ratings were up. Despite Gary Bettman telling everyone that every team was financially stable. Things are turning rotten and that means the current regime, which includes Commissioner Bettman, has to be held accountable. Like I said, it's a pratfall of leadership.

[The_Admiral]

No, it's a pitfall. A pratfall is when you humorously trip and fall on your ass, though I suppose the NHL has basically done that too.

[STL FANATIC]

IceCap, you admit that it's a collective failing, so I don't understand what your argument is.

If Gary Bettman is to make a public stance, he should say that he's responsible for the failures, because that's his job as a leader. I agree.

But that doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY his responsibility. And since we're having a drawn out discussion on it, we should be getting into who's responsibility it really is, not who's supposed to publicly shoulder the blame.

[IceCap]

No, it's a pitfall. A pratfall is when you humorously trip and fall on your ass, though I suppose the NHL has basically done that too.

My mistake. Though really, you bring up a good point.

IceCap, you admit that it's a collective failing, so I don't understand what your argument is.

My argument is that the current mindset the NHL is operating with is broken. They aren't a "major" league in the sense that the NBA, NFL, and MLB are in the United States. They should stop pretending they are and refocus the league's priorities. The game's been "grown" successfully in places like Raleigh, Dallas, and San Jose. Even Nashville's doing better. So kudos. The league IS better off because of it. The experiment, however, hasn't worked out in other places like Phoenix and south Florida. With a crippling economic recession currently ongoing the leagues that manage to achieve the greatest level of financial stability are going to be the ones that weather the storm the best.

The NHL INSISTING that hockey can work in Glendale and in the middle of a swamp outside of Miami in the unrealistic hope that these locals put them on the same level as their North American league rivals, however, do not make for sound financial stability. The league needs to reevaluate its priorities and focus on simply becoming as economically stable as possible rather then trying to force the game to "grow" in locations that it's just not working in.

If Gary Bettman is to make a public stance, he should say that he's responsible for the failures, because that's his job as a leader. I agree.

But that doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY his responsibility. And since we're having a drawn out discussion on it, we should be getting into who's responsibility it really is, not who's supposed to publicly shoulder the blame.

Herbert Hoover wasn't ACTUALLY responsible for the Great Depression, but he got booted out on his ass when he was up for re-election. Despite my own personal political leanings I'll even say that the current reccession wasn't ACTUALLY the GOP's fault, but they still got creamed in the Presidential and Congressional elections of 2008. When things go wrong under your watch, you take responsibility. Bettman has to do more then just say "blame me" he as to actually go about trying to fix it. If he can't, then he needs to step aside.

As for who's fault it was, ultimately it was the collective NHL leadership, which includes, but is not limited to, Gary Bettman. So if you want a comprehensive list of who's to blame, it's Gary Bettman, the NHL Board of Governors, and the collective NHL ownership. They were all operating under a flawed mindset that saw the league expand to fast for its own good, and into markets where the numbers just weren't there. They need to refocus and do what they need to do become financially stable in as many markets as possible. Maybe that means relocation for some franchises, maybe it may even mean contraction. What is clear is that the current mindset the NHL is operating with isn't working.

[Lee.]

Question.

Why is it whenever something stupid happens in baseball it all lies in Bud Selig's lap and it's his responsibility, yet when hockey's on the hotseat, then Gary Bettman is only doing what the owners want him to do?

[GMac]

cuz in reality bettman is actually a ventriloquist dummy... have you seen the size of the guy... jim henson would be proud

[STL FANATIC]

Question.

Why is it whenever something stupid happens in baseball it all lies in Bud Selig's lap and it's his responsibility, yet when hockey's on the hotseat, then Gary Bettman is only doing what the owners want him to do?

AHHHHH!! Nobody said this!

I know I for one have gone out of my way many times to defend Bud Selig, one because I don't think he's nearly the devil people paint him as, and two because he's not responsible for everything the MLB does.

You and IceCap bringing up that the "general consensus" says Selig is responsible for everything but that it doesn't think that way about Bettman, but I think that's incorrect. I'm pretty sure the "general consensus" thinks they're both responsible for everything while the people defending Bettman would also defend Selig.

And Ice, I still don't think what you're saying adds up. Yes, if Bettman were to be removed it could easily be explained as falling in line with numerous other removals of leaders who weren't really responsible but shouldered the blame. But THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. We could be fair and reasonable about why and who we remove from their positions. We don't have to get stuck in simplistic group think just because that's what's always happened.

[IceCap]

Question.

Why is it whenever something stupid happens in baseball it all lies in Bud Selig's lap and it's his responsibility, yet when hockey's on the hotseat, then Gary Bettman is only doing what the owners want him to do?

AHHHHH!! Nobody said this!

I know I for one have gone out of my way many times to defend Bud Selig, one because I don't think he's nearly the devil people paint him as, and two because he's not responsible for everything the MLB does.

You and IceCap bringing up that the "general consensus" says Selig is responsible for everything but that it doesn't think that way about Bettman, but I think that's incorrect. I'm pretty sure the "general consensus" thinks they're both responsible for everything while the people defending Bettman would also defend Selig.

The point being that the people who claim Bettman's just a pawn/scapegoat/puppet of the owners never seem to say the same thing when, say, Selig screws up. People like rams80, ElwoodCuse, and Brian in Boston are always quick to say "IT'S NOT BETTMAN'S FAULT STOP PICKING ON HIM" but they never run to the aid of any of the other commissioners when people pile on them for their shortcomings. You've been consistent with your arguments, and that's admirable, but many others who claim Bettman's just "doing what the owners want" are not.

Also, I want to clarify my position on Bettman's authority within the NHL. I don't think he has dictatorial powers, he's been shot down a few times (when he wanted to change the NHL logo to an NBA style design, the first round of EDGE jerseys that never saw the light of day, his weird net design idea). That being said I do not believe he's simply a mouthpiece for the BoGs and the NHL owners. I think, by virtue of the position they've hired him to fill, he does wield considerable influence, and in terms of expansion, relocation, team sales, and the like his opinion does count for a lot.

And Ice, I still don't think what you're saying adds up. Yes, if Bettman were to be removed it could easily be explained as falling in line with numerous other removals of leaders who weren't really responsible but shouldered the blame. But THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

No, it wouldn't necessarily be right, but that's how it usually works. Herbert Hoover and R.B. Bennett (Canada's PM at the time) got screwed by the Great Depression. It was unfair, but hey, sucks to be them. Things went south on their watch, they had to take responsibility. It definitely wasn't right, but hey, them's the breaks.

We could be fair and reasonable about why and who we remove from their positions. We don't have to get stuck in simplistic group think just because that's what's always happened.

I'm not saying that Bettman should take responsibility for the seemingly growing list of NHL teams with financial problems simply because that's how it's always done. I'm saying he should because, well, that's what your suppose to do if you're in charge and something goes wrong under your watch. It's a condition of leadership.

Not only that, but this is the guy who only a few months ago told the world that every NHL team was financially stable.

That being said, taking responsibility and being removed from power are two different things, and I do believe that Mr. Bettman should be given a chance to fix things, because honestly I think he's capable of at the very least making a decent go at it. I'm only saying that Bettman should be removed if he fails to even try to fix the NHL's current problems, or he tries but is ultimately unable to do so.

[The_Admiral]

As long as MSLE makes money he isn't going anywhere.

[IceCap]

As long as MSLE makes money he isn't going anywhere.

MLSE's going to make money hand over fist regardless of who's calling the shots at a league level.

Which has been a sticking point for me because, really, why are they so dead set against a team in Hamilton? The Leafs juggernaut will not be harmed by a second southern Ontario team. My conspiracy theorist side, however, came up with the possibility that a second southern Ontario NHL team would force MLSE to actually put real effort into making the Leafs competitive. The Leafs are horrible but they still sell merchandise and tickets, and they still kill in the ratings.

Why? Well it's a hockey crazed region, they're the region's local team, and they have 90+ years of history and 13 Stanley Cups. They haven't done anything lately though, which means that history plays a big part in the "culture" that is the Toronto Maple Leafs and their fanbase. Without another local team to back, most fans are by default part of Leafs Nation and take part in the glorification of the team's legacy.

Say that Hamilton DOES get a team though, they're actually competitive. They'll already have the Leafs haters and people who can't go to Leafs games on their side, but if they start to win, it could erode at part of the Leafs fanbase.

So the Leafs oppose another southern Ontario team because it means they can continue on with business as usual, making insane amounts of cash all the while putting a sub-par team on the ice and no drive to fix what's wrong.

[DustDevil61]

WWE's Sgt. Slaughter Drops the Puck...

There goes the NHL's credibility in Phoenix.

[BigMac12]

WWE's Sgt. Slaughter Drops the Puck...

There goes the NHL's credibility in Phoenix.

Um, Wrestlemania is going to be at the nearby stadium soon. I bet the same thing would happen at other NHL cities if the big event was there.

(Yes I know you're being sarcastic.)

[CC97]

WWE's Sgt. Slaughter Drops the Puck...

There goes the NHL's credibility in Phoenix.

Well it did cause attendance to double over their previous game (unfortunately it still put them at about only 60% of the league average for the game)

[rvrdgsfn]

This may be rather interesting....

http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20091009_122718_8788

Speaking on Hockeycentral, NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly stated that although the owners have no interest in having Jim Balsillie involved with the NHL currently, you can "never say never" when it comes to any future relationship. Daly added that "people can rehabilitate themselves" & Balsillie may take steps to repair his relationship with the league.

[IceCap]

This may be rather interesting....

http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20091009_122718_8788

Speaking on Hockeycentral, NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly stated that although the owners have no interest in having Jim Balsillie involved with the NHL currently, you can "never say never" when it comes to any future relationship. Daly added that "people can rehabilitate themselves" & Balsillie may take steps to repair his relationship with the league.

We can't have an owner who's financially successful and stable, has a passion for the game, and wants to move a team out of a failing market to a location with passionate fans. That would be madness

EDIT-

And add Tampa Bay to the list of teams that are in financial trouble and/or have ownership problems? I feel the need to reiterate the fact that Gary Bettman said every NHL franchise was stable only a few months ago.

[STL FANATIC]

Are people still pretending they don't understand how Jim Balsillie has cornered himself into a position very different from anything hockey passionate billionaire?

Any fan of his should be happy the NHL is even considering giving him a second (or more) chance at some point down the line.

[IceCap]

Are people still pretending they don't understand how Jim Balsillie has cornered himself into a position very different from anything hockey passionate billionaire?

I understand. He went about things in a way that made the NHL's owners not want any part of him. I understand where they're coming from, but ultimately I think their reasoning for excluding him is silly. So what if he went about things the way he did? That doesn't change the fact that the man has the money, financial stability, and passion needed to successfully run a NHL franchise. Which brings me to point number 2....

Any fan of his should be happy the NHL is even considering giving him a second (or more) chance at some point down the line.

And Gary Bettman, the NHL BoGs, and collective NHL ownership should have been doing cartwheels and thanking God that a man of Balsillie's business and economic stature was willing to pay $200+ million for a franchise that has already lost $400 million in thirteen years, is losing tens of millions by the season, is in a distant fourth place league, and during an economic recession.

EDIT-

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you arguing that the NFL should have let Rush Limbaugh stay on as an investor in that local ownership bid to buy the Rams and keep in StL? From where I'm standing the two situations are remarkably similar.

You have a financially successful and stable passionate bidder that the league turns down because they don't like the way he does business and/or conducts himself. The league's reasoning has no barring on the ability of the bidder to be a successful owner of the team, but he is excluded none the less.

Yet you were in favour of Limbaugh being allowed to stay on the Rams bid, yet you're against Jim Balsillie having involvement in the NHL.

[STL FANATIC]

I was in favor of Rush Limbaugh owning the team I rooted for. I thought he'd make a good minority investor and he was interested in keeping the team in St. Louis. But I wouldn't qualm with the NFL for deciding they don't want him. I might challenge that they'd be basing it on perception more than realities, but that's another issue.

But beyond that, I don't think they're all that similar. Limbaugh would be stabilizing (or helping) an existing market. He'd be a minority owner with very little actual power. And his problems were image problems that the very image-conscious league, presumably, was not interesting in having. Limbaugh challenged the league's image, not the way in which they function.

Balsillie challenges the manner in which the league operates. He's frequently tried to undercut the league and force their hand. He has not played nice. And the owners want someone who's a team player, not just someone with big bucks.

[SenatorJake]

I was in favor of Rush Limbaugh owning the team I rooted for. I thought he'd make a good minority investor and he was interested in keeping the team in St. Louis. But I wouldn't qualm with the NFL for deciding they don't want him. I might challenge that they'd be basing it on perception more than realities, but that's another issue.

But beyond that, I don't think they're all that similar. Limbaugh would be stabilizing (or helping) an existing market. He'd be a minority owner with very little actual power. And his problems were image problems that the very image-conscious league, presumably, was not interesting in having. Limbaugh challenged the league's image, not the way in which they function.

Balsillie challenges the manner in which the league operates. He's frequently tried to undercut the league and force their hand. He has not played nice. And the owners want someone who's a team player, not just someone with big bucks.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think you can draw many parallels between Limbaugh and Balsillie . It's not the same situation at all.

In other news, the NHL met with the city of Glendale Monday to discuss the process of keeping the Phoenix Coyotes in Glendale. Globe & Mail article

I bet the December 31st deadline will come & go with no resolution in this whole fiasco. I'm truly dreading a whole year of the NHL paying for the Coyotes expenses. I would have to guess that if this thing lasts until next summer, Gary Bettman's thin majority with the Board of Governors may not last much longer.