|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 5, 2004 18:24:33 GMT -5
If, as Skilly says, the $200 million isn't really $200 million, but more like $100 million, and if, as Skilly also says, $100-200 million is really nothing to a government, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here BC ..... but .... Martin just announced he promises to pay 27 billion dollars towards social issues, day care and some military spending if elected. Harper just unveiled a 37 billion campaign promise to cut the middle class income bracket, military spending, health care reform etc. Do you still think that $200 million means much to these guys? I know it sounds like a lot to the average voter (you and I) but from all accounts it sounds like Canada has billions of dollars in surplus. That 200 million is small potatoes compared to what they say Canada can afford to spend. 200 million is only 7 percent of what Martin says he will spend and 5 percent of what Harper says he will dish out. Now I know these promises are over a number of years, but it still puts it in a tiny bit of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 6, 2004 14:00:27 GMT -5
I'd prefer to stick closer to the hockey issue rather than enter a parliamentary debate, so here goes:
The uncertainty over the CBA affects all teams. Will some take an immediate plunge into unknown waters while others are hesitant to sign even their lower paid players?
The low-budget Flames and Lightning face dilemmas because of their playoff successes. They can't afford to give raises to everyone who deserves it. However, even they wouldn't like to pass on their most marketable RFAs. Will sign-and-trade deals be the order of the day? Making qualifying offers without first lining up trading partners won't do the trick because there's always the danger the payers will accept a salary the team can't afford--and then stay!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2004 16:33:08 GMT -5
And yet not ONE of those mutt is giving me a penny to open a golf course or a bordello....
When I left the old country, I thought corruption and trough politics were dead. Boy, am I wrong! If you know the right politician, the public trough only a political donation away.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 6, 2004 17:26:39 GMT -5
And yet not ONE of those mutt is giving me a penny to open a golf course or a bordello.... When I left the old country, I thought corruption and trough politics were dead. Boy, am I wrong! If you know the right politician, the public trough only a political donation away. Opening a golf course is enormously expensive. You can open a bordello on a G-string, a website, and a couple of months' rent. The US government once took over an infamous brothel for default on tax payments but didn't know how to manage it properly.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 7, 2004 8:18:27 GMT -5
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here BC ..... but .... Martin just announced he promises to pay 27 billion dollars towards social issues, day care and some military spending if elected. Harper just unveiled a 37 billion campaign promise to cut the middle class income bracket, military spending, health care reform etc. Do you still think that $200 million means much to these guys? I know it sounds like a lot to the average voter (you and I) but from all accounts it sounds like Canada has billions of dollars in surplus. That 200 million is small potatoes compared to what they say Canada can afford to spend. 200 million is only 7 percent of what Martin says he will spend and 5 percent of what Harper says he will dish out. Now I know these promises are over a number of years, but it still puts it in a tiny bit of perspective. So why inflate the numbers then? Still makes no sense. "Lets annoy the entire Canadian public and possibly cost us some votes, by promising millionaire athletes some tax payer money, and we'll use fabricated numbers to make our point, even though we know the public isn't going to go for it no matter what numbers we use, and just for fun, lets use numbers that are so low they are meaningless to us anyways." There is no way the government thought the Canadian public would go for tax breaks or subsidies to NHL teams. Every single poll was dead set against it. Remember, they held a huge commission to come up with those numbers, they spoke with thousands of people, they knew EXACTLY what the public's mood was, and they knew that it was going to be a tough sell. There is no way they were suprised by the public reaction. No way. If they were, then they are even dumber than I think they are (and that's pretty dumb). |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 8, 2004 4:03:44 GMT -5
Looking at the free agent market, does anybody else think that Lindros will be available cheap?
He is a high risk, high maintenance proposition, and if he doesn't play like a team player Gainey sends him to Hamilton like Bobby Clarke handled him. Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
The reason I bring this up is because I was looking at the Rangers free agents and Messier is 43 while Lindros is 31. He's not washed up because of age and may still have some game left. If not we send him close to Toronto (Hamilton) where he wants to play. Lindros has been a problem everywhere he has been, but if the risk is low, he still has talent, size, strength and skill. His brain has been rattled, but he never had much in that department anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 9, 2004 9:29:28 GMT -5
Shades of '94 as NHL girds for labour war By ERIC DUHATSCHEK Globe and Mail Update Toronto — George Santayana, the American philosopher, probably wasn't thinking about the National Hockey League when he observed: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." However, Santayana's sentiment seems singularly appropriate now that the 2003-04 season is finally over and the Tampa Bay Lightning are the new Stanley Cup champions. Ten years ago, the NHL was in the same position as it is today - coming off a stirring Stanley Cup final, which culminated with the New York Rangers ending a 54-year championship drought by edging the Cinderella Vancouver Canucks in seven hard-earned games. - full article
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jun 10, 2004 21:52:51 GMT -5
Its going to be a very long off season,with too much discussion than I can already stand.
The NHL boys club is no longer a small exclusive which is why colusion amongst the owners is near to impossible.
they have made there bed,the players have taken full advantage and we are the ones who suffer.
The thing that bothers me the most is all the public posturing,the need for one side or the other to get the
percieved notion from the media and us the fans that they aren't to blame for the whole mess.
If it could make a difference that would be one thing but really ours or the medias opinion means squat,zilch ,nadda.
Don't waste our time with your rhetoric,tell us when its over and how you're gonna screw us again.
I'm sure I'll waste my breathe like all the rest of us will for however long this mess goes on.You'd think that if the players and the owners really cared as half as much as we do we wouldn't be talking about this period.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 11, 2004 6:52:44 GMT -5
AHL may be needed to fill void By Mike Zhe mzhe@seacoastonline.com At the end of last month, when the Stanley Cup championship was still just a twinkle in Martin St. Louis’ eye, Jeff Eisenberg penned a letter and sent it out to each and every one of his hockey team’s season ticket holders. The president of the Manchester Monarchs, aware of the questions surrounding the state of professional hockey, assured his fans that even if the NHL went on strike, there would still be a local American Hockey League team to root for. - www.seacoastonline.com/news/06102004/sports/20813.htm* Players ponder European tour during lockoutBy DAVID SHOALTS Friday, June 11, 2004 - Page S3 While their union leaders are preparing for a labour war at home, a large number of National Hockey League players are preparing for a European invasion. If the owners lock out the players for a significant length of time, homegrown stars like Roberto Luongo, a finalist for the Vézina trophy last night as the league's best goaltender, and Brad Richards of the Tampa Bay Lightning will be strutting their stuff in Switzerland or Germany in the fall. - full article* WHA set to play in 2004Commissioner Bobby Hull, the Co-Founders and Board of Governors of the World Hockey Association today confirmed the new WHA will begin play in late October 2004. At a media conference in Toronto the “original six” cities were announced. Two other cities were granted inaugural year franchises pending the completion of lease negotiations. The six teams with arena leases or commitments now in place are Halifax, Nova Scotia (Metro Centre); Quebec, Quebec (Le Colisee Pepsi); Detroit, Michigan (Pontiac Silverdome); Dallas, Texas (Reunion Arena); Orlando, Florida (TD Waterhouse Center); and Jacksonville, Florida (Memorial Arena). Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario remain franchises in good standing pending the completion of lease negotiations prior to the July 10, 2004 Free Agent and Entry Level draft. Representatives from the U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati were also in attendance. The WHA anticipates a minimum of 10 franchises with a maximum of 12 confirmed before the draft. The World Hockey Association will play a 76 game schedule beginning October 29, 2004. Franchises will operate on a maximum salary cap of (U.S.) 15-million dollars including a 5-million dollar marquee distinction. Four rule alterations were announced by the WHA. They include removal of the center red line, no-touch icing, touch up offside and three on three overtime followed by a sudden death shootout to eliminate ties. Named to the Board of Governors are: Mario Frankovich (Hamilton) Chairman; Rick Munro (Dallas) Vice-Chair; Jean-Paul Boily (Quebec), John Marshall (Halifax); Gino Naldini (Toronto); Jay Patel (Detroit); and Max Chambers (Jacksonville). The governor for Orlando will be appointed before the draft. The Governors also authorized league Director of Hockey Operations Peter Young to short-list candidates for the positions of WHA League President, and WHA Referee-in-Chief. - www.worldhockeyassociation.net/news/media_releases/top_story.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 11, 2004 21:34:20 GMT -5
From what Bob Goodenow is reported to have said today (ESPN), the prospect of a washed-out season looks more and more real. If it happens, many NHL players will spend next season in Europe. I suppose a number of them have already made contingency plans to do so. I was wondering whether the owners could throw a token monkey wrench into the machinery by designating a select few players still under contract to assignment in the AHL, especially those with two-way contracts. This would deprive the players of the salaries they could get in Europe, while the parent teams would be responsible only for their minor league salaries. I assume these players would be breaching their contracts by playing in Europe instead of the AHL. Aren't the European hockey bodies supposed to honor their agreements with the NHL? Of course these players would have to pass through waivers to play in the AHL, but how likely is it that another NHL club would claim them given the circumstances? Please note that I was just indulging myself in a Galilean thought experiment (it was a myth that he dropped cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of Pisa).  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 11, 2004 21:57:27 GMT -5
From what Bob Goodenow is reported to have said today (ESPN), the prospect of a washed-out season looks more and more real. If it happens, many NHL players will spend next season in Europe. I suppose a number of them have already made contingency plans to do so. The following link updates free agent status regularly and reliably: www.geocities.com/floridapanthers2000/free2004.htmlI smell collusion and the deprivation of the right to earn a livelihood in one's chosen profession. As to Europe, the NHL's agreement with the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), like so many other aspects of its moribund infrastructure, has expired. The IIHF is the liaison between the NHL and all non-North American hockey bodies. rhabdo would likely enjoy that. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 11, 2004 23:06:49 GMT -5
Players meet, still won't accept capCanadian Press 6/11/2004 TORONTO (CP) - The only cracks in the NHL Players' Association were in the sandwiches set out during a buffet luncheon as North American members wound up two days of annual meetings Friday. With the collective bargaining agreement with the league to expire Sept. 15, talk of a possible lockout by the 30 club owners was a main topic of conversation, and it was obvious that solidarity was intact. There were 167 players at the Royal York Hotel sessions, and another 75 are expected when European players gather next month. These were the first full association meetings since it made proposals to the NHL last Oct. 1. "We broke off into small groups so we could have some more in-depth discussion, in groups of 10 to 12 guys,'' association president Trevor Linden, the Vancouver Canucks forward, said in an interview in describing the meetings. "I had a lot of guys say they were surprised at how much we offered Oct. 1." - www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=87312&hubName=nhl* NHL Better Off with a Cap By Adam Proteau The Hockey News Pssst -- pass it on: Image is more important than ever these days. It's why Las Vegas is the motherland of breast implants and tattoos, why David Gest put up with all those "beatings" at the hands of Liza Minnelli, and why somebody acquiesced to Mariah Carey's request for a movie role. Image also rules the roost in the pro sports industry, although you'd never know it if you set up a tent at the NHL Players' Association camp. There, what matters most are principles. Sure, they're outdated and misguided principles, they're principles counterproductive to the growth and sustainability of the game, but they're principles nonetheless. - sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=screenshots040611
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 13, 2004 8:23:08 GMT -5
Options exist for hockey sides to avoid clobbering each other By STEPHEN BRUNT Saturday, June 12, 2004 - Page S3 As the National Hockey League players met in Toronto this week, in advance of their summer vacations, it was obvious that this was a changed bunch, with a different outlook from those who awaited the last great lockout a decade ago. For one thing, thanks to their union, their agents and their employers' largesse, they make a whole lot more money now. Even though the expiring collective agreement was weighted in the owners' favour to begin with, the paymasters have been outthought and outmanoeuvred at every turn. - Globe and Mail article* Union trumpets plan to cut salaries Last fall's proposal would have given NHL $200-million, players association says By TIM WHARNSBY HOCKEY REPORTER Saturday, June 12, 2004 - Page S3 TORONTO -- The National Hockey League Players' Association claims that under the contract proposal it has made to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and a group of owners last fall, the league would have had an extra $200-million (all figures U.S.) to allocate among lower-revenue clubs. The NHLPA's proposal, presented on Oct. 1, called for a rollback of 5 per cent on player salaries, a lesser cap on entry-level contracts and a luxury tax and revenue-sharing system. - Globe and Mail article
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 13, 2004 16:55:24 GMT -5
I was wondering whether the owners could throw a token monkey wrench into the machinery by designating a select few players still under contract to assignment in the AHL, especially those with two-way contracts. This would deprive the players of the salaries they could get in Europe, while the parent teams would be responsible only for their minor league salaries. I assume these players would be breaching their contracts by playing in Europe instead of the AHL. I smell collusion and the deprivation of the right to earn a livelihood in one's chosen profession. Would the fact that a player is under contract and is earning his livelihood under the terms of said contract not negate the claim of collusion? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 13, 2004 17:11:58 GMT -5
Would the fact that a player is under contract and is earning his livelihood under the terms of said contract not negate the claim of collusion? OK, so maybe according to Hoyle it wouldn't be collusion. But bad business nonetheless. What are you going to tell the poor schmoes already schlepping away in the minors? Scram, make room for the millionaires? A move like that can't be good for the game. Of course, if one's main concern is showing who's boss, to the detriment of everything else... |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 13, 2004 18:12:07 GMT -5
OK, so maybe according to Hoyle it wouldn't be collusion. But bad business nonetheless. What are you going to tell the poor schmoes already schlepping away in the minors? Scram, make room for the millionaires? A move like that can't be good for the game. Of course, if one's main concern is showing who's boss, to the detriment of everything else... Back in 94 there was a simple rule made by owners - anyone with over 50 games played in the NHL couldn't be sent down. I read an interview where it seemed atr least one owner expected the same rule to be applied. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 13, 2004 20:08:05 GMT -5
Pulling the discussion thoughts together: I was wondering whether the owners could throw a token monkey wrench into the machinery by designating a select few players still under contract to assignment in the AHL I smell collusion and the deprivation of the right to earn a livelihood in one's chosen profession. Would the fact that a player is under contract and is earning his livelihood under the terms of said contract not negate the claim of collusion? OK, so maybe according to Hoyle it wouldn't be collusion. But bad business nonetheless. What are you going to tell the poor schmoes already schlepping away in the minors? Scram, make room for the millionaires? The words I picked up on: token and select. But is it bad business to protect your investment – meaning your AHL team and reassigning those who haven’t played much (PTH’s less than 50 games). The whole situation stinks and is bad business. And earn a livelihood? If the guys are so willing to go to Europe and play for that salary, why not stay here for more money than that as they grandfather in a cap (or whatever) for the years ahead? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 14, 2004 14:45:07 GMT -5
The words I picked up on: token and select. But is it bad business to protect your investment – meaning your AHL team and reassigning those who haven’t played much (PTH’s less than 50 games). The whole situation stinks and is bad business. And earn a livelihood? If the guys are so willing to go to Europe and play for that salary, why not stay here for more money than that as they grandfather in a cap (or whatever) for the years ahead? Actually, it would be in the best interest of those owners who want to break the union, and scuttlebutt has it that a core of 8 such owners are egging Bettman on, *not* to send *any* players to the AHL. This would obviously have a greater negative financial impact on the rank and file players. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jun 14, 2004 16:16:44 GMT -5
It is interesting that unions were borne out of the need to protect the rights of the exploited workers. After reaching a peak many years ago the percentage of workers represented by unions in North America continues to decline.
Those very workers who relied on unions to protect their interests have seen their jobs disappear and, in some cases, their pensions decimated. The US steel industry is a prime example, along with the auto industry and textile industry.
Now we come to the NHL. The union has actually gained strength over the years as it has strived to protect the interests of players whose talents were being exploited by the wealthy owners.
Is the average NHL worker being treated unfairly? Would the average player consider it unfair treatment if he was forced to work at half his current salary? Perhaps he should ask someone at Bethlehem Steel... oops, it doesn't exist anymore.
If rigid union contracts can put an industry as vital as the steel industry out of business, those types of contracts can do the same to the entertainment business.
Look at what has been happening to the film industry in California. They are trying to resort to protectionism and intimidation to keep the industry alive in that part of the world.
Maybe Goodenow's tactics will work in the short term, but some of these guys (including Joe Sakic) need a dose of reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2004 9:24:38 GMT -5
Would the fact that a player is under contract and is earning his livelihood under the terms of said contract not negate the claim of collusion? Yes and no. It is not collusion if he has a two way contract and can go down to the AHL and play under his contract. (Mike Komisarek) But it is collusion if the owners agree to not claim any players currently on two-way deals that have to clear waivers to play in the AHL. (Garon, Ryder, Ribeiro) It is a slippery slope, but I don't see the owners coming together to agree on this. All it would take is for one GM to get greedy, and then boom the free-agents would start getting signed, and they are back at square one. It is more likely that they have agreed to not place anybody on waivers period and freeze their rosters after Sept. 15. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 24, 2004 9:13:17 GMT -5
Leafs not playing the salary cap gameNHL's $31 million proposal doesn't fit DAMIEN COX If you're the NHL Players Association standing back and trying to understand the strategy of the league as a labour showdown looms, you just might look at the business activities of the Maple Leafs and be convinced most of the threats coming out of NHL headquarters in New York are utterly hollow. After all, the Leafs are clearly the most powerful team in Canada, and right now Canada is more influential in the NHL than in any time in recent memory. All the enthusiasm and passionate support for the league is emanating from its Canadian franchises, and that means something. Even on a league-wide basis, the Leafs are a force, perhaps the game's most profitable enterprise. - Starticle
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jun 24, 2004 9:44:17 GMT -5
Leafs not playing the salary cap gameNHL's $31 million proposal doesn't fit DAMIEN COX If you're the NHL Players Association standing back and trying to understand the strategy of the league as a labour showdown looms, you just might look at the business activities of the Maple Leafs and be convinced most of the threats coming out of NHL headquarters in New York are utterly hollow. He might be right. But then again, a hard salary cap would be virtually impossible to impose on teams immediately. It would have to be accomplished over time as old contracts were grandfathered to some extent or some teams would be at an impossible disadvantage. Toronto, for example, has several older players who probably won't be in the NHL in three or four years. The Islanders have committed $9 million (a guess) per year to one player. That would leave them precious little payroll room for the balance of the roster. Maybe $31 million is too low but I wouldn't write it off just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 24, 2004 9:49:07 GMT -5
And this is a surprise? Leaf management has a habit of caring not but for their bottom line (hence the cavalier why worry about a Cup if people keep paying to see mediocrity? attitude).
Just keeps with the whole (HabsRus posters excluded, or course) TO attitude that the world revolves around them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 24, 2004 17:59:42 GMT -5
I know the league says it wants a $31 Million cap, but I have been of the opinion that the cap will be more along the lines of $45-50 Million.
My only reason for this is negotiation. I have been involved in a lot of negotiations and the first rule is "always rejectthe first offer and work towards the middle". Preferably more to your side of the middle than the other guy's side.
For instance if you were to put an offer on a house that was listed for $250,000. You don't immediately say yes I will pay it!! You put an offer in of about $200,000 and hope you can settle somewhere around $225,000. And it is the same for the Kovalev contract. Gainey wasn't willing to give him everything he wanted, so he knew Kovalev wanted 6M, so he offered less (he went too low for my liking) and my guess is he wants to settle at around 5-5.5M.
This is no different. The Rangers and Leafs were up in the 60-70+ M range. So I believe Bettman said 30M to leave bargaining room and make it look like he eased up when Goodenow "thinks" he negiotiated another $20M out of the owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 26, 2004 5:08:12 GMT -5
NHL teams worth less, report says
By PAUL WALDIE
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
The sale price of National Hockey League franchises has plummeted by more than 50 per cent in the past four years, and only six clubs generated enough revenue from tickets and broadcasting last season to cover player salaries, a report by investment banker Moag & Company says.
The report paints a sobering picture for NHL club owners who have generally operated on the assumption that the only way to make money on a franchise is to sell it. Baltimore-based Moag & Company has worked on several high-profile sports deals, including the recent sale of the NHL's Atlanta Thrashers.
Prices for NHL clubs have been cut to $80-million (all figures U.S.) for the Thrashers in March from $190-million for the New York Islanders in 2000, the report says. That has lowered the average value of NHL franchises to $161-million.
John Moag Jr., who wrote the report, contrasts that with the National Basketball Association, in which the average value for a club has jumped to $275-million. Prices for NBA teams soared to $401-million this year for the Phoenix Suns from $150-million in 1999 for the New Jersey Nets.
"Driven, or perhaps more accurately, slowed by a national television contract that is significantly less valuable than that of the NBA [let alone the NFL], the NHL's revenues have not kept pace with rising player salaries," the report says.
The NHL's new TV deal in the United States will reduce its guaranteed annual television take by 50 per cent, to $60-million. By contrast, the NBA recently signed TV deals that will pay it $766-million annually, according to the report.
And Moag says the future for the NHL does not look any brighter.
The league has benefited in recent years from new arenas and expansion fees, which have driven up revenue. But nearly all the clubs now have state-of-the-art arenas and further expansion is unlikely. While attendance at NHL games has increased in recent years, and actually surpasses the NBA by some measures, ticket prices have likely gone as high as they can, which limits another source of added revenue.
In the past decade, Moag says, NHL revenue has jumped by 300 per cent, but player costs have increased by more than 500 per cent. As a result, Moag concludes that only two teams — Minnesota and Nashville — generated more money in ticket revenue last season than they paid in player salaries. If television money is included, four more teams met that threshold — Chicago, Pittsburgh, Ottawa and Vancouver.
NHL executive vice-president Bill Daly declined to comment on the report, but said, "I agree with the outlook that, with the right economic system, this league has a very bright future."
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 28, 2004 15:52:15 GMT -5
If the 2004-05 season is scrubbed because the two sides are unable to ink a CBA, I'll turn my attention to NCAA hockey. Does anyone realize how many NCAA players were drafted on Saturday? Here they are (courtesy of my son):
Dartmouth, Clarkson and Cornell did pretty well. Sawada from Cornell is considered a potential replacement for the Heinz at Cornell. I believe Nick Johnson of Dartmouth is considered pretty good as well. Carefoot is a steal at 237
Round One (7 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
5 Phoenix Coyotes Blake Wheeler, F (I '05) Minnesota (WCHA)
6 New York Rangers Al Montoya, G Michigan (CCHA)
12 Minnesota Wild A.J. Thelen, D Michigan State (CCHA)
13 Buffalo Sabres Drew Stafford, F North Dakota (WCHA)
20 New Jersey Devils Travis Zajac, F (I) North Dakota (WCHA)
24 Calgary Flames Kris Chucko, F (I) Minnesota (WCHA)
26 Vancouver Canucks Cory Schneider, G (I) Boston College (HEA)
Round Two (9 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
33 Washington Capitals Chris Bourque, F (I) Boston University (HEA)
36 New York Rangers Darin Olver, F Northern Michigan (CCHA)
40 Atlanta Thrashers Grant Lewis, D Dartmouth (ECAC)
46 Columbus Blue Jackets Adam Pineault, F (*) Boston College (HEA)
52 Dallas Stars Raymond Sawada, F (I) Cornell (ECAC)
53 Florida Panthers David Booth, F Michigan State (CCHA)
55 Colorado Avalanche Victor Oreskovich, F (I) Notre Dame (CCHA)
57 Edmonton Oilers Geoff Paukovich, F (I) Denver (WCHA)
61 Pittsburgh Penguins Alex Goligoski, D (I) Minnesota (WCHA)
Round Three (8 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
67 Pittsburgh Penguins Nick Johnson, F (I) Dartmouth (ECAC)
69 Carolina Hurricanes Casey Borer, D St. Cloud State (WCHA)
74 Anaheim Mighty Ducks Kyle Klubertanz, D (I) Wisconsin (WCHA)
77 Ottawa Senators Shawn Weller, LW (I) Clarkson (ECAC)
80 New York Rangers Billy Ryan, C (I) Maine (HEA)
85 Pittsburgh Penguins Brian Gifford, C (uncommitted)
92 Philadelphia Flyers Rob Bellamy, RW (I) Maine (HEA)
95 Los Angeles Kings Paul Baier, D (I) Brown (ECAC)
Round Four (7 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
100 Montreal Canadiens J.T. Wyman, F (I) Dartmouth (ECAC)
101 Philadephia Flyers R.J. Anderson, D (I) Minnesota (WCHA)
102 Tampa Bay Lightning Mike Lundin, D Maine (HEA)
115 New York Islanders Wes O'Neill, D Notre Dame (CCHA)
119 Phoenix Coyotes Mike Porter, F (I) Michigan (CCHA)
125 Vancouver Canucks Andrew Sarauer, F (I) Northern Michigan (CCHA)
126 San Jose Sharks Torrey Mitchell, F (I) Vermont (ECAC)
Round Five (7 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
140 Chicago Blackhawks Jake Dowell, F Wisconsin (WCHA)
141 Ottawa Senators Jim McKenzie, F (I) Michigan State (CCHA)
145 Philadelphia Flyers Chris Zarb, D (2005) Ferris State (CCHA)
153 San Jose Sharks Stephen Zalewski, F (I) Clarkson (ECAC)
159 Vancouver Canucks Mike Brown, F Michigan (CCHA)
160 Boston Bruins Ben Walter, F Mass.-Lowell (HEA)
163 Tampa Bay Lightning Dustin Collins, F Northern Michigan (CCHA)
Round Six (10 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
165 Chicago Blackhawks Scott McCulloch, F (I) Colorado College (WCHA)
167 Columbus Blue Jackets Rob Page, D (I) Yale (ECAC)
169 New York Rangers Jordan Foote, F (I) Michigan Tech (WCHA)
172 Anaheim Mighty Ducks Matt Auffrey, F (I) Wisconsin (WCHA)
174 Los Angeles Kings Scott Parse, F Nebraska-Omaha (CCHA)
178 Nashville Predators Mike Santorelli, F (I) Northern Michigan (CCHA)
183 Dallas Stars Trevor Ludwig, D (I) Providence (HEA)
184 Colorado Avalanche Derek Peltier, D (I) Minnesota (WCHA)
185 Toronto Maple Leafs Robbie Earl, F Wisconsin (WCHA)
193 Nashville Predators Kevin Schaeffer, D Boston University (HEA)
Round Seven (9 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
197 Washington Capitals Andrew Gordon, F (I) St. Cloud (WCHA)
199 Phoenix Coyotes Chad Kolarik, F (I) Michigan (CCHA)
205 Los Angeles Kings Mike Curry, F (I) Minn.-Duluth (WCHA)
212 Montreal Canadiens Jon Gleed, D Cornell (ECAC)
215 Colorado Avalanche Ian Keserich, G (I) Ohio State (CCHA)
217 New Jersey Devils Tyler Eckford, D (2005) Alaska-Fairbanks (CCHA)
219 Ottawa Senators Joe Cooper, F Miami (CCHA)
224 Boston Bruins Matt Hunwick, D Michigan (CCHA)
225 San Jose Sharks David MacDonald, D (I) Harvard (ECAC)
Round Eight (11 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
228 Pittsburgh Penguins David Brown, G Notre Dame (CCHA)
230 Washington Capitals Justin Mrazek, G (I) Union (ECAC)
231 Columbus Blue Jackets Brian McGuirk, F (I) Boston University (HEA)
234 San Jose Sharks Derek MacIntyre, G (I) Ferris State (CCHA)
236 Anaheim Mighty Ducks Matt Christie, F Miami (CCHA)
237 Atlanta Thrashers Mitch Carefoot, F Cornell (ECAC)
239 Colorado Avalanche Brandon Yip, F (2005) Boston University (HEA)
249 Colorado Avalanche J.D. Corbin, F Denver (WCHA)
251 Ottawa Senators Matt McIlvane, F (I) Ohio State (CCHA)
253 Phildelphia Flyers Travis Gawryletz, D (I) Minn.-Duluth (WCHA)
256 Chicago Blackhawks Matt Ford, F (I) Wisconsin (WCHA)
Round Nine (10 picks)
Pick NHL Team Name, Pos School (Conference)
259 Pittsburgh Penguins Brian Ihnacak, F Brown (ECAC)
261 Phoenix Coyotes Will Engasser, F (I) Yale (ECAC)
263 Washington Capitals Travis Morin, F Minnesota State (WCHA)
265 Phoenix Coyotes Daniel Winnik, F New Hampshire (HEA)
270 Atlanta Thrashers Matt Siddall, F (I) Northern Michigan (CCHA)
271 Columbus Blue Jackets Grant Clitsome, D (I) Clarkson (ECAC)
272 Minnesota Wild Kyle Wilson, F Colgate (ECAC)
275 Nashville Predators Craig Switzer, D (I) New Hampshire (HEA)
281 Colorado Avalanche Stephen McClellan, D (2005)Northeastern (HEA)
285 Toronto Maple Leafs Pierce Norton, F (I) Providence (HEA)
How does that compare with the QMJHL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 28, 2004 21:11:13 GMT -5
Just goes to emphasize how weak this draft really was.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 28, 2004 21:21:16 GMT -5
You might say that the 2004 draft was largely uninspiring, one of those poor crops that follow good ones. Considering that 2 Russians were selected 1st overall and there were many Americans, Finns, Czechs, and Slovaks selected in the 1st round, it appears that the Canadian hockey factory has slowed down. Several foreign players picked in the 2nd round were about as good as many of the Canadians picked in the 1st round.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 30, 2004 10:19:31 GMT -5
NHL Prepares For Quiet Winter With LayoffsBy ALAN SNEL asnel@tampatrib.com Published: Jun 19, 2004 TAMPA - The National Hockey League is planning to lay off half of its league office staff in preparation for a potential owner lockout in September, joining several NHL teams that are cutting staff positions to brace for a labor battle. Bernadette Mansur, the league's vice president of communications, said the league office layoffs are an internal matter and declined to elaborate. The NHL owners want a salary cap and are considering locking out players from training camps and shutting down the 2004-05 season because the collective bargaining agreement expires on Sept. 15. The NHL has several hundred employees at both its league offices in New York and Toronto. A half-dozen NHL teams have announced layoffs: San Jose, Dallas, Phoenix, Ottawa, Washington and Carolina. The San Jose Sharks just announced they were going to trim 13 positions. The Stanley Cup champion Lightning are in a hiring mode to enlist new workers to take ticket orders, said Sean Henry, the Bolts' chief operating officer. "For us, it's business as usual,'' Henry said Friday. - bolts.tbo.com/lightning/MGBGECW2NVD.html
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 30, 2004 10:52:52 GMT -5
You might say that the 2004 draft was largely uninspiring, one of those poor crops that follow good ones. Considering that 2 Russians were selected 1st overall and there were many Americans, Finns, Czechs, and Slovaks selected in the 1st round, it appears that the Canadian hockey factory has slowed down. Several foreign players picked in the 2nd round were about as good as many of the Canadians picked in the 1st round. Don't know if I would agree with that. While this year was perhaps a weak year for Canadians, last year, which was considered one of the strongest drafts ever, had 16 Canadians go in the first round, including the top 3 picks. Next year, of course, is the year of the Syd, another good old Canadian boy... |
|
