posted by Vic Ferrari at 4/09/2007 07:52:00 pm
Good question.I'd avoid Boston and Chicago because they have the worst ownership in the league.I'd avoid Phoenix because that's likely the worst run organization. They're in a huge hole on the ice and I can't imagine they have a sustainable existence off the ice. After watching a few games in 2002-2003 in America West Arena, I'm flabbergasted that they threw good money after bad in Glendale.Columbus would be off my list as well. Ohio is whitebread by Alberta standards, they're poorly run and there's not much hope outside of Hitchcock. They're a perfectly viable franchise mind you, but certainly Columbus has nothing on any other NHL city as a destination.Personally I'd rather not be in the SE division (Washington DC is an exception) or Nashville either. I don't like the weather, the people don't care about hockey, and the franchises are likely to be unstable economically.My accountant would probably tell me to think twice about Montreal although that is a fabulous city IMHO.That's about it for the negatives.Of the 20 teams remaining, I don't really think I'd have any particular favourites. Money and competitiveness would rule the day there, so Edmonton might be behind the 8-ball right now, but that doesn't have to be the case.
What kind of player am I? Have I won a cup? Am I Ladislav Nagy, looking to spend one year as a rental in a position where I can boost my scoring rates and get a big payday next year? Am I going to sign a 5 year deal there?Anyway, I think Rivers nailed all the teams I would avoid regardless, though I wouldn't be vehemently against Carolina or Florida if I felt I could put them into the playoffs. I'd be tempted to sign a one year deal with Pittsburgh - this is the last year they could afford to pay someone before they have to pay Crosby, and I could play with the Kid to boost all my numbers as well.
On the yes side, Vancouver, San Jose, Colorado, Washington, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, maybe Calgary, maybe Minnesota. All those teams are competitive except the Caps, and Washington has Ovechkin and cap space. Calgary's a maybe because after next year, who knows what will be left? That said, the Flames look like they'll spend, and as a player, that's what I want. Minny's a maybe because I live in Winnipeg, and winter sucks hard.On the no side, Florida, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville, Boston, Chicago, Phoenix, Edmonton, Columbus, St. Louis, and the Islanders. The Southern teams are unstable financially, and I like golf at least as much as the next guy, but not that much. If Nashville fixed their financial issues, I'd put them on the yes side because the hockey side of the organization is top drawer. St. Louis is a hole, Columbus isn't any hell either, and the Islanders, Hawks and Bruins are organizational freak shows. Chicago is the damn shame of all those. It should be a marquee franchise, and Bill Wirtz has fucked it up royally.The Oilers? I enjoyed my three years living in Edmonton, but as a UFA, I'm not into rebuilding. An Arctic outpost full of prying eyes is one thing, but a losing team with Cal Nichols, Lowe, and the rest of the boys club running the show while I freeze my ass off to boot? No thanks. If they overpay to get me, the budget restricts any other help from being acquired, and that isn't a team with only one hole.
And appending to my last, Colorado is probably number one because of young talent, an owner willing to spend to the maximum, and as of this year, lots of cap space to fill.
I want to play where they offer me money and not play where they don't offer it.
I want to play where they have great beer and beautiful women - are they putting a team in Dublin anytime soon?If I am a gritty LW with a nose for the net (I know one of those!) or a solid Dman who can play tough minutes I might take a three year deal in San Jose. Lots of cap space and a window to win in the next little while.
San Jose, Colorado and Los Angelos are where the smart players go. In that order too.Los Angeles looks to be a gangbuster good team 3 years from now:-- the GM is good enough to keep all of that on track,-- they get one more GREAT draft pick this year, -- their succession planning is good and -- they have superstar talent in place and coming up-- they have great Cap and budget positions-- they only have one bad contract and it ends soon enough (2 yrs)Wonderful looking team. They are the kind of team that should be making a big play for a guy like Markov imo.
Like TPSH I'd go for the big money if there was enough of a difference in cash and term. Even if that meant CBJ or PHX. A player's career is too short to walk away from that.If the offers were close in value and term, then from a hockey POV San Jose and Colorado would be my first choices ... good coaches, good style of play, good fan support, and they will spend to the cap. Travel is a bitch though.I'd like Ottawa, NYR and Montreal too if I thought they would be icing competitive teams. Fishbowls are great when you're winning ... otherwise they really suck. :)Philly and Detroit as well. If TBay got a goalie that would be a great team to play for I think, though hearing Feaster's story about the two representatives of the owner showing up at his office after Christmas to tell him what the budget would be in 07/08 if the Lightning didn't make the playoffs ... worrying. Just not enough local TV revenue there for them to be stable methinks. The same goes for Nashville.For big money on a short term deal I'd like Dallas as a destination.ykoil: Agreed on your points about L.A, but the Kings are still a couple of years away from contention I think. I doubt that Lombardi will be gunning for veteran UFAs this summer.
No Kings for me thanks - I don't look good in purple.
this has nothing to do with the topic, but does anyone have the blog article written about a month ago, either here, or Mudcrutch, or BOA, regarding how the EIG's numbers have been jumping around, and lots of contradictions?
Post a Comment