I'll start off...

Are the Tampa Bay Lightning an unstoppable juggernaut, destined to blast their way to Ultimate Stanley Cup Glory?

http://economics.about.com
Are the Tampa Bay Lightning an unstoppable juggernaut, destined to blast their way to Ultimate Stanley Cup Glory?

Nah. Remember a couple of years ago when the Calgary Flames won a ton of games at the beginning of the year and still ended up missing the playoffs. Obviously I still do. :)

They do get a lot of help from being in the worst division in professional sports, with the AL Central a close second.

The Lightning aren't as good as New Jersey or Ottawa or even Philly. There's about a half dozen teams in the West I'd say are better.

The Leafs are going to choke this year in the playoffs (if they make it at all) because they have way too many former Calgary Flames. It's like filling up your team with former Cubs. Not good.

Mike

Hey be fair. Calgary has won a Stanley Cup (and appeared in another final) during my lifetime. More than can be said for the Cubbies or my beloved Leafs.

And as a Leaf fan, I object to suggestions they'll choke this season! For a team to be branded a 'choker' they have to be a top notch contender with high expectations that fails to succeed. I don't think that describes the Leafs this year, unfortunately.

Are the Tampa Bay Lightning an unstoppable juggernaut, destined to blast their way to Ultimate Stanley Cup Glory?

If they aren't, can someone please tell me the exact time they'll hit the wall? Right now, Khabibulin's carrying my pool team (along with Theodore), but I keep getting trade offers for him. I wanna trade him before a downturn, but can't bring myself to pull the trigger.

Obviously, I'm biased in favour of my Canucks, but I'm fairly confident they'll be going very far in the playoffs. Whether they can make it to the Finals is something else entirely, however; as Mike notes the Western Conference is pretty phenomenal (eg, much like the NBA, almost all of the best teams are closer to the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic).

http://economics.about.com
Steve, if you missed it.

Moffatt = Die Hard Flames Fan

Cheers,

Mike

as Mike notes the Western Conference is pretty phenomenal

Odd, then, that they got blasted through in 2003 by the distinctly underwhelming Anaheim and Minnesota. But I agree that the West is better.

http://economics.about.com
It's even more odd that a guy with an IQ of a million like you have can't understand a simple concept like "sample size". :)

Mike

Perhaps my prodigious brain was stunned into imbecility by that month-long exhibition of crap hockey I had to sit through last year called the Western Conference Playoffs.

almost all of the best teams are closer to the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic

Let's not get carried away. Consider for a moment that in the NHL certain teams (including perennial favourite Detroit), though they are in the Western Conference, are far from being closer to the Pacific Ocean. Without breaking out the yardstick, I'd say that close to 50% of the Western Conference teams are either in the middle of North America or closer to the Atlantic Ocean.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Canucks fan but mainly due to good ol' Ontario grown Todd Bertuzzi who played his junior hockey in the gem of a town known as Guelph.

I live in Dallas but rest assured am not a Stars fan. I don't really follow a particular NHL team -- just the ones who feature former CCHA (Central Collegiate Hockey Association) juggernaut Bowling Green's alumni.

What is the general Canadian perception of American collegiate hockey, anyway? I whiled away almost 10 years at two of the top hockey colleges in the USA (Bowling Green and Rensselaer) but don't really have a yardstick to compare it to, say, Junior A or Junior B.

What is the general Canadian perception of American collegiate hockey, anyway?

Apples and oranges to junior hockey, which affects the perceptions.

While U.S. college hockey (due to the availability of scholarships) is a marginally higher level of play than Canadian college hockey, it is very different from - though still superior to - Canadian junior hockey, which is professional in all but name.

But Canadian junior hockey is for players 16-19 (with a few 20-year-olds) so obviously they're not able to hang particularly well with the much older players at the top U.S. colleges. If you make the adjustments for age, Canadian junior hockey is a much higher level of competition.

Tampa, with Richards and LeCavalier, last year reminded me of the last Quebec Nordiques team, which had a young Forsberg and a young Sakic centre-ing the top 2 lines. They lost out in the first round of the playoffs just as Tampa did last spring.

The next year the Avs won the Stanley Cup, though they did acquire Patrick Roy and Sandis Ozolinsh along the way. I'm pretty sure that the 'Bulin Wall is good enough to win a Cup, but don't know if Boyle is as good offensively as Ozolinsh was...

But yes, I'm a big believer in the Lightning.

(if they make it at all)

Ah, the Al Strachan-style suggestion that the Leafs, despite their obvious talent and inevitable trade-deadline acquisitions, might finish below eight Eastern Conference teams. Under Pat Quinn, the Leafs have been like the Soviet Union (as a geopolitical entity, not as an international hockey powerhouse): never as strong or as weak as they appear. This year, they'll continue to look like world-beaters some nights and cellar-dwellers others, but make no mistake: This is a second-round-of-playoffs team, give or take a round. No better, no worse.

More fundamentally, I'm a bit worried about this thread because Batter's Box was kind of my last refuge from Leafs-bashing. I get it at work here in New York, I get it at home from family and friends, I get it on TSN. I get it from the U.S. print media, the broader Canadian print media and even (especially?) the Toronto print and radio media.

Is some of it, even a lot of it, deserved? Sure. Is it occasionally disingenuous, hypocritical or excessive? Definitely. Does it drive me crazy? Sadly, yes.

On the last point, I get flashbacks from my days of schoolyard taunting, when I would wear my (last-place) Leafs scarf -- to the derisive remarks of kids cheering for whatever team had won the Cup the year before. Full marks to Moffatt for maintaining his Flames allegiance!

It's amazing, really. The Yankees and their fans are hated, but have won a ton of championships. The Leafs and their fans are hated despite no recent accomplishments whatsoever.

Final point: I reluctantly attended a "Canadian Society of New York" event a few months ago. I figured that it would be boring, which it was. But there was another grounds for discomfort, which I should have anticipated but didn't: Everyone hated me as soon as I said I was from Toronto. I was snubbed, with either mock exaggeration or legitimate contempt, from Westerners, Easterners and even Ontarians from outside the GTA, before I even said a word.

And TWO strangers made the same remark, nearly verbatim: "The rest of us will never hear the end of it if the damn Leafs win the Cup."

That couldn't be more wrong. A Leafs championship would mean we all finally do hear the end of it. They'd become just another hockey team, and people (friends and foes) might one day be able to view them with just a smidgen of objectivity.

http://economics.about.com
TEN THINGS I LIKE ABOUT THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS

10. Nice uniforms.

9. Gary Roberts and Joe Nieuwendyk.

8. King Clancy.

7. Toronto has an NHL team and Hamilton doesn't which annoys some Haligonians to no end.

6. Were kind enough to draft defenceman Jim Benning in 1981, leaving defenceman Al MacInnis for Calgary.

5. Fans considerate enough to remind me about Gilmour for Leeman, just in case I forgot. Thanks!

4. If the Sun couldn't print anything about the Leafs, they'd have to resort to printing a *second* bikini girl every day. And that would be downright sexist!

3. Even if you weren't a Leaf fan, Maple Leaf Gardens really was a magical place to go to.

2. Lanny McDonald, Darryl Sittler, Mike Palmateer, Borje Salming, Ian Turnbull.

1. Enjoyment I get from watching Leaf fans take EVERYTHING so personally.

Is that better? :)

Mike

Much better. I'm a way-too-easy mark to satisfy your #1 item, in case you hadn't noticed.

http://economics.about.com
Much better. I'm a way-too-easy mark to satisfy your #1 item, in case you hadn't noticed.

Yes.

I'd just like to clarify something, though. I'm not a Flames fan because they just happened to be good in the 1980's.

My Dad's friends were all diehard Leaf fans when I was a kid. He'd have them over every so often to watch HNIC. Well, one Saturday night my Dad decided that I could watch the first period with him and his buddies. The big talk before the game was the recent trade that sent Lanny McDonald from the Rockies to the Flames. A couple of the diehard Leaf fans went on, and on, and on about how trading Lanny McDonald was the worst thing the Leafs ever did. So on the night I watched Hockey Night in Canada for the first time, I became a Lanny McDonald fan and by extension a Calgary Flames fan.

I was 4 years old when that happened. So I can't imagine cheering for anyone else. :)

Arrgh!! Hockey - I can't get away from it. The Fan radio is almost non-stop hockey, down to just about describing each Maple Leaf's shower routine! Even on the World's Best Baseball Site, where I come for some respite, it pops up again!

Well, after all, we do live in Canada. I guess I can put up with it until February. Arrgh!!

http://economics.about.com
So, Greg, I take it you didn't watch that excellent, excellent game that just ended on TSN.

Rookie Matthew Lombardi scores 3 goals. I mean, how can you top that?

Well, four goals, I guess.

Under Pat Quinn, the Leafs have been like the Soviet Union

TOP 10 REASONS THE LEAFS ARE LIKE THE SOVIET UNION

(Apologies to Mike, Mike, and John Brattain who often does this better)

10. One run by an unapproachable, shadowy group whose motives always remain desperately unclear. The other run by the Kremlin.

9. Relief at getting rid of Sergei Berezin.

8. The West is officially opposed to them, but plenty of turncoats cheer for them given the opportunity.

7. One presided over for twenty years by a violent, bloodthirsty dictator bent on stamping his particular brand of evil over the entire world. The other one presided over for twenty years by Joseph Stalin.

6. IN SOVIET LEAF GARDENS, SEASON TICKET OWNS YOU!

5. Little is known about each's bloody invasion of Mongolia.

4. Fractious assemblage of nationalities uncomfortably stuck together under one banner. And that's just the Sundin line.

3. Laid low by failing to spend enough on defence.

2. Really loooooong lines for anything.

And the number one reason why the Leafs are like the Soviet Union...

RAMPANT F***ING PARANOIA, 24-7

Much like criticizing the policies of the Politburo, it takes a man of extraordinary courage and unique vision to take the unheard-of step of actually criticizing the Toronto Maple Leafs and their fans.

Craig, you are truly a Vaclav Havel for the new generation.

And 24-7? That sounds like a typical shots on goal total after two periods, in favour of our opponents.

Wow, it's good to see that my favourite site for unbiased baseball criticism can be just as silly and shallow as the next group when it comes to hockey ;)

While I'll pass on commenting on my beloved Leafs, I have been mulling over something lately. Why is it that no one ever comments on minutes played when goals and points comes into the conversation? It seems to me that Goals per Minute and Points per Minute would be a much more accurate measure...

Interesting point, S.K.

I read in the Star not too long ago about an attempt to bring a statistical-analysis approach to basketball. Not too much in the way of breakthroughs, other than to show that the "assist" statistic is not particularly meaningful; there's just too much variance between official scorers' definitions of "assists."

Back to hockey...thoughts on plus/minus? Does it make sense, and does it address S.K.'s point?

Craig. Hilarious. You either have too much time on your hands or...yeeaaah.;)

Due to living overseas for much of life childhood, I've only recently started developing ties to any hockey team in Canada. Then again, living one of Canada's hockey scars, Winnipeg, has certaily affected me. Underdogs for me. Although I can't help cheering for the Canucks reckless yet exciting brand of hockey. They're such a breath of fresh air. And how about that King kid? Over on HFboards they're calling that line the "Mattress" line. Twins + King = Mattress line just in case I lost you.;)

Lombardi certainly seems dangerous whenever he hits the ice though, sounds like you got a good one there Moffatt.

Btw, English is my first language. So my apologies. I tend to 'skip' words from time to time. This usually happens when my mind is already writing the next paragraph but my hands are just sweating to catch up.

Actually, what makes the Canucks so much more fun to watch than most teams is the fact that their style of play is both exciting and positionally sound; they don't play in a defensive shell. If you observe closely, you will find that the well-coached Canucks have sufficient team speed and skill to pressure the puck relentlessly, and they are able and willing to play aggressively.

The only drawback to watching them regularly is to witness how many infractions their opponents get away with. If the referees called Canucks games honestly, the Canucks would always draw more penalties than they took. But cynical observers of the NHL will see where I am leading: by the end of the game, power play time for each time always seems to end up about even.

Mike D, what criticism? Criticism would imply seriousness. I'm just mockin' y'all. As a Canadiens fan since shortly after I could walk, I have nothing to fall back on anymore but making fun of the Leafs.

I read in the Star not too long ago about an attempt to bring a statistical-analysis approach to basketball.

If you like basketball at all, RUN, do not walk, to your nearest bookstore and pick up John Hollinger's Pro Basketball Prospectus 2004. Hollinger's work (you can get a glimpse at www.alleyoop.com) is the germ to a real understanding of basketball statistics. Basketball is a sport I actually know something about from a playing and coaching perspective, rather than just a fan perspective, and I would heartily stamp my approval on his work. It's top-notch.

one of Canada's hockey scars, Winnipeg

I hear ya, Simon. My wife is a die-hard Leafs fan, but she still pines for the Nordiques. And though I'm a Habs fan who bleeds bleu, blanc, rouge, I still mourn the Jets, who were my favourite Campbell Conference team.

http://economics.about.com
It's a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Canadian economy when major league hockey isn't economically viable in Winnipeg but it is in Nashville.

Well, Mike, the good people of Nashville decided to spend $120 million of their tax money to build a rink, and millions more every year to rent it at a sweetheart price. *That's* what made NHL hockey in Nashville viable, and frankly its long-term viability there is still up in the air.

If people in Winnipeg aren't content with that kind of squandering of their money, good for them.

Apparently the cost of Nashville Arena was more like $150 million US rather than $120, and the city is losing $4 million a year on the rink. Local Nashville reporter Tim Chavez tiold the story at the "TaxFreeTennessee" website...

"Saturday, WSMV reported that ticket sales for the Nashville Predators at the Gaylord Entertainment Center are down 10%. So are corporate sponsorships. That follows a national trend since Sept. 11. The report left out an important consequence: Taxpayers will end up footing the bill.

The arena and pro hockey were Bredesen's idea. He originally sold the arena as a $100 million project. He got in trouble when the cost went to $117 million. Now the cost is more than $150 million.

The arena in operation now is losing more than $4 million a year, which taxpayers must make up. Bredesen originally projected the arena would break even for the first couple of years, then begin making profits of as much as $1 million a year, The Tennessean reported on Jan. 11, 2000.

And now, as reported by The Tennessean on June 19, 2001, ''Nashville's two major league sports facilities cost the city $20.9 million'' for the most recent fiscal year. And the city has spent about $114 million on its major league sports facilities since 1995.

Titans' owner Bud Adams is so grateful for the sweetheart deal Bredesen gave him that he's having a fund-raising event next month for the former mayor in a publicly owned facility — Adelphia Coliseum. How can that be? Adams controls the stadium, not the taxpayers who own it — again thanks to Bredesen.

It gets worse. The Predators got control of management of the arena. And its contract with the city holds taxpayers accountable for losses. And even though it operated the arena at a big loss for the most recent fiscal year, the management company still got a performance bonus."

Ugly, ugly, ugly. If that's the price to pay for hockey, thank god Winnipeggers don't have to pay it.

http://economics.about.com
Excellent points.

For you law type guys on the Box: Do you think these stadium handouts constitute illegal trade practices / industry subsidies under NAFTA?

Mike

Anyone else bothered by the east/west split in conferences (same problem applies to NBA).

One thing that I liked in Olympic pooling is the way the groups are redone.

For example, you've got your 8 eastern teams and 8 western teams. Once you've whittled them down to 2 eastern and 2 western, make the #1 eastern play the #2 western (#2 east v #1 west).

This way, at least you'll have a chance of a Det-Col finals a few years back. Same applies to the NBA, with Lakers/Spurs meeting. Even the NFL could adopt this, since the Conference finals are usually much more entertaining than the Superbowls.

Yeah, I agree with that. I love the crossover idea.

Anyone else here read "Tropic of Hockey" by Dave Bidini?

Great book. A great tonic to the Public funded arena / Trap / ESPN garbage that plagues the NHL today. You can almost smell the old community club and feel the cold wind on your face again 8-)

I read Tropic of Hockey, I second the opinion that it's a great book. But it just reinforces my opinion that hockey is a game for watching, and not for playing.

By the way, best third jerseys in hockey: the new Minnesota Wild jerseys. They are AWESOME, they have a real 40s Blackhawks feel to them. Very well done! I want one.

So, is there something along the lines of hockey prospectus site? Is there such a thing SABR hockey? (Cue the Buffalo jokes.)

My twenty-five year-old habit (I'm a few months shy of my 30th birthday) of playing hockey vehemently disagrees with your opinion that hockey is only a spectator sport. It's kept me fit and been the catalyst for a lot of fun, Craig. My favourite two sports are hockey (participatory & fan) and baseball (fan with an intellectual bent).

http://www.jetsowner.com
COMN for a website trying to get the Jets back. Guy's head is in the clouds a bit, but at least he cares. I went to a preseason game between the Canucks and the Wild at the Arena. Over 10,000 for a preseason, and I was counting all the Jets jerseys. It was great fun. Guy behind us in the line was from Morden, small town about 70 kms from Winnipeg, and was a season ticket holder for the Jets. My manager at work was a season ticket holder. A guy I met today at work was a season ticket holder for a bit. The same thing I hear is that they all feel shafted by the NHL and Bettman in particular. They all also agree that if the NHL comes back, it better come back a changed league. My manager says that he has not watched hockey at all seriously since the Jets left. He just is not interested. He paid 15 years of his income to them and then they just up and leave.

Now a more pointed question to Moffatt. I always hear from people that hockey in towns like Winnipeg won't work because of income, the dollar, population, etc etc. What's your economists' opinion?

http://economics.about.com
"Now a more pointed question to Moffatt. I always hear from people that hockey in towns like Winnipeg won't work because of income, the dollar, population, etc etc. What's your economists' opinion?"

Hi Simon,

This is all clearly opinion as I haven't studied the problem at all. But it seems there's a few problems:

1. On average Canadians don't have as much disposable income as Americans. I don't know what the situation is like in Winnipeg. I just know it's cold there. :)

2. Craig's point: State and city governments in Canada are more reluctant to give sweetheart stadium deals to billionaires. This is a good thing for Canada, though it hurts when you lose a team.

3. Corporate dollars. A lot of the more expensive tickets seem to be bought by corporations. If there isn't a lot of corporate dollars in a city, then I could see it being hard to compete. The Leafs have done really well for themselves because of this. The only way I can get good Leaf tickets is if I get them from friends of mine in industry. I know I'm not alone.

Could NHL Hockey in Winnipeg work? Sure, it's possible. I mean, if they can make the NFL work in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Lawyer Guys: What sort of tax benefits (if any) do corporations get if they buy seasons tickets that an individual wouldn't?

Now.. if you want to ask me something about tariffs, apparently today is the day to do it. Click on tariffs to find out why. :)

Cheers,

Mike

It's actually funny, cuz our new arena downtown here is being funded majorly by public money. It's meant to cost $120 million and as far as I can recollect over $70 mill of that is coming from the city/prov/feds. That's substantial. I agree with the assertion that there just seems to be more money floating around down south than up here. Maybe we just know how to spend it on more valuable things than a hockey team?

Is anyone else annoyed with the proclamation of Martin as the next PM. It's beyond question now according to the media. I know he's practically a shoe-in, but please, we live in a democracy. News is not predicting what the next election will bring (no matter how obvious it may be to some pundits, there's still months between now and then). Maybe I'm just a sucker for this little thing we have called democracy.

http://economics.about.com
I'm not annoyed by it at all. I like the fact that the media realizes that we live in a one party state. It helps the cause of those who advocate changes to the electoral system.

Mike

Um... Paul Martin will be the next PM because Chretien will be stepping down before the next election. When he does, Martin as head of the Liberal Party (which holds a majority of seats in Parliament) will be asked to form a government.

It's not pre-ordaining the result of the next election, guys! Martin will be the next PM regardless of how that election turns out.

It's not unusual, either... the last two longterm Prime Ministers stepped down and installed their successor several months in advance of an election - Pierre Trudeau for John Turner and Brian Mulroney for Kim Campbell.

You guys might be a "sucker for democracy", but it's important to have a firm handle on how our system of government works first. :)

Well, I thought that Canada has a system where the PM decides when an election will be held. Martin has said that he doesn't want to govern if he doesn't have the mandate of the people, so I would assume that when Chretien resigns, Martin will call the new election.

I was more commenting on the media's proclamation that he will win the next election without a shadow of a doubt. This sort of thing just encourages cynics and lazy people to stay at home.