Rangerland Forum Information

[Charlie]

Stamkos scores his 60th, Winnipeg crowd gives him a standing ovation.

Without a shred of doubt Winnipeg had the coolest fans in the league this year.

This post has been edited by Charlie: Apr 7 2012, 09:19 PM

[Rocha]

Stamkos scores his 60th, Winnipeg crowd gives him a standing ovation.

Without a shred of doubt Winnipeg had the coolest fans in the league this year.

When I heard he got his 60th, that was my immediate thought, hope they gave him a round of applause. Cheers, Winnipeg.

[jkman61494]

If Vancouver ended up playing L.A., that could be a very tricky series for the 'Nucks.

[TeamStewie]

I'm pretty sure almost every series winds up being tricky for Vancouver.

[jkman61494]

I'm pretty sure almost every series winds up being tricky for Vancouver.

Maybe, but I think San Jose is going to be a quick out this year no matter who they play.

[HDH]

Three straight years. Geez. That shouldn't be allowed.

[TeamStewie]

ROFLMAO! Fuck Columbus

[ree]

Can't even win a 1st draft pick. Sheesh.

[Knight of Dight]

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

[Kusand]

KoD, April 2016: "I hate Edmonton! The league conspires to promote them just because they're Canadian! The Rangers never get calls against them! They're so protected!"

[Knight of Dight]

KoD, April 2016: "I hate Edmonton! The league conspires to promote them just because they're Canadian! The Rangers never get calls against them! They're so protected!"

Even if that does happen, at least we will only play them maybe twice a year.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Apr 10 2012, 09:29 PM

[jkman61494]

I absolutely believe there needs to be some sort of rules set that ensures a team cannot get the first overall pick two years in a row, much less three.

This is pretty preposterous if you ask me.

What's funny is Edmonton should not even use this pick. Instead, dangle it to a team that'd be willing to trade a franchise defenseman. The Oilers need a cornerstone #1 d-man between 22-24 years old that can anchor the blue line for the next 12 years.

An example? How about Doughty in L.A.? The fans have soured on him a bit after the contract drama and his subsequent sub-par play compared to what people saw a few years ago. The Kings would get some much needed offense and still have a very good defense, while the Oilers get their franchise guy.

[Rocha]

How about Marc Staal?

Yeah, wishful thinking...

[Dr. D]

Those of you complaining about teams being allowed to get the #1 overall pick three years in a row, a change is na ga happen. Why? The Pittsburgh Model.

2003: MA Fleury #1 overall
2004: Evgeni Malkin #2 overall
2005: Sid Crosby #1 overall
2006: J Staal #2 overall

Why yes, it is a bunch of shit that the Penguins were allowed to be a joke of an organization right before the lockout that sold off all of their good players and iced a team in 2003-04 that was led in scoring by Dick fucking Tarnstrom. But the result is arguably the most talented and exciting team in the league. And very soon, Edmonton is going to start blowing people out (once they shore up their defense and goaltending and fire Tom Renney). They'll be young and exciting and the league loves that. I don't think Gary's complaining that much about them getting another #1 overall.

It's stupid to build a team that way if you're A. Not a Canadian team or B. Not a gigantic market American team. As you remember, it almost got the Penguins moved to Kansas City. But it'll work for Edmonton, seeing as they've sold out every single game since the lockout. Clearly, there's nothing else to do in Alberta besides go to hockey games.

This post has been edited by Dr. D: Apr 11 2012, 12:00 AM

[Knight of Dight]

I absolutely believe there needs to be some sort of rules set that ensures a team cannot get the first overall pick two years in a row, much less three.

This is pretty preposterous if you ask me.

What's funny is Edmonton should not even use this pick. Instead, dangle it to a team that'd be willing to trade a franchise defenseman. The Oilers need a cornerstone #1 d-man between 22-24 years old that can anchor the blue line for the next 12 years.

An example? How about Doughty in L.A.? The fans have soured on him a bit after the contract drama and his subsequent sub-par play compared to what people saw a few years ago. The Kings would get some much needed offense and still have a very good defense, while the Oilers get their franchise guy.

I think a fair balancing mechanism would be if you draft in the top 3 one year, your highest draft position would be one less than that the next year. So if you win the draft this year, the highest you can draft next year would be second overall even if you win the lottery. In such a case, the team that was 2nd place in the lottery would get 1st pick.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Apr 11 2012, 12:00 AM

[jkman61494]

Well I have heard models that even if you're 30th three years in a row, you'd just keep falling further from the No. 1 pick, which to me is just silly.

I'd just put them on two year runs. I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem if the Oilers followed the Pittsburgh model that you described, where in 2010 they picked first, 2011, second and 2012 first. It's the fact one team gets three consecutive #1 picks that bothers me.

I also don't know if Gary is doing cartwheels. Lest we forget, this is still a guy that thinks America is the promise land. Now, may that belief be waning a bit, given the bad economy, and seeing how Winnipeg reacted with a team? Maybe.

But with that said, if Edmonton became as good as Pittsburgh (which they won't because Hall and RNH are not Crosby and Malkin), it wouldn't exactly do the league any good. Not many people are going to tune in to a Finals featuring Edmonton unless their opponent would be one of about five teams in the East.

A big reason to me why the NHL has gained some momentum has been the cities featured in the Finals the past 4 years. Even Vancouver was a city a general sports fan remembered because of the Olympics. It wasn't the NHL's fault, but they had a run of about the worst match-ups you could ever ask for for several years.

New Jersey-Anaheim, Tampa-Calgary, Carolina-Edmonton, Anaheim-Ottawa,

[Knight of Dight]

Yeah I remember the Anaheim-Ottawa finals being about the most ho-hum playoff series I've ever watched. For one, it wasn't really a competition-- the Ducks were vastly superior. Second, it was pretty damn boring.

The NJ/Anaheim finals were exciting because you had a massive underdog riding what is one of the most memorable runs by a goalie in my time facing off against a titan-- the Devils were the Beast in the East back then. They were the team to beat. And both teams won all their home games, too, but the series finished in NJ.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Apr 11 2012, 12:21 AM

[jkman61494]

Oh, I'm not saying they're bad series. Hell, I thought Calgary/Tampa was a lot of fun.

But for most sports fans they didn't give a crap. After all, a southern city, and some Canadian Albertan outpost playing for a Stanley Cup isn't going to have a lot of people change their plans to tune in at 8 pm on a Wednesday.

But Chicago/Philly? Pittsburgh/Detroit? Boston/Vancovuer? Those have been match-ups people could get into. The good news for the league? The odds are quite high that whoever comes out of the East will be a big ticket draw. But if we ever got something like Nashville vs. Buffalo at some point? I fear the ratings would drop off a cliff.

[Hockey101]

Three straight years. Geez. That shouldn't be allowed.

Agree. Total bullshit. Three years in a row. These guys are fucking tanking it each season. They don't trade. They don't sign. They rush prospects. Now the Blue Jacks should really trade their #2. Oilers = Penguins.

[Charlie]

Three straight years. Geez. That shouldn't be allowed.

Agree. Total bullshit. Three years in a row. These guys are fucking tanking it each season. They don't trade. They don't sign. They rush prospects. Now the Blue Jacks should really trade their #2. Oilers = Penguins.

I don't think you understand what tanking is if you think the Oilers have tanked recently. Tanking is the most overused word in hockey.

The Pens tanked for Lemieux. I know people have argued they tanked in the early 2000s, but a lot of that had to do with it being a horribly run (especially by ownership) team.

Stop talking about tanking. It almost never happens.

[Charlie]

"The level of passion, emotion and gamesmanship can never be overestimated," Bettman said. "I think people who follow the game closely understand it's just noise. My guess is, Sidney Crosby is still the most popular player and has legions of fans in all ages in multiple countries. The fact that somebody might take a potshot, I guess, is the price of greatness."

How I imagine Bettman giving this press conference:



Haters gonna hate.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

I don't remember this level of bitching when the Nordiques had the number 1 pick three years in a row 89-91. I mean I wasn't born so that's probably why.

[Tex]

Martha Fokker.
The Rangers first fucking game is on NHL network, NOT on NBC, NBCSN, or CNBC or even MSNBC (like during the Olympics). Fokking Bettman and his elitist television network.

[jkman61494]

I don't think the Oilers tanked. But the Oilers management has in my opinion, intentionally put forth a bad team in an attempt to get lottery picks. They could have sought good free agents to backend their offensive prospects but have "let the kids grow".


As for the Rangers, they really got the short end of the stick for national coverage. I don't think there is a single game on NBC unless they were one of the only series to go deep. I mean, I don't know if you can really blame them?

Caps/Boston, Pens/Flyers, Wings/Preds are all going to be higher profile.

[Tex]

As for the Rangers, they really got the short end of the stick for national coverage. I don't think there is a single game on NBC unless they were one of the only series to go deep. I mean, I don't know if you can really blame them?

Caps/Boston, Pens/Flyers, Wings/Preds are all going to be higher profile.

true. I've gotten by for the last 12 years getting most of my NYR games via the internet radiocasts, so, it's nothing I can't handle. But, the commercials said "every game, every night" and they lied, like a buncha lying liars.

[Charlie]

I don't think the Oilers tanked. But the Oilers management has in my opinion, intentionally put forth a bad team in an attempt to get lottery picks. They could have sought good free agents to backend their offensive prospects but have "let the kids grow".

But what is this based off of? They have the same problem the Islanders do, nobody wants to play there. Edmonton is consistently listed among the least desirable places in the entire NHL. They don't exactly have a ton of choices. They have overpaid mediocre free agents in the past, which nobody argues is a good move. But, besides that, what can they do? No top tier free agent would ever consider going to freaking Edmonton to play. I mean, can you think of a single marquee free agent that has signed with them in the last ten years? Pronger was a trade, Peca was a trade, Roloson was a trade, Samsanov was a trade. This team doesn't have the ability to sign free agents.

They have made moves to improve their team, they just ended up being bad moves. They traded for Whitney to get an established, veteran presence to shore up their blue line. That move has sucked. They gave a meaty free agent contract to Khabibulin thinking he would set them up in net for a few years. That was a bad move. This season they traded for Nick Schultz, a solid stay at home defenseman, once again to shore up the blue line.


You can't argue they haven't tried to keep their own players. They paid have paid Horcoff and Hemsky at or above market value. They traded Smyth for a good haul, then were able to bring him back.

They are only 4 million below the cap, so they aren't afraid to spend.

Nothing about the Oilers' situation smells of tanking. It is a classic case of overpaying mediocre players, not drafting particularly well, and ignoring some fundamental ideas of team building (importance of top pairing defensemen and goaltending).

Look at their first round picks in the last 10 years.

2002: Jesse Niinimaki. Never played in the NHL
2003: Marc-Antoine Pouliot. Played a few unremarkable seasons with them before being let go.
2004: Devan Dubynk: Currently their backup goalie.
2004: Rob Schremp: Would play a grand total of 7 games with the organization
2005: Andrew Cogliano: Decent rookie year, average after. Traded for a second round pick.
2007: Sam Gagner: Lottery pick who has yet to live up to expectations
2007: Alex Plante: 7 games played
2007: Riley Nash: Never made it to the NHL
2008: Jordan Eberle: Great pick
2009: Magnus Paajavri-Svensson: Terrible year after a promising rookie year. Played himself back into the AHL
2010 and 2011 are their number one overall picks.

They have gotten some decent role players in later rounds, but none are still with the team.

This team hasn't tanked. They have just done a horrendous job drafting.


There seems to be this idea amongst hockey fans that GMs are constantly throwing seasons away. I would argue that the opposite is true.

[Kusand]

Why on earth would Edmonton want to intentionally ice a bad team? People seem to think "tanking" is some sort of incredibly viable strategy for team-building, when teams that pick frequently in the top five can just as easily suck for ages. How'd drafting Heatley, Kovalchuk and Lehtonen in three straight years work out for the Thrashers? The Senators had three number ones in four years, but I don't think Philips, Daigle and Berard turned them around. Nash and Zherdev didn't light Columbus on fire. Yeah, RNH looks special for Edmonton, but I doubt there was a master plan to finish second and win the lottery to pair RNH and Yakupov.

[HDH]

I don't think the Oilers tanked. But the Oilers management has in my opinion, intentionally put forth a bad team in an attempt to get lottery picks. They could have sought good free agents to backend their offensive prospects but have "let the kids grow".

So wait...

They have two #1 overall draft picks playing, a 22nd overall leading the team in scoring, a 6th overall pick, a 9th overall pick, a 10th overall pick, all playing....PLUS, Ryan Smyth, Hemsky, and Horcoff.

PLUS, they brought in this year Cam Barker, Belanger (who scored over 40 points each of the last two seasons before EDM), Andy Sutton, and Ben Eager. And I don't know if you noticed, but they were brutalized with injuries early in the year, with Whitney, Hordichuk, Hemsky, Potter, Barker and Nugent-Hopkins all missing significant time.


I'm not sure who you wanted them to get.

[ak996]

How about Marc Staal?

Yeah, wishful thinking...

How about MDZ or McD plus our first and something? Still wishful?

[xcdudesquadloves...]

Taylor Hall isn't setting the world on fire but could be a consistent 25 goal scorer. That will help with Ebrele and if RNH proves to continue this. Pajarvi-Svensson was a consensus top 5 pick and "fell" into Edmonton's lap. He hasn't done well. Charlie pointed out the rest.

It took Quebec/Colorado 5 years to win the Cup after drafting three number 1s in a row. And none of them ended up being on that team. Sundin got traded for no one that really helped the cup winning team, Owen Nolan was traded the year they won the Cup, and Lindros was traded for the picks and Forsberg that set them up for the Roy trade. No one is expecting a dynasty from Edmonton after this, so I don't see the big deal.

[Hockey101]

Three straight years. Geez. That shouldn't be allowed.

Agree. Total bullshit. Three years in a row. These guys are fucking tanking it each season. They don't trade. They don't sign. They rush prospects. Now the Blue Jacks should really trade their #2. Oilers = Penguins.

I don't think you understand what tanking is if you think the Oilers have tanked recently. Tanking is the most overused word in hockey.

The Pens tanked for Lemieux. I know people have argued they tanked in the early 2000s, but a lot of that had to do with it being a horribly run (especially by ownership) team.

Stop talking about tanking. It almost never happens.

"ALMOST never happens"

I think the Oilers have put in minimal effort to make the playoffs. They rush all of their prospects. They don't address any need. They haven't in years. These guys are just banking on getting high draft picks. Pittsburgh did it for a bunch of years when they managed to draft Whitney, Fleury, Crosby, Malkin, Staal. For five years in a row the Penguins picked high and most of the times it was #1. The Oilers are in their third year. Do you honestly think that they will contend for the playoffs next season? I would say no. Goaltending will be the same. They may add a decent d-man or two. Maybe a vet who is left out of the free agent market. They will play Yakupov.

Same shit, different season. That's Oilers hockey.

[Hockey101]

I don't think the Oilers tanked. But the Oilers management has in my opinion, intentionally put forth a bad team in an attempt to get lottery picks. They could have sought good free agents to backend their offensive prospects but have "let the kids grow".

To me, that's basically tanking.

[Hockey101]

I don't think the Oilers tanked. But the Oilers management has in my opinion, intentionally put forth a bad team in an attempt to get lottery picks. They could have sought good free agents to backend their offensive prospects but have "let the kids grow".

So wait...

They have two #1 overall draft picks playing, a 22nd overall leading the team in scoring, a 6th overall pick, a 9th overall pick, a 10th overall pick, all playing....PLUS, Ryan Smyth, Hemsky, and Horcoff.

PLUS, they brought in this year Cam Barker, Belanger (who scored over 40 points each of the last two seasons before EDM), Andy Sutton, and Ben Eager. And I don't know if you noticed, but they were brutalized with injuries early in the year, with Whitney, Hordichuk, Hemsky, Potter, Barker and Nugent-Hopkins all missing significant time.


I'm not sure who you wanted them to get.

They rushed their prospects, save RNH who everyone knew was NHL ready. Clearly i did not see Hall as anywhere near NHL ready, but they sold the hype. Ryan Smyth? Old. Hemsky? You are lucky if he plays half a season. Horcoff? Was already declining since 2008. Barker? The guy was a 1st round bust and couldn't even stick with a thin Minnesota team. Belanger? Aging vet and yes back-2-back 40 points, but most of his career he was a 30 point 3rd liner. Potter? Come on...

It's a non-playoff team. Next season will be no different.

[Dr. D]

Perhaps Edmonton has simply chosen to rebuild their team from within rather than making a trade for whichever schmuk is available or overpaying for B-level free agents. Brian Burke has been trying the latter strategy for four years in Toronto, and we know how successful that's been. Also, managerial ineptitude is not equal to tanking. Again, ask Brian Burke.

Does anyone here claim that the Islanders are intentionally icing crappy teams? Because their teams sure have been crappy the last few years!

[Knight of Dight]

Martha Fokker.
The Rangers first fucking game is on NHL network, NOT on NBC, NBCSN, or CNBC or even MSNBC (like during the Olympics). Fokking Bettman and his elitist television network.

Yep I was bitching about it earlier. I don't get this channel anymore.

[Kusand]

Damn you, Bettman! Doing what every sports league in the nation is doing for money!

This post has been edited by Kusand: Apr 11 2012, 11:07 AM

[HDH]

They rushed their prospects

So wait, they rush their prospects as MINIMAL effort to make the playoffs? I don't see how inserting your assorted top 20 overall (and two first overall) picks in either intentionally or negligently not attempting to improve.

They are drafting players, and getting them the NHL experience they need.


It's freaking Edmonton. Their only hope is to get these kids ready as soon as possible in order to draw a big free agent there. Same with the Islanders. They have no alternatives (though I think even Long Island is more of a draw then Edmonton).

[Scuubs]

They rushed their prospects

So wait, they rush their prospects as MINIMAL effort to make the playoffs? I don't see how inserting your assorted top 20 overall (and two first overall) picks in either intentionally or negligently not attempting to improve.

They are drafting players, and getting them the NHL experience they need.


It's freaking Edmonton. Their only hope is to get these kids ready as soon as possible in order to draw a big free agent there. Same with the Islanders. They have no alternatives (though I think even Long Island is more of a draw then Edmonton).

Only slighty more of a draw. That seriously is Edmonton's problem. Even older free agents on the verge of retiring aren't really willing to go there. And even if they were, it's not exactly a great strategy to to put a winning team on the ice. They HAVE to build from within and let their prospects grow in the NHL because they have no other choice.

Not to mention the injuries that you mentioned earlier. They'd probably be contending for a playoff spot if they weren't decimated by injuries this season.

[Tex]

Damn you, Bettman! Doing what every sports league in the nation is doing for money!

meh, I've always held the opinion that getting the game onto "free" networks would build fanbases faster. *shrug* In my backwards-ass country-fuck region, my available providers do not offer NHL network without the purchase of the whole CenterIce package. CI, imo, is not worth the money they want to charge for all the blackouts and lack of broadcast selection options involved. As an example, they want about $200 for CI. Fuck that. I'd be willing to drop $200 to have an MSG package (with all of the 2s, +s and alternates that I'd need to see every Rangers game) where I could have all of MY TEAM's pre-game, post-game and rah-rah with no blackouts or other derailments. MSG just hasn't marketed themselves nationally, so it's not a real option as long as the NHL can force blackouts on privately secured services (the MSG channels available on DirecTV, for example).

[Knight of Dight]

Damn you, Bettman! Doing what every sports league in the nation is doing for money!

meh, I've always held the opinion that getting the game onto "free" networks would build fanbases faster. *shrug* In my backwards-ass country-fuck region, my available providers do not offer NHL network without the purchase of the whole CenterIce package. CI, imo, is not worth the money they want to charge for all the blackouts and lack of broadcast selection options involved. As an example, they want about $200 for CI. Fuck that. I'd be willing to drop $200 to have an MSG package (with all of the 2s, +s and alternates that I'd need to see every Rangers game) where I could have all of MY TEAM's pre-game, post-game and rah-rah with no blackouts or other derailments. MSG just hasn't marketed themselves nationally, so it's not a real option as long as the NHL can force blackouts on privately secured services (the MSG channels available on DirecTV, for example).

MSG is actually quite a bit cheaper to purchase than Center Ice, but they black out all the games because they are not local :S

[Tex]

MSG is actually quite a bit cheaper to purchase than Center Ice, but they black out all the games because they are not local :S

well, yeah, that's what I said, I thought. If MSG marketed itself as a network package nationally (Get YOUR NYC HERE, BITCHES!) and owned the broadcasts regardless of ties to MLB, The NBA or The NHL, I'd buy it without question. If I agree to pay a set price for a network package, no outside forces should be able to lay claim to it and turn it off, imo. Now, I understand where the 200 or 250 mile rule complicates things in the denser sports regions but, I'm 1800 miles away. If I pay extra to get MSG, nobody should be able to say I can't have ALL of it's programming, imo. By paying for MSG, am I not by extension also paying the NHL? Doesn't MSG have to pay some amount to The League in order to hold it's broadcasts? The NHL is double dipping, I think. Maybe that's legally okay, but I won't pay it. I'll get by with the free radio casts and it'll hafta do.

[Kusand]

Damn you, Bettman! Doing what every sports league in the nation is doing for money!

meh, I've always held the opinion that getting the game onto "free" networks would build fanbases faster. *shrug* In my backwards-ass country-fuck region, my available providers do not offer NHL network without the purchase of the whole CenterIce package. CI, imo, is not worth the money they want to charge for all the blackouts and lack of broadcast selection options involved. As an example, they want about $200 for CI. Fuck that. I'd be willing to drop $200 to have an MSG package (with all of the 2s, +s and alternates that I'd need to see every Rangers game) where I could have all of MY TEAM's pre-game, post-game and rah-rah with no blackouts or other derailments. MSG just hasn't marketed themselves nationally, so it's not a real option as long as the NHL can force blackouts on privately secured services (the MSG channels available on DirecTV, for example).

I get the sentiment; I just don't blame Bettman for NHL Network. There's already a network deal in place for showing the sport. The NHL Network is effectively side action. I guess the problem is that if they made NHL Network "free", it devalues the broadcast package they're selling to the networks.

[Knight of Dight]

MSG is actually quite a bit cheaper to purchase than Center Ice, but they black out all the games because they are not local :S

well, yeah, that's what I said, I thought. If MSG marketed itself as a network package nationally (Get YOUR NYC HERE, BITCHES!) and owned the broadcasts regardless of ties to MLB, The NBA or The NHL, I'd buy it without question. If I agree to pay a set price for a network package, no outside forces should be able to lay claim to it and turn it off, imo. Now, I understand where the 200 or 250 mile rule complicates things in the denser sports regions but, I'm 1800 miles away. If I pay extra to get MSG, nobody should be able to say I can't have ALL of it's programming, imo. By paying for MSG, am I not by extension also paying the NHL? Doesn't MSG have to pay some amount to The League in order to hold it's broadcasts? The NHL is double dipping, I think. Maybe that's legally okay, but I won't pay it. I'll get by with the free radio casts and it'll hafta do.

http://www.firstrowsports.eu/sport/ice-hockey.html

Use that. The quality is usually pretty shitty, but hey, it's free so you can't complain. :P

[Fuzz]

Speaking of MSG and how they suck, anyone else not seeing the Rangers first round game on the MSG guide for thursday? I'm hoping they;ll update their show list for tomorrow, but it wouldn't be the first time they fucked me. Should i trust them?

[jburns]

Speaking of MSG and how they suck, anyone else not seeing the Rangers first round game on the MSG guide for thursday? I'm hoping they;ll update their show list for tomorrow, but it wouldn't be the first time they fucked me. Should i trust them?

http://www.msg.com/teams/rangers/2012-rang...f-schedule.html

[Fuzz]

Speaking of MSG and how they suck, anyone else not seeing the Rangers first round game on the MSG guide for thursday? I'm hoping they;ll update their show list for tomorrow, but it wouldn't be the first time they fucked me. Should i trust them?

http://www.msg.com/teams/rangers/2012-rang...f-schedule.html

I know, i made sure already.. it just makes me paranoid because as of last night my TV still had MSG reruns but i just checked and they finally updated the menu.

[jburns]

Speaking of MSG and how they suck, anyone else not seeing the Rangers first round game on the MSG guide for thursday? I'm hoping they;ll update their show list for tomorrow, but it wouldn't be the first time they fucked me. Should i trust them?

http://www.msg.com/teams/rangers/2012-rang...f-schedule.html

I know, i made sure already.. it just makes me paranoid because as of last night my TV still had MSG reruns but i just checked and they finally updated the menu.

Breathe. Don't you worry. You will be able to watch.

[Dunc]

Damn you, Bettman! Doing what every sports league in the nation is doing for money!

meh, I've always held the opinion that getting the game onto "free" networks would build fanbases faster. *shrug* In my backwards-ass country-fuck region, my available providers do not offer NHL network without the purchase of the whole CenterIce package. CI, imo, is not worth the money they want to charge for all the blackouts and lack of broadcast selection options involved. As an example, they want about $200 for CI. Fuck that. I'd be willing to drop $200 to have an MSG package (with all of the 2s, +s and alternates that I'd need to see every Rangers game) where I could have all of MY TEAM's pre-game, post-game and rah-rah with no blackouts or other derailments. MSG just hasn't marketed themselves nationally, so it's not a real option as long as the NHL can force blackouts on privately secured services (the MSG channels available on DirecTV, for example).

I originally got DirecTV because it was the only way to get Rangers games in So Cal, but even though it's no longer the only game in town I am still with them 16 years later.

Tex, I pay an extra $10/mo. to DirecTV for the regional sports package, which gets me all the pre-game (usually blacks out right at anthem time) and post-game coverage, as well as goodies like Rangers in 60, etc. It also gets me similar fare for a good number of other NHL teams. I drop this during the off-season and re-add when hockey starts up again.

NHL channel is free on DirecTV, and CI seems to have resolved whatever was keeping MSG from providing HD feeds as I haven't had to deal with that for since early last season. I am contemplating switching to FIOS after our re-model is complete but it's going to take a lot to get me to leave DirecTV.

[Tex]

firstrowsports
Use that. The quality is usually pretty shitty, but hey, it's free so you can't complain. :P

well, I'm a little too picky (curse you BluRay greatness! ) to sit and stare at a shitty stream that is stolen. I can deal with audio only, and I'm not stealing.

NHL channel is free on DirecTV, and CI seems to have resolved whatever was keeping MSG from providing HD feeds as I haven't had to deal with that for since early last season. I am contemplating switching to FIOS after our re-model is complete but it's going to take a lot to get me to leave DirecTV.

My folks have DirecTV so I've seen the drill as far as watching MSG until the blackout starts, then switching to the CI feed. What I know is: I can't get any satellite service for as little as I can get cable. But, my only available cable provider (while otherwise excellent) doesn't separate the Bettman Channel. Since CI comes with no guarantees about what games or feeds will be on, they can kiss my ass. It's just too much money for not being a lock to watch what I wanna watch.

All that said, that's just a regular season budget issue for me. Here come the playoffs with NBC saying "every game, every night!" Oh, except, umm, this one... With the top seed in the East, or something... I give that 6th Ave move da fin-gah!

[HDH]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/spt--tax-day-...-write-off.html



Two Glen Sather contracts on the top ten worst. Awesome!