Although one-sided, your comments illustrate through the impact on ticket prices (concessions, parking, etc. - which puts the Flyers low on the affordability meter in the NHL) is the reason why I gave up my season tickets and do not attend many games at all. And then we have lockouts where we need to miss half / whole seasons so that teams willing to spend are limited and teams that don't belong in a major league get propped up. Ticket prices in Florida or Glendale compared to Philly or Toronto...please. The next Panther fan that quotes attendance figures as a reason to keep the team there needs a broader view to see that they have 4-6 too many teams in the NHL and it impacts the product greatly.
Respectfully yours,

The NHL should've eliminated 4 teams, raised the cap to $80 and have a contraction draft to absorb all of the players from Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay. The draft should be a full lottery for all remaining 26 teams for an equal chance to get the #1 pick. I'm so sick of seeing good players going to these bad hockey markets, those teams continue being bad, wasting their careers in front of empty buildings and me having to pay part of their ticket prices through the bullsh*t revenue sharing.

There should also be a rule against being able to draft in the top 5 for 3 straight years.
- MatzCT

Here here - not bad for a Rangers fan

The NHL should've eliminated 4 teams, raised the cap to $80 and have a contraction draft to absorb all of the players from Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay. The draft should be a full lottery for all remaining 26 teams for an equal chance to get the #1 pick. I'm so sick of seeing good players going to these bad hockey markets, those teams continue being bad, wasting their careers in front of empty buildings and me having to pay part of their ticket prices through the bullsh*t revenue sharing.

There should also be a rule against being able to draft in the top 5 for 3 straight years.
- MatzCT

With that plan, you might as well say bye to at least 4 Canadian teams. Oilers, Flames, Sens, and Jets would not be able to compete against NY, TO, California teams, etc.. for free agents (they just aren't attractive destinations for NHL free agents) and would just be bottom feeders. The top teams that can attract free agents like the Rangers and California teams would be the best and would still have an equal chance at the top picks. NYR signs the top FA every year, there should be a rule against that.

With that plan, you might as well say bye to at least 4 Canadian teams. Oilers, Flames, Sens, and Jets would not be able to compete against NY, TO, California teams, etc.. for free agents (they just aren't attractive destinations for NHL free agents) and would just be bottom feeders. The top teams that can attract free agents like the Rangers and California teams would be the best and would still have an equal chance at the top picks. NYR signs the top FA every year, there should be a rule against that.
- Al Hacker

That's different. It helps his team.

The NHL should've eliminated 4 teams, raised the cap to $80 and have a contraction draft to absorb all of the players from Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay. The draft should be a full lottery for all remaining 26 teams for an equal chance to get the #1 pick. I'm so sick of seeing good players going to these bad hockey markets, those teams continue being bad, wasting their careers in front of empty buildings and me having to pay part of their ticket prices through the bullsh*t revenue sharing.

There should also be a rule against being able to draft in the top 5 for 3 straight years.
- MatzCT

Genius I tell you, Genius.

It really is a joke because you have veteran players that do not want to come to these smaller markets to help rebuild because they want the cup NOW. So these teams can only build through the draft and with so much risk in draft picks, it could take a decade or more just to build from the bottom, up to even challenge for the cup.

Genius I tell you, Genius.

It really is a joke because you have veteran players that do not want to come to these smaller markets to help rebuild because they want the cup NOW. So these teams can only build through the draft and with so much risk in draft picks, it could take a decade or more just to build from the bottom, up to even challenge for the cup.
- justahockeyguy2

Exactly!

Can't wait until the conversation switches back to current hockey. Flyers are in a much better position than they were last year.

With that plan, you might as well say bye to at least 4 Canadian teams. Oilers, Flames, Sens, and Jets would not be able to compete against NY, TO, California teams, etc.. for free agents (they just aren't attractive destinations for NHL free agents) and would just be bottom feeders. The top teams that can attract free agents like the Rangers and California teams would be the best and would still have an equal chance at the top picks. NYR signs the top FA every year, there should be a rule against that.
- Al Hacker

NYR sings top players every year because they are trying to be competitive every year, there should be no rule against that, they are trying to win. Being bad for 4, 5, 6 years or more and saying you're rebuilding is a bullsh*t excuse. Every team should be trying to build through the draft, and add key pieces that are missing through free agency.

The Canadian teams might survive or might not, I'm all for a salary cap, just not one that only tries to prop up irrelevant market teams. Losing 4 teams would force some good players to take pay cuts since not all can be absorbed by the top teams.

NYR sings top players every year because they are trying to be competitive every year, there should be no rule against that, they are trying to win. Being bad for 4, 5, 6 years or more and saying you're rebuilding is a bullsh*t excuse. Every team should be trying to build through the draft, and add key pieces that are missing through free agency.

The Canadian teams might survive or might not, I'm all for a salary cap, just not one that only tries to prop up irrelevant market teams. Losing 4 teams would force some good players to take pay cuts since not all can be absorbed by the top teams.
- MatzCT

The Canadian teams can compete with the cash, but not with the geography. Edmonton regularly gets to -20 C and -30 C for some of the winter. Not exactly the place I want to be if money doesn't matter. New York is likely (I've never been there) one of the top 10 cities in the world for desirability when money is not a problem. You do realize that Pronger played one year in Edmonton, took them to within 1 game of the cup then asked for a trade? Since then, it has even been worse for Edmonton to attract top free agents or even players with NMC or NTC's. (See Vanek, Penner RFA offer sheets; Heatly trade, Nylander, Hossa, etc........) Therefore, teams like Edmonton must build through the draft.

If you look at the Oilers from 91-2005 (60c Canadian dollar had a lot to do with it), they competed for 8th place at best. Sometimes made the playoffs, sometimes just missed. As a result drafted around middle of the pack. A team that is in a city (with plenty of fan support through thick and thin) that isn't desirable for free agents can never get better.

Although one-sided, your comments illustrate through the impact on ticket prices (concessions, parking, etc. - which puts the Flyers low on the affordability meter in the NHL) is the reason why I gave up my season tickets and do not attend many games at all. And then we have lockouts where we need to miss half / whole seasons so that teams willing to spend are limited and teams that don't belong in a major league get propped up. Ticket prices in Florida or Glendale compared to Philly or Toronto...please. The next Panther fan that quotes attendance figures as a reason to keep the team there needs a broader view to see that they have 4-6 too many teams in the NHL and it impacts the product greatly.
Respectfully yours,
- chienblanc

What if all of the teams that paid into (you know the successful ones) revenue sharing were able to spend over by the same amount?

What if all of the teams that paid into (you know the successful ones) revenue sharing were able to spend over by the same amount?
- Marshalle

Can't win without some kind of advantage? Most money wins?

The bottom line in this blog/thread is that the rantings of the blogger make no sense. The Flyers aren't nearly the worst team, worst franchise in the NHL. The GM isn't awful, by any stretch.

And any number anyone would want to trot out supports that.

The Flyers win hockey games. They've missed the playoffs twice in the last 17 years, something like six times in 45 years. Certainly, they haven't won a Cup since the mid-70s -- but not only does that put them in the same category with well over half the league, there are still franchises that a) haven't won one, or b) even competed for one since the last two times the Flyers made it to the finals.

That's the problem with blogs like this -- when you want to rip franchises, why pick the Flyers? It's makes no sense. Ever since they entered the league, they have, what, the 5th or 6th best record in the NHL, of ALL-TIME.

That's not incompetence. That's something to aspire to. It doesn't matter how they get there, if they're beating you senseless along the way or you're not even in the playoffs to get beat.

It's even worse when it's a team like the Hurricanes and this blogger, because the Flyers have punished this particular franchise like few others -- it's one thing if the Devils talk trash.

But the Hurricanes? Shouldn't you at least be, maybe, I don't know, the Red Wings or the Devils before you start talking about poorly run franchises?

But the Hurricanes? Really?

Can't win without some kind of advantage? Most money wins?
- Al Hacker

Why should teams be kept artificially alive? Why shouldn't a more successful franchise have an advantage? Why should teams have to give their hard earned money to less successful teams just so they can compete against them?
Either they can compete or they can't. If I run my franchise better than another franchise why should I be penalized for it? Why should they get propped up?

The question is
Can't compete without subsidies?

Why should teams be kept artificially alive? Why shouldn't a more successful franchise have an advantage? Why should teams have to give their hard earned money to less successful teams just so they can compete against them?
Either they can compete or they can't. If I run my franchise better than another franchise why should I be penalized for it? Why should they get propped up?

The question is
Can't compete without subsidies?
- Marshalle

That's an argument that bottom-feeders don't like, because they already get every subsidy in the book when drafting.

Bottom-feeders want it every which way they can get it: Don't spend more money than us. Give us higher draft picks. Don't sign our free agents. Don't bully us with offer sheets -- but ignore us when we sign Dustin Penner and Thomas Vanek to offer sheets. Make there be a salary cap so our franchise can compete.

It just never stops, with bottom-feeders.

Matt Karash: Which is more ridiculous? The Flyers/Paul Holmgren situation
- CarolinaMatt63

worry about your own team dippoop! our team is run just fine and paul holmgren has done a great job making this team a perennial contender. when was the last time the canes even made the playoffs? i guess you're just jealous that your team isn't willing to spend money. the bryz contract was the OWNER'S doing. ed snider put homer in a bad position by publicly commenting that the flyers need an elite goalie. i'm so (frank)ing sick of stunad ass (frank)tards taking shots at the flyers and the way they're run. especially when the moron roots for a team that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in years. go buy yourself a (frank)ing clue and quit drinking the hateade.

That's an argument that bottom-feeders don't like, because they already get every subsidy in the book when drafting.

Bottom-feeders want it every which way they can get it: Don't spend more money than us. Give us higher draft picks. Don't sign our free agents. Don't bully us with offer sheets -- but ignore us when we sign Dustin Penner and Thomas Vanek to offer sheets. Make there be a salary cap so our franchise can compete.

It just never stops, with bottom-feeders.
- AllInForFlyers

right on, brotha

That's an argument that bottom-feeders don't like, because they already get every subsidy in the book when drafting.

Bottom-feeders want it every which way they can get it: Don't spend more money than us. Give us higher draft picks. Don't sign our free agents. Don't bully us with offer sheets -- but ignore us when we sign Dustin Penner and Thomas Vanek to offer sheets. Make there be a salary cap so our franchise can compete.

It just never stops, with bottom-feeders.
- AllInForFlyers

Calm down. Have some tea.

worst gm are you crazy name me a bad gm who acquire couturier and voracek for jeff carter or acquire the rights of hartnell and timonen for a picks. the only reason the team have a bad seasons last years its because of the injury. i see the team make the playoff easy this years

my lines
hartnell giroux voracek
schenn lecavalier read
gagné couturier simmonds
talbot hall rinaldo

coburn timonen
schenn streit
grossman gustafson or lauridsen

bye bye meszaros and his 4m on the cap hit

emery starter for 50 match maybe less
mason start the rest

not to bad for a team who have a supposed bad gm

That's an argument that bottom-feeders don't like, because they already get every subsidy in the book when drafting.

Bottom-feeders want it every which way they can get it: Don't spend more money than us. Give us higher draft picks. Don't sign our free agents. Don't bully us with offer sheets -- but ignore us when we sign Dustin Penner and Thomas Vanek to offer sheets. Make there be a salary cap so our franchise can compete.

It just never stops, with bottom-feeders.
- AllInForFlyers

Lol, guys like you are funny. It's like you equivocate your own worth with how well your team does/rich your owner is/how good your players do. At the end of the day, you're still at the deep fryer while they're in the penthouse, so why stress about it?

Lol, guys like you are funny. It's like you equivocate your own worth with how well your team does/rich your owner is/how good your players do. At the end of the day, you're still at the deep fryer while they're in the penthouse, so why stress about it?
- sanfordnson

And yet, here you are on your break from serving the food I made on the deep fryer, crying about it in the same place I found.

You're not special, buddy. Just because you like to tell yourself you are doesn't make it true.

That's what makes you pathetic -- you're not a fan of the Flyers. This blog has nothing to do with you -- but you think you offering "insight" as "the voice of reason" actually matters to somebody besides you.

Enjoy your -30 winters, slick.

"--That Paul Holmgren still has his job. Is there any other position in the world where you can be responsible for huge amounts of money, mess it up this badly and still get paid to do more of it?"

You clearly do not understand how Wall Street and the top-end of the American economy works...

"--That Paul Holmgren still has his job. Is there any other position in the world where you can be responsible for huge amounts of money, mess it up this badly and still get paid to do more of it?"

You clearly do not understand how Wall Street and the top-end of the American economy works...
- Dissent

Wall Street is raking in the money because businesses are cutting FTEs and going to part time workers they no longer need to provide benefits for. It's great for big business, but the unions and the normal Joe/Jane are getting screwed.

And yet, here you are on your break from serving the food I made on the deep fryer, crying about it in the same place I found.

You're not special, buddy. Just because you like to tell yourself you are doesn't make it true.

That's what makes you pathetic -- you're not a fan of the Flyers. This blog has nothing to do with you -- but you think you offering "insight" as "the voice of reason" actually matters to somebody besides you.

Enjoy your -30 winters, slick.
- AllInForFlyers

Perfect. Almost could have scripted this.

Perfect. Almost could have scripted this.
- sanfordnson

No, you couldn't have.

You're just another troll, the kind that likes to pretend that you're an "Above All This Message Board Chatter," "The Thinking Man's Hockey Fan," blah blah blah.

Different flavor. Still a troll.

And the proof, as always, is who responded to who first. The "Intellectual Trolls" always try to pretend like they're deeply offended by the dialogue taking place...yet they make sure they're reading every word to make sure they can quote multiple people.

The sad part is that you think other people don't know what you are. I just straight-up tell trolls exactly what they are.

No, you couldn't have.

You're just another troll, the kind that likes to pretend that you're an "Above All This Message Board Chatter," "The Thinking Man's Hockey Fan," blah blah blah.

Different flavor. Still a troll.
- AllInForFlyers

I really feel chastised now.