Thrashers

By Bob

October 31, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

I really dislike the unbalanced schedule that has us facing the Canes 8 times, Florida 8 times, etc. Enough. I hear rumblings that they’re thinking about scaling that back and going back to more East vs. West matchups instead and only playing each Division rival 6 times.

Toronto is easily a grudge match and a good rivalry, that’s a much more anticipated game than watching the Panthers come in here again.

I loved seeing Vish go after Tucker late in the game, Vish was possessed!

We need to take a win against the Canes tomorrow, but the first game back from a long road trip is usually a tough one for the home team, let’s hope the boys can pull one through.

By UpperDeck4Life

October 31, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh….last night’s loss was hard to swallow. Leafs fans think that all the Thrashers are is a team of goons. There is also some bad blood between the players as well. This goes all the way back to the 2003 season and somethings that happened in games then. Then the whole Sutton thing and the game last year in Phillips. They are also complaining that Slater tried to take out…..well I didn’t see who the hit was on…but somebody at center ice with a knee on knee hit, but what they are talking about is that Slater put his shoulder into the guys chest first for a legal and clean hit. I wonder if they would like to comment on the high stick to Hossa’s face by McCabe in the first period that almost, or maybe it did (John do you know)break his nose.

By Russ

October 31, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t really consider Toronto/Atlanta a rivalry because like you said I am sure Leafs fans (other than Old Toothless) don’t care near as much about the Thrashers as they do about the Canadiens or Sens. A true rivalry has to go both ways. I think Toronto is just a team that you love to hate if you are not a fan. This is because their fans and organization seem to be very arrogant… kind of like the Yankees in baseball. The Leafs are even more annoying than the Yankees in the sense that at least the Yankees have several world championships to back up their attitude. The Leafs haven’s won the Cup in 40+ years and still think the Hockey world begins and ends in Toronto.

As far as Thrashers rivals I think it is hard to say at this point because the team has never experienced much success and I think for a truly great rivalry you need both teams to be at least somewhat successful. The Falcons/Saints rivalry in football is a great example. It is a pretty good regional rivalry, but because both franchises have been mostly inept in their history the average NFL fan would probably name about 20 rivalries before they thought about Atl./N.O.

One thing I know for sure is that rivalries can’t be forced like the NHL is trying to do with their ridiculous scheduling. Rivarlries come about naturally through Playoff series or personality clashes like the one started with Kovalchuk’s finger point at Crosby in the penalty box last year. Teams aren’t rivals just because they are forced to play each other a lot… that is just stupid. Most NHL fans would rather be given a chance to see each and every NHL star at least once per season than see the same four teams come to town 16 times. I have heard several opinions on this subject and haven’t heard one that thinks the current format is a good idea, so hopefully the NHL will revisit this issue and get it corrected.

By Daniel

October 31, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

I think we have a few potential rivalries going with (Tampa Bay, Carolina, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh) but I really do think we won’t develop a true rivalry until we have some playoff series against one of those teams or another.

Slightly off topic; Looking even more ahead into the future, Vancouver GM Dave Nonis has brought up the fact that the age for free agency is too low at the current age at 25. He cites that teams like the Penguins will not be able to keep all their young stars together after grooming them for a few years and another team will get them for their prime years. In an age where disillusioned fans abound and for a league trying to build relationships with fans in non-traditional hockey markets and in the US as a whole my question: How big of a problem is this? and Is the NHL listening to Nonis and other who have asked this question?

By Brendan

October 31, 2006 11:45 PM | Link to this

I think Darcy Tucker is in his “contract year,” so who knows what his future will hold. If the Leafs are not playoff-bound or in playoff contention by the trade deadline, Darcy Tucker could be shipped off to the Western Conference, and we won’t see his goatee anymore. Or, at least, only once every three years.

I agree that playing divisional opponents eight (8) times per year is overkill. I think the league’s other prevailing notion was that … fans might travel to nearby cities if the rivalries intensified. I don’t know how much tailgating goes on in hockey in October. Truthfully, I’ve never seen the Thrashers play an NHL game outside of Philips Arena. But the thought does intrigue me.

If you’ve never been to DC, the arena is right on the red line metro and is easy enough to find after a day of sight-seeing in the nation’s capital. The last time I was in Raleigh, NC, I was too young to remember it. I have no love for Miami. I’ve never been there without being sunburned. Tampa Bay would be a nicer visit. I’ve always prefered the Gulf Coast of Florida. For many Thrasher fans, the most appealing “road game” to attend might well be the Nashville Predators.

The whole Georgia-Tennessee thing has been goin’ on for a long time. Not to slight North Carolina. There is rivalry there, too. But with the Preds coming into the league one year before the Thrashers, and being a slightly shorter road trip, makes the idea of a road game a little more appealing.

I’d bet, however, that the Thrashers would prefer that you stay right here in Atlanta to attend hockey games. That’s the shortest commute of all! Well, unless you live in Northern Georgia. (Walker, Whitfield, Dade, and Catoosa Counties, etc.)

This upcoming game with Carolina is important. If Atlanta slips to 0-2-1 while the ‘Canes advance to 3-0-0, then there’s only ten (10) points left on the table, with Carolina holding a five (5) point edge in the head-to-head matchup. The Thrashes can’t let that happen. It’s a four (4) point swing game, and Atlanta needs to come away with at least a point. But really, they need a win. Forget the standings as they appear now. If we are in a dog-fight with Carolina for the divisional crown at the end of the season, and we’ll look back on Wednesday night’s game as a “blown opportunity” if we don’t win.

By LEAFS

October 31, 2006 11:52 PM | Link to this

Not sure what you guys are talking about, Leaf fans being arrogant (because our team won the cup 40 years ago?!) or why everyone seems to think so, what is it that you’re basing this on? as for rivalries, I actually look forward more to the Thrashers games then the Sens games. This is mostly because we play them TOO MANY times (and probably also because they always kill us). And, of course, its fun to beat Atlanta after the above mentioned ‘incidents’. If the Leafs in Thrashers ever meet in the playoffs, THEN we’ll have some real fun!

By Brendan

November 1, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

The Southeast division has not been “kind” to Canada in recent years. In 2002, the ‘Canes defeated the Habs and Leafs enroute to the Finals. In 2004, Tampa knocked off Montreal and Calgary on their merry way to the Cup. And in 2006, Carolina rallied to beat Montreal, after dropping the first two in Raleigh. And, of course, the ‘Canes knocked off the Oilers to deny Canada, yet again, a Stanley Cup.

To be fair, and I’m being totally honest here, I thought the 2003 Ottawa Senators, #1 seed, were the best team in hockey and should have won the Cup that year. Ottawa got to the Conference Finals by avoiding the Leafs. (It’s the only way they CAN get there, since the Leafs are 4-0 vs. the Sens in the playoffs.) I have forgotten who Ottawa beat in the earlier rounds, I want to say the Flyers were one of the teams, but they lost to New Jersey in Game Seven, in Ottawa. The Sens trailed the series, 3-1, and made quite a compelling rally to force Game Seven. Considering that there are only six (6) teams in Canada, the odds are stacked against them. The 1993 Habs were the last team north of the border to hoist the chalice. The Vancouver Canucks lost the ‘94 Finals, as did Calgary in ‘04 and Edmonton in ‘06.

By Sage of Bluesland

November 1, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

“…Teams aren’t rivals just because they are forced to play each other a lot… that is just stupid. Most NHL fans would rather be given a chance to see each and every NHL star at least once per season than see the same four teams come to town 16 times… I have heard several opinions on this subject and haven’t heard one that thinks the current format is a good idea….”

Well, here’s your FIRST person who thinks what the NHL is doing is a good thing…After all, coming off the results of the previous scheduling—you know, when they lost ESPN as a network and the ratings have gone completely in the tank—that sure was the RECIPE for SUCCESS, eh?

The NHL at least tried something to attempt to revive the pathetic and pitiful ratings the previous scheduling system delivered.

A Carolina game DOES mean more to me than a game with San Jose or Vancouver…Then again, I don’t bathe in the glow of all-things NHL and, thus, could really care less about teams not in our conference…I am an Atlanta fan first and foremost—and would rather see us playing games within our own house, so to speak…

Familiarity breeds contempt and contempt breeds ratings and turnstiles clicking—at least that’s the desperate hope. The NHL used the NFL model, which is good in theory and the hockey Ivory Tower-set needs all the help they can get to get the sport beyond a niche, regional one (here in America, where the money is).

The old, (Socialist? Yep, typical Canadian tripe along with their silly points system—no wonder the sport is in a tailspin!), model of everybody ‘needs’ to play everybody—well, like I said earlier, with “success” like that produced, who needs embarrassing FAILURE?…

By Brendan

November 1, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

Sage of Blueland, I think the “points-based system” should have ended with the lockout. What could be simpler than games being won and lost? It shouldn’t make any difference if the game is won in regulation time, overtime, or a shootout. One team wins, the other team loses. Games up and games back. None of this, “Okay, to make the playoffs, the Thrashers must beat the divisional foe in REGULATION TIME, while other teams in the Conference LOSE in REGULATION time, etc.” I don’t know that a “casual” hockey fan is going to remain glued to the “what if” scenarios for reaching the postseason. Perhaps, such a “casual fan” would be more inclined if it really were as simple as “They have to win all three games while Tampa Bay and Montreal each lose one.” That’s pretty straight forward. It’s now “clear” what has to happen. Now when the fan checks the scores, he or she just notices if the other teams won or lost, and not “when” they won or lost.

Ohhh, now I’ve gone and done it. Here comes a barrage of spitballs fired in my direction.

By Sara

November 3, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Actually I kind of like the point system in so far as if a game goes to OT, it means (typically) that the teams were well-matched during the game and thus each deserve to be rewarded for their efforts. Then it’s a matter of who works harder/plays better/gets lucky in getting the extra cookie. The only thing I do not like about the current point system is the automatic ranking of the division leaders 1-3. All 8 seeds should be ranked by points. Those positions determine home ice and how fair is it that a team should get home-ice advantage just by virtue of winning their division (which could be soft - think, frankly, SE about 4-5 years ago) when other teams have been more successful, accumulated more points, but have to settle for 4th or 5th spot?

None of this, “Okay, to make the playoffs, the Thrashers must beat the divisional foe in REGULATION TIME, while other teams in the Conference LOSE in REGULATION time, etc.”

LOL, Brendan it is true that can be confusing to follow, but there is an easy solution to that problem…don’t let it go down to the wire to “squeak” into the playoffs. I know, I know “in a perfect world” right? ;)

By Brendan

November 3, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Oh Sara! I agree!! :) I won’t complain if the Thrashers wrap up the playoff berth half-way through March. Or clinch the division, for that matter.

I think in the “era of salary cap” in the “age of parity,” all teams are basically “well-matched.” I don’t want to give points to teams merely because they are “well-matched.” I feel bad for the team that lost in the final minute of regulation and got nothing. Clearly, they put forth a good effort. But all teams try really hard to win. In the end, they either win or lose. To me, it shouldn’t make any difference if the team loses at 59:59, sometime during the overtime, or in the shootout session. If they lose, that’s what happened. Maybe the next time out, they win the shootout. If a team has 20 shootouts a season, they’ll probably win between 8-12 of them. Now, if they lost 18 out of 20, then that seems like something the GM should address in the offseason. Clearly, there’s a deficiency.