1/31 - Quick Links
Since I blogged last week, quite a few things have happened in the hockey world so here are some quick links to these stories.
Wings 3, Coyotes 2
Last night, the Coyotoes grabbed a 2-1 lead, but failed to hold on as the Wings came back to win thanks to captain Nicklas Lidstrom. Unfortunately, defenseman Niklas Kronwall was hurt during the game. According to the new Hockeytown Blog at DRW.com, Kronner had a CT Scan yesterday for his clavicle. It came back negative. He is expected to miss seven to ten days as a result of the injury. While it’s certainly positive to hear that it’s not a serious season-ending injury, it is disappointing to see Kronner make all this progress just to get hurt once again.
An Ode to Nick Lidstrom
Greg @ Out of Bounds wrote a nice post about the Wings captain and why he’s the best player to have ever played at his position. Here’s an excerpt from the post:
The Red Wings have had not only two of the game’s greatest players, but also two of the most humble. In Lidstrom and Steve Yzerman, I don’t know if you could drag a brilliant word about their own play out of them. The new captain is just as gracious and eloquent as his predecessor, conducting himself with the quiet grace that just adds more to his aura. They’re both like Gordie Howe in that way.
Howe, the greatest right winger of all time — and maybe the best player, too — and Yzerman, one of the top five centermen ever, are now joined by Lidstrom, who I’d say became the best defenseman ever about a year or so ago.
This fuddy-duddy, whose memory of watching athletes perform dates back to 1970, is willing to concede that a modern day player is the best, all-time, at what he does. I don’t do that very often. Usually, it kills me to even consider it.
But, as with everything else he does, Nick Lidstrom makes it easy.
Fabian Brunnstrom
Bruce MacLeod @ Red Wings Corner clarifies the whole situation regarding Swedish player Fabian Brunnstrom.
No team can negotiate with Brunnstrom before his Swedish season is complete. That includes any time at the World Championships if he’s chosen to compete there. That means that April or May is the earliest that Brunnstrom can sign a contract with an NHL team.
If I had to pick a team that Brunnstrom will sign with, it’d be the Detroit Red Wings. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like each team can only offer him an entry-level contract so everyone is pretty much even on that basis. Thus, it’s down to where would he like to play? Hmm. Let’s see. The Red Wings are the top team in the league AND have seven Swedish players on the team. What more could a player want?
Versus picks up contract option
Versus will be showing NHL games for three more years. Now, I don’t mind that Versus is showing NHL games, but that’s only if ESPN comes alongside too. Unfortunately, ESPN dictates a lot about the level of popularity for a sport and if the coverage isn’t there, but on a cable only channel, it’s harder to generate more fans.
Earlier today, I was reading the SportsBusiness Daily roundup regarding Gary Bettman’s 15th anniversary as the commissioner (don’t even get me started on that one) and came across this quote regarding the contract with Versus, which was originally in a Philadelphia Daily article.
“You can’t measure our success whether or not we’re on ESPN. Screw ESPN. Most of our television is local and we do very well in our local markets. We could have gone to ESPN. They offered us bupkus. Then they acted like they had us over a barrel, that we had no place else to go. I never liked the way they treated us.” - Philadelphia Flyers Chair Ed Snider
At a quick glance, it appears that at least one owner likes the attention Versus has given the league and is pleased with that decision. On second note, Ed Snider is also the chairman of Comcast. Versus is a cable channel owned by Comcast. Thus, this quote is completely biased as Snider would want the financial benefit of Versus obtaining the rights to show NHL games instead of a competitor like NHL. Outside of Snider and Comcast, I wonder how many owners truly believe Versus is the right choice in helping the game grow. Obviously, it was a better choice financially speaking for the league as the teams will be splitting $72 million each season for three years, but was it the right choice?
Sports Business Digest argues that the NHL is not making enough money from this deal to make it worthwhile to stick with Versus. Unfortunately, I don’t think the NHL even had a say in the matter as Versus picked up its contract option.
The initial deal between the NHL and Versus only had each team receiving $2 million per team from television revenue. This extension, based on reports, seems to be nothing more than a contract extension with an inflation increase. Seeing as how half of the teams in the NHL currently have an operating income in the red, it seems as though at the very least they should have been seeking a price increase with Versus (they really should had been taking strides to get back on ESPN, but at the very least, get more money from Versus!). I don’t really understand how this doesn’t put the NHL in a disadvantageous position for the next three years. Yes, they’ve seen revenue increases recently, but this is based mostly on an increase in ticket prices, and teams are still operating at a loss…so why would you not try to get a more lucrative contract?
Related Posts
Leave a Reply