Assinine Schedule
by yoata on Nov 15, 2009 3:09 PM PST
142 comments
Through the first 2 months of this season alone the Canucks have the following "breaks" between games:
1 time 3 days
3 times 4 days
1 time 5 days
1 time 6 days
Then along with that they are forced top play 6 back-to back games in those same 2 months.
Who made this ridiculous schedule and why the fuck did Gillisgan agree to it???
And does this help explain perhaps in part why so many injuries this season?
0 recs |
142 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah, I gotta agree with you on this one. Gillis was noting on Team 1040 that the Olympics were compressing our schedule as well as the rest of the league’s and that was his partial explanation for why injuries may be high this year. But the ridiculous patchwork scheduling cannot be blamed on the Olympics! Boo-urns on the NHL for fucking us this way.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 15, 2009 12:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Someone was saying that there’s not really an appreciable compression in the schedule until January and that right now it’s just a bit loopy for most of the teams. Anyway, you’d hope they’re being paid this much they might be able to handle a few back to back games?
by thelastjohnny on Nov 15, 2009 1:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A few
back to back games is one thing but why a 4-6 day layoff followed/preceded by back to back games???
It’s like a schizophrenic planned this thing.
by yoata on Nov 15, 2009 1:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Even that back to back where they played in Minnie one night then the next they are in Dallas. Like wtf? It’s pretty brutal.
by marcness52 on Nov 15, 2009 10:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I’ve found this frustrating too. I think that the NHL is scared to go head-to-head with the MLB playoffs and the NFL. So you won’t see many Sunday games until February, and during the World Series there were very few games on. I can understand it to a point – most people in Boston will watch the Red Sox rather than early season Bruins’ games. Ditto with Pittsburghers and the Steelers.
Still, the NHL could do better. Maybe schedule more games in there for non-NFL markets or in perennial non-playoff baseball markets (eg Toronto, Washington, Pittsburgh).
by nucksandpucks on Nov 15, 2009 2:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget plenty of these buildings share with the NBA. It depends on the city which gets precedent, I think.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 15, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to make this exact comment. This schedule has been downright silly so far.
by WebBard on Nov 16, 2009 4:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hardest job in the league
Eighty-two games, thirty teams, thirty stadiums, two countries, one continent, lord knows how many airlines…
I can’t even picture the phone bill.
by Thursday on Nov 15, 2009 11:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Airlines and Countries are irrelevant.
And it’s more than 82 games, it’s 82 games per team, which is actually 41*30 = 1230 games.
Then they have to take into account the stadium bookings, distances between cities, NHLPA meetings, the Olympics, the symmetry between divisional play, the lack of symmetry between inter-conference play and road trips in general, HNIC doubleheaders, and probably a lot more that I can’t think of. I can’t think of how schedule writers did this all before computational aid was introduced. Probably kept the league down to 6 teams instead.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 15, 2009 11:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what
those are all pretty weak excuses, they have tons of time to come up with the schedule, and years worth of previous schedules to use as a base/guide.
It ain’t rocket surgery.
by yoata on Nov 16, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I’m not as jaded as you are about the whole front office thing, and this is my glass half-full outlook, but I’d like to keep thinking that these people get paid well to do a good job. If I had the job, I’d probably take pride in the schedule throughout the season rather than do a shitty job and be reminded of that 6 months of the year. But hey, there’s always off-season trades, free agency, and the draft as distractions, so what do I know.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 16, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re asking the wrong question. You guys can rag on the schedule all you like, but at some point it becomes impossible to have a better schedule that’s fair for all teams. So that means the better question is, could they have done a better job?
by thelastjohnny on Nov 17, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question: And does this help explain perhaps in part why so many injuries this season?
Facts
Demo – injured before the season began
M. Schneider – injured before the season began
C. Hodgson – injured before the season began
S. Salo – born injured
D. Sedin – injured in game 4 before even a single b2b game had been played
R. Luongo – injured in game 10 after a 3-day layoff
K. Wellwood – had the flu
S. Bernier – had the flu
Hansen – injured in a pre-season fight
Answer:
Nope, it doesn’t explain it at all. Sometimes shit just happens.
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 10:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
and then there’s Grabner – foot crushed by a soccer ball
by SteveNux on Nov 16, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right! I just did the list off the top of my flat little head and forgot that one. I guess I forgot Ryan Johnson, too, and maybe some others. But Grabner’s a good example (switches to Perry mason voice): “Mr. Gillis, will you not admit that your failure to force – er, somehow – the NHL to amend the schedule is responsible for this young man’s tripping over a soccer ball in the hallway? Have you no shame!”
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have to be
insulting about it?
The injury thing is a maybe, but you can bet competitively it sucks to have all that time off and then back to back games, no flow, no rythm, no comfort zone, especially to start the season, a break might be welcomed later but this sched is bogus and you bet GMs have some say in it, don’t be naive, and don’t be a such a dick.
by yoata on Nov 16, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ryan Johnson’s injury was also after playing in his 3rd game in 4 nights. If he was well rested he might not have went into the boards.
by marcness52 on Nov 17, 2009 1:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not
but Lu’s maybe, layoffs imo can be just as detrimental as back-to-backs.
by yoata on Nov 16, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lou did play 3 games in 4 nights before going down so I can see how the schedule did not help him out there.
by marcness52 on Nov 17, 2009 1:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree that many of the Canucks injuries could have been due to the schedule (Johnson and Lu) … or it at least didn’t help.
But some of the other injuries were so weird and fluky such as Grabner and Hodgson’s warm-up injuries.
You could also argue that the players out with the flu had more contact with the other players during the game jammed weeks.
I guess the Canucks already had some injury issues at the start of the season (seemed like a blessing at first with Gillis’ LTIR magic), but the schedule sure didn’t help once the players starting going down like Elisha Cuthbert at a hockey game.
by SteveNux on Nov 17, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Elisha? Does she finish off her chances or does she just lay back in the 3rd period?
As for the injuries, the list is above … and has nada to do w/the schedule. Lu got hurt against T.O. (he would know) early in the year and coming off a few rest days. If he was sore, he shouldn’t have started for a while, but the injury itself was not a result of overwork, just a shot that caught him in a rib.
So the case comes down to Ryan J. If he hadn’t been tired – presuming he even was – would he not have caught an edge? Hmmm … seems mighty speculative … and in the face of the Canucks injury probs, having a 4th liner lose a handful of games seems pretty much par for a season a.o.t. Demo, M. Schneider, Hodgson, Hansen, Salo, Sedin and Luongo, all of whom had nothing to do w/the scheduling.
As for the flu … we didn’t lose much to it and, well, the flu is the flu. Every team’s been hit, schedules notwithstanding. I caught it myself and I don’t even skate with the team.
This year’s schedule is a mess from a player’s pt of view, apparently cuz the league is trying to up attendance, prob unsuccessfully. I suggest we instead concentrate our efforts on, for ex, better breakouts from our zone, rather than wallowing in pity and looking for someone else to blame. This is a good team, lotsa talent, and their fate is in their own hands, as always. Ditch the voodoo fears, accept what we cannot control, and keep the focus on playing better; that’s the “cure” for bad luck anytime.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So the case comes down to Ryan J. If he hadn’t been tired – presuming he even was – would he not have caught an edge? Hmmm … seems mighty speculative
Definitely. We’ll never know the truth either way though
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But we can sure pretend to! C’mon Sean, what’s a hockey board for, after all?
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Who made this ridiculous schedule and why the fuck did Gillisgan agree to it???
Answer
The NHL made the schedule. And I highly doubt that they’d give each of 31 GMs total veto power over it, cuz if they did it might take till the end of next year just to agree on this year’s schedule.
They do seem to have tried – and probably too much so – to massage the schedule into a more tv-friendly format this season, looking for better times and dates and to not compete with other sports events etc. Betcha that after they see the rating numbers this year, and they realize it didn’t help, they’ll go back to a more traditional scheduling approach in the future.
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 10:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Actually, tv ratings have been decent so far. Attendance is more the area of concern.
by Beantown Canuck on Nov 16, 2009 10:53 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting, I hadn’t known that; thanks.
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But if the intent was to improve attendance, I’m not sure it’s working: I’ve seen an awful lot of empty arenas on the sports hilites lately. Even the announcers have taken to pointing it out – e.g. Atlanta the other nite – and stuff like that is usually glossed over in order to keep the league happy, at least till it’s so bad it can’t be glossed over any more.
Several teams simply cannot make money in their current markets and something is gonna have to give. Is that why the owners united against Balsillie? Cuz any number of them want first crack at Hamilton?
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that why the owners united against Balsillie? Cuz any number of them want first crack at Hamilton?
I hadn’t heard that theory yet, but I like it.
by Jevant on Nov 16, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it definitely makes sense……
i mean no harm. i come in peace. unlike shane o'brien or kevin bieksa........
watch out for the Rypper too, he can whip anyone.......
GO CANUCKS GO!
by missy on Nov 16, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL, based on their history, will want lots of blood money for “allowing” another franchise. Balsillie almost managed to do an end-around on them and get one for free, or close enough to make them sweat.
Meanwhile, think how the other old boys in the club must have felt: What? This upstart gets a primo franchise location like that and I’m stuck with (insert city here)? No way! Either I get to move my own money-sink there or I at least get part of the ransom for allowing it to happen. To court!
As for moi, I fear that now that Balisillie has been beaten down, the Leafs will reassert control over their satrap and the whole thing will die. Sorry, Hamilton, in the hierarchy of Canada, it’s just your lot in life kneel before the Toronto brass at their pleasure. Say wow.
by casual on Nov 16, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its simple people. Teams give the league all the variables, and they tell the schedulers to work with it.
The Canucks have the mother of all fucking schedule humpers in the Olympics. How else are they going to get around it. Its like, I believe its the SA Spurs in the NBA. They get kicked out for almost 3 weeks every year for the Circus.
Shit happens.
I agree with Y-man on the layoffs being puzzling, but thats about it. They were probably needed to make up for something in the sked.
We bitch about it because the team was smoking and wanted to keep playing, but this break especially is great. Get Daniel healthy. Grabner gets closer. Practice maybe sparks some chemistry in line mates just getting to know each other.
How it can be Gillis’s fault is beyond me. He doesn’t control everything in other arenas, just his own. It would be even stranger if the Grizz’ were in town.
I remember the TEAM 1040 guys interviewing Gillis and commenting on the sked before the season started, when it first came out.
The consensus was they did the best they could in dealing with the Olympics. They get as many B2Bs as other teams I imagine. From what I remember, they have only a handful of the games that scare me, the early starts like the one where Luongo got injured in Pitt…
They seem to be deeper this year. When guys get healthy, there are several players that can slot in and out of the lineup and give the team the flexibility needed to endure the marathon.
They have a ton of home games in the second half when the games mean more and the hockey gets even more intense.
And we get most of that at home.
See guys, positive to every negative.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think we see this the same way.
As I understand it, the schedulers pretty much do the entire league schedule manually; there’s no magic math equation for “solving” the thing optimally. Teams place their requests – e.g. some teams might want more Wed Nite games, others want Saturdays – and the schedulers do their best.
Be interesting if the league would post the team requests online along w/available arena dates and then let fans see if they could do better. I suspect the fans would be equally stumped … but then again you never know when some Bigger Brain might come along w/a great new approach, much as baseball ended up learning from the rotisserie league guys once the stats were available.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fantastic point casual. Would be soooo easy to do in the digital world.
So, of course the NHL won’t do it…but yeah…what could it hurt? Give a prize to the best suggestion…away you go!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, there’s a lotta smart people out there, and maybe they can help.
Plus we’d get to to see the compulsive complainers try to do a better job, given the same requirements. That’s always fun.
My strong suspicion is that it was those same req’s that were esp tough to work with this year. After all, pro sports scheduling has been underway for generations now, so it’s kinda a known art. I doubt the skills suddenly degraded; more like the problem suddenly got more complicated.
Think the declining arena attendance in a number of cities played a part? I do!
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and fwiw – I guess it’s only fair to note that MLB wasn’t the one to make the stats available; that was done privately, at least at first. At least, that’s what I remember reading in “Moneyball.” Hope my recollection is good.
So the NHL isn’t nec unusually closed in this regard. Plus … ya think the arenas might bump up the rent in advance for days/dates that they know a team really wants? Or are those rates agreed to long beforehand? Anyone know?
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think they pay a lease at a certain amount per year and some of the lease’s are 25 years long so they just get adjusted for inflation. So I don’t see teams putting up with jacked up rents on nights they want. It’s not like a Vegas Hotel. Cause if cities that own buildings started doing that teams would leave.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where would they go? There’s not that many cities that could or would support an NHL franchise.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle, Vegas, Quebec City…there are places you could go.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really think those 3 cities wouldn’t work. Seattle has no proper hockey arena, QC is too small, and Vegas just creeps me out.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle has some big cities close by with WHL teams to draw from as well as the fact that it is a big city with a whole in the market since the Sonics left. The arena they have is OK short term and would just require an owner willing to build an arena. An arena by the way that could one day host an NBA team as well and thus make that owner who built it even more money.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d love to see a team in Seattle, but don’t see it. An owner willing to build an arena? Those are few and far between. Seattle taxpayers are already footing the bill for Safeco and Qwest, so you know the city isn’t going to kick in any cash.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but owners with deep pockets will build an arena and in the long run will make a tonne of money. I mean beer at GM Place is 9 bucks which has got to be about a 7 dollar profit and they sell them by the bucket full. Owning your own building is much better than leasing a city owned one and I think most owners with money know that.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What about Gary Bettman’s favourite Kansas city? lol
by marcness52 on Nov 17, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, hockey is still more of a northern sport that needs a good-sized city these days. The remaining pickings for new franchises are, outside of S. Ontario, limited. Not sure about Seattle: not the best sports town, see for ex the Sonics.
Winnipeg might not have the bucks. Quebec City … see Winnipeg. I’d love to see them w/franchises, just not sure they can manage it. Prob worth a try at least.
And too, some of the existing money losers can just fold and cut their losses. And will.
What about Euro teams in the NHL in the future? They’d have to be playing in their own division mostly, with occasional long road trips cuzza the timezones for what little inter-divisional play did take place. The playoffs could be a bitch tho.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle is a GREAT sports town. The Seahawks sell out every game even when they suck. The Mariners get good crowds 30-40 thousand depending on who they are playing even when they suck and even the new MLS team sells out the whole lower bowl of Qwest for every game. Not to mention how well the Huskies do crowd wise. Just think you would need to give it time and make sure you are attracting young fans.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So it’s a good FOOTBALL town.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball and soccer as well. Plus the Sonics did very well crowd wise they just had a shitty building. They didn’t leave because of a lack of fans. Much like the Winnipeg Jets.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He has a point. But would Seattle be a good enough NHL town and do they have the facilities for it?
Gotta be better than Atlanta or Phoenix, at least. But good enough to survive? Or are we at the cusp of a downsizing era for the league?
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest I think the NHLPA would never let them downsize. If the NHL was set on folding some teams there would be an impasse and the whole league might go away.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree, you can’t get blood from a stone. Money-losing franchises will eventually fail, their death throes notwithstanding.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but there will always be someone there willing to buy them whether or not the NHL wants to let those people be owners. And the NHLPA would fight tooth and nail to avoid losing jobs as teams fold. So what would be the breaking point?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Winnipeg is a no for me. There’s not enough peeps in the surrounding area. Quebec City = hell yeah!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes on QC over Winterpeg.
Of course Seattle could support a team.
Portland too.
Have a true NW division
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, I’d like to see a team from the east get moved west and then we can chuck Detroit over to the East. Presto!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Olympics
do not explain the big gaps between games at this time of year, if anything the sched was supposed to be more compressed, these layoffs are killers to momentum.
Regardless, this schedule is by far the worst I’ve ever seen, but of course, Gillisgan once again gets a pass.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Coulnd’t agree with yoata more, which to be honest is a little scary. I mean we agree on this and Hodgson so I guess I must hate Gillis? I don’t think I do but maybe it will come in time.
Seriously on the schedule. You can blame all of these factors all you want but Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, San Jose, Anaheim, Detroit, and probably more don’t share a building with the NBA. The Pistons play in Auburn Hills which isn’t even in Detroit. So I mean there has to be building availability that isn’t being used right now. You would think you would load up the schedule early in an Olympic year so that the quality of play in the Olympics, a giant free advertisement to the world, and the playoffs after that would be as high as possible.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A quick perusal of other teams such as oilers, flames, redwings, blues indicates a similar number of b2b’s and layoffs so far for all of them as for us (plus Detroit & StL had the early games overseas to contend with) … but they don’t have the same injury woes as we do, no one else does, really.
Mind you, we could always send them the Michael Grabner instructional soccer video to even things out!
Anyway, it kinda confirms the idea that this year’s schedule is likely an attempt to boost attendance by selecting “better” dates, meaning “dates on which the league thinks they’re more likely to draw bigger crowds.”
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I am sure that’s what it is but the NHL needs to start remembering that they need to keep the hardcores happy first and foremost and then try to win other fans…not the other way around.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d agree w/that. The owners – many of whom are notoriously short-term in their thinking – might disagree, tho. Attendance today = money today and many of the franchises are up against the wall, fighting to even stay alive.
Something has to give in the league in the next several years. Phx might well have been the canary in a coal mine.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn’t break my heart if some teams decided to pack it in.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A quick perusal?
You are the king of spin.
Within the division:
The soil have 1 layoff greater than 3 days (4 days) and only 4 b2b through Nov.
el flamo has no layoffs greater than 4 days of which they have 3 in a row, and 5 b2b games.
Colorado has 1 5-game and 1 4- game layoff 5 b2b.
Minny has 2 4-game and 2 5-game, 4 b2b
The only thing that confirms is that the Nucks have not only the worst travel in the league, but also, the most ridiculous schedule ever, which management should have done more to alleviate.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now go count the b2b numbers for the Canucks and compare. See? Nothing the Canucks can do about the travel being longerer, either; it’s the price of living in God’s country out here. Makes scheduling tougher, too.
And by the way, just for our elucidation, o mighty thinker, what specifically would you have done differently, were you GM, to “alleviate” the schedule? Can’t go on strike, you don’t have veto power and no one cares if you hold your breath so … well, what dynamic technique would you employ? Please enlighten us so that we may use it next year to make everything better.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
as usual when proven wrong, you resort to snide remarks.
I posted the freakin Nucks numbers in the thread starter genius, take a look they are a lot worse than most and worse than all in the div, b2b is not the only consideration, as I said from the get-go.
Yeah you’re right, teams have zero say in the schedule, they have to take whatever they get no matter how untenable, that makes so much more sense, why didn’t I think of that.
Suck on Gillisgan’s pipe a little more, in fact, why don’t you nominate him for premier, you can be his press secretary,
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 7:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So your answer is that you have no answer, then? Don’t know how to even begin to go about “alleviating” the problem, do you? As I thought.
It’s OK, we all enjoy a good, empty kvetch now and then; today was just your turn.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 7:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Moronic question
from someone who has nothing left to them but moronic questions.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a perfectly valid question: if you say Gillis did it wrong, what specific actions should he have taken instead?
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 7:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Is it
or is it not your contention that teams have no say in their own schedule?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s the source of this confusion, and that’s whether the GMs get to look at the schedule before it’s released and whether they have a say in its passing.
Casual might think that they see it at the same time as the rest of us and they’re not going to change it just because 1 team thinks it’s unfair.
Yoata on the other hand believes that there’s some either formal or informal way to complain about the schedule before it’s officially released.
So I think someone needs to come up with some hard facts before either of you start agreeing.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 17, 2009 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the teams have “input” in much the same way employees can provide “input” to the boss.
Re the schedule itself, it appears to be an attempt by a league with a lot of troubled franchises to up the attendance by cherry-picking better-attendance dates, so it’d be approved even moerso by the owners, the guys who hire and fire GMs.
All teams compromise, western teams have more travel and scheduling troubles, and the owners need first and foremost to pay today’s bills. That’s gonna take precedence over player convenience. Sorry, I don’t like it either, but as more teams go deeper in the red we can probably expect more of it.
Anyway, Yoata stated clearly that Gillis should have “alleviated” the problems. OK, yoata, what specific actions should he have taken to do that? Simple question.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
the teams ARE the boss, it’s a league governed by the team owners.
Simple question?
LIke: “Do teams have a say in their own schedules?”
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol+1
Team owners want higher-attendance dates, layoffs and b2b’s are secondary c0ompared to that, esp in a league w/troubled franchises. So I ask for like the 4th or 5th time – squirm, yoata, squirm – what specific actions should Gillis have taken to force a different schedule?
If you have no idea and don’t know the first thing about the subject, just say so and I’ll lay off. Otherwise, do enlighten us w/your tactical insights.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I ask again and again
Do teams have a say in their own business and competitive schedules or not?
Are the Nucks a troubled franchise mr. obtuse?
Spin spin spin
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is the problem here, yoata, that you think Gillis owns the team? Cuz he doesn’t. GMs are hired by the owners and can be fired by them, too.
So if GM Gillis doesn’t like the schedule but a majority of owners think it’s the bee’s knees, what should he do? Sic Rypien on them? And for about the n+1’th time, what specific actions should Gillis have taken to force a different schedule?
I answered your q; can you keep up?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops, lost a paragraph somehow. No the Canucks are not a troubled franchise but many others are and the schedule is a cooperative effort by the team, owners predominantly.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I guess it’s always possible that owners would ignore millions of dollar of revenue that can come or go based on the dates chosen. Yeah, that seems likely in order to avoid having a player catch an edge and crash into the boards, maybe kinda sorta related tho probably not. Can never be too careful.
(chorus)
what specific actions should Gillis have taken to force a different schedule?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But it's so likely
that GMs have zero say in their own teams sched or even care to…
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BS you did
It’s a simple yes or no.
Do teams have a say in the schedule or not?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tag.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very telling
that you refuse to answer that very simple question.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is your pc not working. Hit refresh. The very plain answer is right there. Here, I’ll even retype it in case there’s a bad char or something in there:
No the Canucks are not a troubled franchise but many others are; the schedule is a cooperative effort by the teams, owners predominantly.
That means yes, the teams have a say, but it does NOT mean that Gillis can override the owners.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See the bottom post in this thread
You really think the owners do that themselves? GMs don’t have anything to do with the business side?
And you know this how?
Let me know that you are just BSing and I’ll let up.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can just see Ken Holland:
“What’s that? The season schedule? No we don’t need to worry about that, whatever they hand us will be fine I’m sure, why would we need to have anything to do with when and where we play, don’t be silly!”
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Notice the date of the article...
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=264376&lid=sublink01&lpos=headlines_nhl
“I think we have a great chance. In fact, we’ve got a draft in place for about 38 of our road games for next season already, which is unheard of,” Gillis told Team1040. “They made us a number one priority in terms of travel for a variety of reasons. One of them is injury history, crossing borders, and the fact that geographically, we don’t have a team within a couple or three hours of us.”
“We feel really good about their understanding now, and that they’re prepared to work with us to get a better road schedule in place,” Gillis added.
No, you’re right mr.obtuse, nothing Gillisgan could do about the sched… completely powerless… LMAO!
Cue the squirming…
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, wrong again
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=264376&lid=sublink01&lpos=headlines_nhl
Cue the spinning…
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
What I believe is that there is a lot of back and forth between the schedule makers and all teams as they go through making the schedule, from start to finish, and that it is preposterous to think that the NHL just sends the schedule down from on high and that is that and that is all, it’s ridiculous. For reasons of conflict, competition and plain old hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business for each team, of course they have a say in their own schedule, and a big one at that.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 8:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Where is a link to prove that NHL teams have a say in their schedule? I can’t find one. I also doubt that Gillis had a say in this nightmare. The NHL powers that be make this sked and then hand it to the teams I would think.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where is a link
to say that they don’t have a say in their schedule Sean?
To me that’s the far more unbelievable notion than thinking it is a collaborative effort at making the best compromise possible based on the emphasis each team places in the areas they most want addressed.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, where is a link to prove that they do or don’t is what I mean. As for your second point, I would hope that is the case. I just don’t know.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
You actually believe that in a league where teams competitiveness and their hundreds of millions in revenue depend on such things, that they have no say in their own business schedules?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The way you put it, it’d be the team owners who’d have the say in the schedule, not the GMs.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 17, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't think
part of a GM’s job is to worry about the business side?
Owners are just that, that’s why they have Presidents and VPs and GMs etc.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So
some of you believe it’s Mike Illitch, Acqualini, the Teachers Pension fund etc that sit down with the league and hammer out the sched?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I was being sarcastic, but I didn’t want to insult your intelligence by spelling it out. Of course this is the internet and things aren’t that easy.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 17, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, if the owners don’t make the bucks, the GMs have no jobs, the cities have no teams, and yoata has no one to blame. The owners ain’t stupid and neither are the GMs nor the cities. They arrange the schedule to maximize revenue, not to convenience the players.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s called profit and loss. You can look it up on the GoogleNet on the InterWeb or something.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Typical
pathetically weak, evasive “answer” to a very simple question.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also a very accurate one. How do I know that teams will fold if they make no money and that cities will lose rental revenue on the arenas? Profit and loss. I’m serious, comrade, that stuff really works.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Red herrings
you’ll have to do better than that.
How can it be accurate when you didn’t come close to answering the question.
I wonder why…
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well…fucking Duh.
One of the most powerful owners is Ed Snider. He also owns Comcast….you think he does not have a vested interest in specific teams playing on a Sat or Sun.?
Gotta support Cas’ a bit…I don’t think they have too much of a nuts and bolts working of the schedule. They put in their requests, and so do a bunch of other shareholders like TV networks….(gotta get those 4pm starts for weekend dates for the Leafs on HNIC), and arena owners (sometimes but not always the same guys that own the team)…
Working around that is what they all do collectively. But lets say they want Versus to feature the Pens in Madison Square…that desire will probably trump some GM pissed about the back to back that network request makes.
They all end up playing 82 games. From the beginning to end.
The East teams have always had a territorial advantage in regards to travel issues over the West teams by virtue of simple geography.
Gillis said he was happy with this gargantuan trip before and after the break on his interview today that they don’t have many, if any flights of much over an hour and a half throughout.
Wat better than flying to Minny than back to NY like last year.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 9:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure Gillis was happy with it
He helped make it, he lobbied hard for this schedule because it saved a whopping 5% in miles and had less 1 day home stands and fewer time zone crossings.
For that he obviously paid no mind to silly things like 4-6 game layoffs and b2b games of which Van has more than they did last year, and almost half of them in the first 2 months.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(chorus)
what specific actions should Gillis have taken to force a different schedule?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So it is your contention
that GMs have virtually zero say in their teams’ schedules?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(chorus)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep…things are different when they want your arena for a onth and a half for a global sporting event.
Its not like this will happen next year.
I am sure its closer to what they like because they will have far less nights where players are waking up on the plane after a restless sleep and getting into the hotel at 4am for a 4pm local start.
That is what they wanted because the studies they did with the team and the fatigue, in groundbreaking studies few other teams have even thought of, was crystal clear in their research that those things were far worse in regards to performance than the way it lays out now.
I doubt there is much actions he could have taken. The days off are weird in the first two months, but that ends soon too.
It probably couldn’t be helped due to some other mitigating factor.
And since when was days off a bad thing for injured players? Of which the team leads the league in man games lost.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Now you are getting warm
Yes Gillisgan and his famous “research”, the guy is a legend in his own mind, and you are right that it’s closer to what he wanted because it is what he wanted, he lobbied for it and for that exact reason.
Sorry but the Olympics do not explain the sched in Oct. with all the layoffs and subsequent b2b games.
And whenever it happens in the season, it’s still points at stake, ones worth the same as those later on.
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a question.
Why do you have to take that tack in regards to Gillis?
I know from previous experience that you prefer Nonis, and I don’t want to have that discussion…I am going to bed soon…
But really, your arguments have a few cogent points. But they get lost in a seemingly totally irrational and far out of scale hatred of the subject. ( thats just what I read sometimes yoata, not trying to attack you or even make it a thing. )
What is wrong with trying new things that have given positive results. Enough to warrant doing more in that regard.
Its a good idea.
Or explain how its a bad idea without attacking the subject.
Just a thought…leaving now, I am sure I will be talked down to in the response, but we can always hope for something better…
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 17, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is
doing the talking down?
I did not in my previous response to you, but you certainly just did.
There is no hatred, again, perhaps your and others’ unconditional love for Gillis being tempered by sound reasoned criticism to you = hatred, but it is not.
wtf more do I need to do to explain how it’s a bad idea besides the very first post in this thread?
The guy didn’t just accept but actually sought this fcuked up sched out of his desire to prove himself and his own “I’m smarter than the other GMs” (ones who actually have some experience running a team) attitude right about some theory he had. Instead of doing logical things like getting real reductions in travel miles or b2b games, he tried to fit his teams’ sched into his pet theory. If you asked the players how they feel about all these layoffs and back to backs right now do you think they’d be calling him a genius for his “out of the box” thinking?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(chorus)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 17, 2009 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now just a question for you
Why do you have to take the tack of agreeing with and in fact fawning over every single thing the Great Gillisgan does?
Why is he so infallible in your eyes, just because he is the GM of the Canucks?
by yoata on Nov 17, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe cuz he’s not a loon and these days that’s better than some.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 18, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He isn’t infallible.
You are not willing to give him any credit for good things. No one fawns all over him.
Most of us are getting a little sick of the way you try to force your opinion of him on us.
Believe what you want.
But allow us the right to believe what we want.
Jesus, if trading away picks for years was the way to go, then yippy. Nonis got shafted.
I asked you about new and innovative things, and how were they bad.
You responded with disgust, and insulting anyone else that agrees with anything else the man has done as somehow beneath you.
Which is stupid…thats why I asked, and I repeat, why do you hate Gillis?
You certainly aren’t rational in regard to the subject.
So, if I got this straight, Gillis is an idiot for agreeing to a sked that he fought for to make himself look …smart?
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Nov 18, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just keep
repeating it, maybe one day you’ll believe it.
How many times do I have to say that i don’t hate Gillis? Get it through your thick head already.
I criticize Gillis and he deserves it, for Souptin, for Hodgson, for Bernier, for Wellwood, for Demitra, for SOB, for Hordichuk, etc, and for lobbying for a retarded schedule.
He damned well deserves slagging for those crap moves, and if it were Nonis who made them you know damn well you’ d be giving to him.
Now as far as what Gillisgan has done right, he drafted Hodgson, although at that point in the draft it was kind’ve a no-brainer, but still…. then he went and fucked that up, hopefully he doesn’t do the same with Schroeder.
I like the Erhoff and Samuelsson moves, although I was hoping for more of a true sniper than Sammy, but so far those have worked out, Schneider on the other hand so far has not.
As far as tangibles one can point to there ain’t much else, so the scorecard’s in a big fat negative right now.
So about those things you are capable of criticizing Gillisgan over??? (not like I’m actually expecting any)
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The brown phone rings and Henry Stephenson grabs the receiver, cradling it between chin and shoulder as he continues to study the terminal screen. The caller is angry and makes no effort to conceal it. The voice is muffled but the message is clear—he thinks that Henry has given his team a bum deal.
“You know when you see an umpire nose to nose with a manager getting dirt kicked on his shoes?” Henry asks. “We get plenty of dirt kicked on ours, too.”
The difference is that Henry’s shoes get dirty long before the games are played. He and his wife Holly are master schedule makers. They draft the playing timetables for the American and National baseball …
I bet this article would be interesting if they didn’t have just the first three paragraphs up.
by thelastjohnny on Nov 17, 2009 9:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jeezus, do we need a game soon.
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Nov 17, 2009 11:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If we win, no thanks to AV and “Gillisgan.”
If we lose, it’s all their fault.
[Oh, whoa, what happened to me there? It’s like I was taken over by some alien, pissant force or something. And where did these stains on my pants come from? I guess … the idea and the reality become one in those who know the truth! Heretics! Heretics!]
Yeah, we need a game … soon.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 18, 2009 12:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If you have any problems with the schedule you can thank Gillis and stop hating on yoata.
From the CBC…
Gilman and Canuck GM Mike Gillis met with the NHL schedule makers in January in an attempt to reduce the impact of the prolonged journey.
“It was very important for us to stay within certain time zones, to not cross back and forth between time zones,” said Gilman. “Fortunately for us, the league was very accommodating.”
So there you have the proof that not only do the GMs get a say in the schedule this was the schedule the Canucks wanted.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 10:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So Gillis offered suggestions, agreeable to the owners. We never saw the schedule before that event, so we have no basis for comparison…other than our febrile delusions and the voices in our heads, bwahaha!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 18, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
“The league was very accommodating”
Sounds to me like the Canucks asked for certain things because of the Olympics and got them. So this schedule is of their own doing.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
casual read through your posts from earlier in this thread dude. You beg for proof that Gillis had input in this schedule. Then I gave it to you and you tried to spin it to indicate that sure Gillis had input but ultimately the league does whatever they want. The league was very accommodating. That’s straight from the horses mouth. Well the horses assistant’s mouth.
What should Gillis have done? Told them he wanted more games early in the year with less of a head ache around the Olympics. Wouldn’t it be better to have a 5 day lay off in the middle of a 9 games road trip so the guys could come back to Van City and relax and recuperate. Maybe even go to some Olympic events. Then go back out on the road. Rather than have all of these lay offs early in the year?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gillis is there to represent the owners. That’s what he does; he manages the team on their behalf. So he does what he can to balance their desires vs his own vs what the rest of the league will allow.
What did the schedule look like before Gillis had his input? Better or worse? We don’t know. But I can guarantee you that when the league meets – be it the owners in person or via the GMs with their marching orders – attendance is a lot more of a concern than player convenience. And, in this unusual situation, an Olympic sized scheduling hole made things even more complicated.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 18, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL More spin!
A few posts back you were saying Gillis didn’t have anything to do with the sched, that the owners negotiated it themselves, now the spin takes a new direction…
Besides the fact that article clearly states what the motivations for the sched change were, and it had zero to do with ownership concerns over money and everything to do with Gillisgan’s pet theory.
But spin away.
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you really guarantee that?
Have you seen the article that proves you once and for all full of shit?
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 8:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Febrile delusions and what?
“I think we have a great chance. In fact, we’ve got a draft in place for about 38 of our road games for next season already, which is unheard of,” Gillis told Team1040. “They made us a number one priority in terms of travel for a variety of reasons. One of them is injury history, crossing borders, and the fact that geographically, we don’t have a team within a couple or three hours of us.”
“We feel really good about their understanding now, and that they’re prepared to work with us to get a better road schedule in place,” Gillis added.
by yoata on Nov 18, 2009 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SCOREBOARD
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
