Cities NHL players DON'T want to play in...

[flyercanuck]

Ten agents were asked what 3 franchises appeared most on NTCs submitted by their clients that they didn't want to be traded to...not much of a shocker perennial loser and cold climate Edmonton Oilers topped the rankings

 

1. Edmonton

 

2. Winnipeg

 

3. Buffalo

 

4. Ottawa

 

5 Toronto

 

6 Florida

 

7 Arizona

 

8 NJ

 

Cold climate and media scrutiny have a lot to do with the Canadian teams...but losing looks to be the main tie-in here for all 7 teams. Putting together a winning team could take any of these off the list. But since most players don't want to go there (unless you overpay them) they basically have to build through the draft until they're good enough to draw FAs to them. When Edmonton was a dynasty you never heard anyone complain about playing there. 

 

 

[jammer2]

@flyercanuck   Hilarious to see the sad sack Leafs at #5 on this list. Most of my Leaf buddies have some disturbing notion that everyone wants to play for the Leafs. Geez, even guys from their home province of Ontario want no part of this backwards organization.

[flyercanuck]

@jammer2

 

Leaf fans have always thought everyone wanted to play there. We're still waiting for a top FA to be the first to sign there.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Ten agents were asked what 3 franchises appeared most on NTCs submitted by their clients that they didn't want to be traded to...not much of a shocker perennial loser and cold climate Edmonton Oilers topped the rankings

 

1. Edmonton

 

2. Winnipeg

 

3. Buffalo

 

4. Ottawa

 

5 Toronto

 

6 Florida

 

7 Arizona

 

8 NJ

 

 

Most disturbing is that FOUR of those teams are in Canada and 60% of NHLers are Canadian.

 

Could you imagine an American baseball player saying they don't want to be traded to the following locations:

 

1. New York Yankees
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Los Angeles Dodgers
4. Toronto Blue Jays
5. Detroit Tigers
6. etc.......

 

In many ways, selective NTCs are the worst thing to happen to pro sports. Players should be happy to be in the NHL and should play wherever they're told to play. They shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the cities they can be traded to. A NTC should be all or nothing. If the player can be traded, he can be traded anywhere.  My two cents. 

[flyercanuck]

Most disturbing is that FOUR of those teams are in Canada and 60% of NHLers are Canadian.

 

Could you imagine an American baseball player saying they don't want to be traded to the following locations:

 

1. New York Yankees
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Los Angeles Dodgers
4. Toronto Blue Jays
5. Detroit Tigers
6. etc.......

 

In many ways, selective NTCs are the worst thing to happen to pro sports. Players should be happy to be in the NHL and should play wherever they're told to play. They shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the cities they can be traded to. A NTC should be all or nothing. If the player can be traded, he can be traded anywhere.  My two cents. 

 

 

The difference is those teams have won recently or been competetive. The teams in the hockey list are all bad and have been for awhile.

[flyer4ever]

It used to be an honour and a privilege to play in the NHL. Now these spoiled brats want to dictate where they play. Times have changed. And if your lucky when your career is almost over the Flyers will sign you to an absurd walking into the sunset contract!

[brelic]

Most disturbing is that FOUR of those teams are in Canada and 60% of NHLers are Canadian.

 

I don't think the two are necessarily connected. I don't know many Canadians who would *choose* to move to Edmonton if other choices were available. It's just not among the desirable places to live here. There are probably a dozen places ahead of Edmonton in Canada.

 

Could you imagine an American baseball player saying they don't want to be traded to the following locations:
 
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Los Angeles Dodgers
Toronto Blue Jays
Detroit Tigers
etc.......

 

I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison. How about an American baseball player saying they don't want to play in:

 

1. Anchorage, AK

2. Bangor, ME

3. Helena, MT

 

Those are probably more accurate comparables in terms of desirability.

[brelic]

The difference is those teams have won recently or been competetive. The teams in the hockey list are all bad and have been for awhile.

 

 

Chicken or egg.

 

Are they undesirable because they haven't been competitive? Or are they not competitive because they can't attract top tier talent (hence their over-reliance on youth)?

[brelic]

In many ways, selective NTCs are the worst thing to happen to pro sports. Players should be happy to be in the NHL and should play wherever they're told to play. They shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the cities they can be traded to. A NTC should be all or nothing. If the player can be traded, he can be traded anywhere.  My two cents

 

Forgot to add that I agree with this - at least the notion you're putting forward that selective NTCs are creating cesspools in the NHL. I think it's counter-productive.

[Bertmega]

Winterpeg would be a tough sell for me if I were a player. 

 

If I were a player I would have to imagine the best places to play would look like:

 

1) LA

2) Van

3) Bos

4) NYR

5) Mon 

 

But that is me. 

 

I would take LA for the climate and the newly found winning environment. 

Vancouver because it's a cool city and it's beautiful

Boston because it is by far the coolest city on the East Coast (sorry Philly, I know you're my home, but Boston is Awesome)

NYC because it is the epicenter of the civilized world and an awesome city

Montreal for the tradition, and the city is the Europe of North America. I guess I'd have to learn a little French

[flyercanuck]

Chicken or egg.

 

Are they undesirable because they haven't been competitive? Or are they not competitive because they can't attract top tier talent (hence their over-reliance on youth)?

 

 

As I mentioned, I don't recall anyone complaining about playing in Edmonton when they were winning multiple cups. I don't think its just a coincidence that Vancouver and Montreal, two competitive Canadian teams are not on that list. And as you well know, Montreal can be friggin' cold.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Just comes down to winning....bottom line.

 

@flyercanuck said it perfectly:  When Edmonton was winning way back when, no one would complain about playing there.

 

Sure, weather climate may have a bit to do with it, but personally, I think that's negligible, since hockey is played, well on ice, during the winter, and frankly, the support for it is mostly in northern climate cities.

 

When teams like Tampa Bay, Los Angeles, and Dallas were really bad, you wouldn't hear about players wanting to go there because "of the climate" right?

No. They sucked, players, especially veterans, didn't want to go somewhere they had zero chance at the playoffs, much less a Cup, and would have gone in a heartbeat to a city where it is ten below if it meant they had an excellent chance to win it all there.

 

But this isn't just exclusive to hockey. It is like that in all of pro sports.

One year, a certain team or city is a bane to players, in a few years, it is the preferred landing spot....and so on and so forth.

 

Give it some time, and if this same question were asked of agents in, say, about 5 years from now, I bet that list would look a bit different...and I bet losing teams (not cold climate ones) would still headline that list. 

[flyercanuck]

@TropicalFruitGirl26

 

They said Pittsburgh was on that list ten years ago. Now they have a good team and people want to play there. The fact Florida and arizona are there tells me its about winning, not climate. If you can have both, thats great.

[B21]

The difference is those teams have won recently or been competetive. The teams in the hockey list are all bad and have been for awhile.

 

Those teams - NY Yankees, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles - also are among the biggest spenders in the game - by far.  There's actually two teams in New York but no one seems to want to play for the Mets. 

[jammer2]

  Perhaps some players just list teams that they think can never win.  Should McDavid make it to Carolina, I wonder how many stars would put them back into play.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Those teams - NY Yankees, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles - also are among the biggest spenders in the game - by far.  There's actually two teams in New York but no one seems to want to play for the Mets. 

 

I have been following baseball for a long time, and the reason for this seems to be the Mets have clown ownership.

 

That franchise doesn't seem to be able to formulate a plan on what it takes to be a winning organization.

Almost as if they study the Yankees, and try to repeat almost verbatim what that team is doing, without taking into account any nuances that may make the difference between winning and losing over the long term.

 

Sure the Yankees are big spenders, but they almost always have some solid plan or some players in place that they can fall back and rely on...even as they go out and probably sign some player to a ridiculous contract.

The Mets, WITHOUT the solid plan or core of players in place, go out and sign a player to a ridiculous contract....the team falls on its face, they wonder why...then other players want out, or other players won't follow that first one in to play for the Mets...its a vicious cycle!

 

Which brings me back to the NHL and players not wanting to go to certain teams:

Management / Ownership.

 

If an NHL team has horrible management (sorry, not to pick on Edmonton, but THEY come to mind first!), then THAT could be a detriment to signing top tier players, or making it a desirable landing spot for vets.

The Oilers HAVE talent...but the development of said talent and its implementation and support on the ice are nil. That's on management / ownership.

 

Of course, if an NHL team has bad management / ownership to begin with, chances are, they are a losing franchise already....so losing and inept management tend to go hand in hand anyways.

[jammer2]

@TropicalFruitGirl26  Baseball is one of those sports where the owners have to be patient. Sure, you can go out and spend 100 (or even 200 mill....lol) on a true superstar, but it's a lost cause if the rest of the roster is stinky. Mr.Illitch did it right in Detroit, he watched as the team mired in obscurity....and then struck when he thought the prospects and FA's aligned together to equal an all round quality club. For my Tigers, the start of the Renaissance was the signing of Pudge in and around the time they selected Verlander.  Once those key pieces were in place, it opened the door to Ordonez and all the other quality FA's....but it was all made possible by Pudge having faith that the team had promise.....the year before Pudge came, the Tigers had 114 losses, one of the worst teams of all time. Sometimes, no matter how painful it is, a baseball owner had to show patience in order to reap the rewards at a later date.

 

 Can you imagine how crazy it would be to see either the Cubs or Mets win a World Series???.....seriously, there would be rioting in the streets of Chicago or New York....all those pent up emotions ....decades and DECADES of pitiful teams....I tell ya, Cubs and Mets fans deserve to be rewarded for their loyalty!!  Classic underdogs would not begin to describe it.

[JackStraw]

@TropicalFruitGirl26  Baseball is one of those sports where the owners have to be patient. Sure, you can go out and spend 100 (or even 200 mill....lol) on a true superstar, but it's a lost cause if the rest of the roster is stinky. Mr.Illitch did it right in Detroit, he watched as the team mired in obscurity....and then struck when he thought the prospects and FA's aligned together to equal an all round quality club. For my Tigers, the start of the Renaissance was the signing of Pudge in and around the time they selected Verlander.  Once those key pieces were in place, it opened the door to Ordonez and all the other quality FA's....but it was all made possible by Pudge having faith that the team had promise.....the year before Pudge came, the Tigers had 114 losses, one of the worst teams of all time. Sometimes, no matter how painful it is, a baseball owner had to show patience in order to reap the rewards at a later date.

 

 Can you imagine how crazy it would be to see either the Cubs or Mets win a World Series???.....seriously, there would be rioting in the streets of Chicago or New York....all those pent up emotions ....decades and DECADES of pitiful teams....I tell ya, Cubs and Mets fans deserve to be rewarded for their loyalty!!  Classic underdogs would not begin to describe it.

 

The Mets have won it all a couple of times, as many as the Phillies and in a much shorter existence. I don't feel sorry for the Mets (I hate them actually). Now the Cubbies, that's a different story. I DO hope the Cubs win the WS in my lifetime because it would be amazing. Talk about a loyal and passionate fan base.

[WordsOfWisdom]

The difference is those teams have won recently or been competetive. The teams in the hockey list are all bad and have been for awhile.

 

All I'm saying is...... for the benefit of those teams that are *trying* to become competitive again, this is an obvious rule change that needs to happen.

 

A NTC should be either "YES, PLAYER CAN BE TRADED ANYWHERE" or "NO, PLAYER CANNOT BE TRADED AT ALL".

 

If a player waives their NTC, they should be tradeable to all 29 other clubs. And to prevent this sort of tactic from going on quietly behind closed doors, a player should not be allowed to waive their NTC mid-season, and furthermore, waiving the NTC would also void the entire contract and any remaining years it may have on it, and both player and club would have to agree for that to take effect.

 

(I get emotional over this issue.)   

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Trust me...we Flyer fans despise the NTC/NMC.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I don't think the two are necessarily connected. I don't know many Canadians who would *choose* to move to Edmonton if other choices were available. It's just not among the desirable places to live here. There are probably a dozen places ahead of Edmonton in Canada.

 

 

But in terms of optics, what does it say when Canadian-born players don't want to play in Canada? If everyone held that view, we would lose half of our NHL franchises. The long term effect of that is a reduction in the number of hockey players we develop because young people would turn to other sports. I can remember Edmonton losing Chris Pronger after 2006 because he didn't want to play in Edmonton, and that was the year they went to the Cup final. For Edmonton and Winnipeg, this is a very real issue that is hurting these franchises.

 

The draft was created to help bad teams get better.  Why does the NHL allow selective NTCs to keep the bad teams bad and the good teams good?

 

It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

[WordsOfWisdom]

As I mentioned, I don't recall anyone complaining about playing in Edmonton when they were winning multiple cups. I don't think its just a coincidence that Vancouver and Montreal, two competitive Canadian teams are not on that list. And as you well know, Montreal can be friggin' cold.

 

• Wayne Gretzky wanted out of Edmonton. He moved to LA, married his wife (actress whats her name) and was spending all of his free time in LA prior to "the trade".
• Chris Pronger wanted out of Edmonton in 2006.

 

Even when times are good, Edmonton and Winnipeg are at a huge disadvantage. They can't get anyone to play there unless said player has no other alternative. I really think the league should look into this.

[Podein25]

what does it say when Canadian-born players don't want to play in Canada?

 

 

This has always bothered me. Especially when you had non-Canadians like Selanne saying how much they loved playing in Winnipeg. I frankly think that many players would play better in front of knowledgeable and rabid fans - like they have in Winnipeg right now - than in front of half-empty, disinterested fans. They just care about the money I guess, which is sad.

 

It's why I do respect enormously the decision by players like Perreault to sign in places like Winnipeg. 

[B21]

I have been following baseball for a long time, and the reason for this seems to be the Mets have clown ownership.
 
That franchise doesn't seem to be able to formulate a plan on what it takes to be a winning organization.
Almost as if they study the Yankees, and try to repeat almost verbatim what that team is doing, without taking into account any nuances that may make the difference between winning and losing over the long term.
 
Sure the Yankees are big spenders, but they almost always have some solid plan or some players in place that they can fall back and rely on...even as they go out and probably sign some player to a ridiculous contract.
The Mets, WITHOUT the solid plan or core of players in place, go out and sign a player to a ridiculous contract....the team falls on its face, they wonder why...then other players want out, or other players won't follow that first one in to play for the Mets...its a vicious cycle!

 

All correct though for the sake of this argument, why a team is losing really doesn't matter. It's just the fact that they are losing.

 

I'll give you three "clown" owners from the Big 4 sporting leagues. Jerry Jones. Mark Cuban. Daniel Snyder. None of those teams have any problem attracting talent.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

 

• Wayne Gretzky wanted out of Edmonton. He moved to LA, married his wife (actress whats her name) and was spending all of his free time in LA prior to "the trade".
• Chris Pronger wanted out of Edmonton in 2006.

 

Even when times are good, Edmonton and Winnipeg are at a huge disadvantage. They can't get anyone to play there unless said player has no other alternative. I really think the league should look into this.

 

 

And do WHAT exactly??

 

Those two cases were very specific.

Gretzky had other reason for wanting to go Hollywood, and Pronger...well who knows why....maybe Edmonton just didn't appeal to HIM.

 

Not that I know a whole lot about both the Gretzky and Pronger situations, but the common theme for both seemed to be going over to a 'bigger spotlight'.

Maybe both are just attention hogs and they just weren't gonna get that in Edmonton.

 

Tellin ya...if a franchise like Edmonton gets their collective heads out of their arses and properly develop and support their talent AND they start winning again, this whole "no one wants to play in Edmonton" goes away.

Will there be players that still won't want to play there? Absolutely. But it won't be this big 'issue' that it is now.

 

Same with Winnipeg.

 

Winning cures all ppl...(well, almost all).