×
Jump to content

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
sweetshot

Wild's Ownership Are they really "Committed to Winning it All"

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, sweetshot said:

I think you would agree, however, that allowing the inmates to run the asylum is not a good idea. Look where it's gotten the Wild. You don't have to be like Mike Keenan to have control of your team and the respect of your players.

 

 

There’s no doubt the Wild are a mess because they allow the 3 Stooges to run the show. All I’m saying is that if you take the “My way or the Highway” approach with modern players, it will probably be the coach on the highway, not the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IllaZilla said:

 

There’s no doubt the Wild are a mess because they allow the 3 Stooges to run the show. All I’m saying is that if you take the “My way or the Highway” approach with modern players, it will probably be the coach on the highway, not the player.

There are times when that is the approach you may have to take with certain players. How about this example: I would assume this is the approach Lemaire realized he needed to take when trying to make Gaborik a better 2-way player. I'm not going to sit here and blame Lemaire for Gaborik leaving(we'll never really  know why he left) because I believe there are specific situations when the "my way or the highway" approach is necessary. Like setting a team philosophy. Lemaire's players, all of them, were going to at least put forth the effort(if they needed to) to be better 2-way players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sweetshot said:

There are times when that is the approach you may have to take with certain players. How about this example: I would assume this is the approach Lemaire realized he needed to take when trying to make Gaborik a better 2-way player. I'm not going to sit here and blame Lemaire for Gaborik leaving(we'll never really  know why he left) because I believe there are specific situations when the "my way or the highway" approach is necessary. Like setting a team philosophy. Lemaire's players, all of them, were going to at least put forth the effort(if they needed to) to be better 2-way players. 

 

Yes, but Gaborik was a young player. He wasn’t an established veteran. It was probably easier to do that with a kid like Gaborik, especially when you are in the HOF and have your name on the Cup umpteen times. 

 

Would be be interesting to see how Lemaire would have handled the 3 Stooges...

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Yes, but Gaborik was a young player. He wasn’t an established veteran. It was probably easier to do that with a kid like Gaborik, especially when you are in the HOF and have your name on the Cup umpteen times. 

 

Would be be interesting to see how Lemaire would have handled the 3 Stooges...

Lemaire left when there was only one stooge to deal with and that would be Craig Leipold, when the owner drip himself put all his eggs behind Koivu. I'm certain Lamaire saw the skid coming and wasn't stupid enough to get hung out to dry with it.

 

If only others could see the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rottenrefs said:

Lemaire left when there was only one stooge to deal with and that would be Craig Leipold, when the owner drip himself put all his eggs behind Koivu. I'm certain Lamaire saw the skid coming and wasn't stupid enough to get hung out to dry with it.

 

If only others could see the light.

 

Tom Lynn seemed to indicate Lemaire just kind of got extra paranoid and generally grouchy as time went on.  Where he was unhappy even when the team was playing well and it sort of cast a shadow over the whole locker room.  Not saying Tom's version of events is 100% accurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Yes, but Gaborik was a young player. He wasn’t an established veteran. It was probably easier to do that with a kid like Gaborik, especially when you are in the HOF and have your name on the Cup umpteen times. 

 

Would be be interesting to see how Lemaire would have handled the 3 Stooges...

 

 

Yes, I would like to have seen that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

Tom Lynn seemed to indicate Lemaire just kind of got extra paranoid and generally grouchy as time went on.  Where he was unhappy even when the team was playing well and it sort of cast a shadow over the whole locker room.  Not saying Tom's version of events is 100% accurate.  

As I see it, understandably. DR drove the team into a hole. Fletcher was coming in. Leipold was humiliated, in print, for having a boring hockey team. Gabby was all Lemaire had to ignite the offense and I'm sure higher powers were buckling to give Kaptain Koivu the perminent C.

With Lemaire being hired elsewhere later... he was not yet tired of coaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Yes, but Gaborik was a young player. He wasn’t an established veteran. It was probably easier to do that with a kid like Gaborik, especially when you are in the HOF and have your name on the Cup umpteen times. 

 

Would be be interesting to see how Lemaire would have handled the 3 Stooges...

 

 

Too funny! ☺️   It would be equally interesting to see how "the 3 stooges" would react to Lemaire's decisions.   My guess is.....a 13 year contract out trumps even 10 Stanley Cup rings.  (Such is the world we live in today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rottenrefs said:

As I see it, understandably. DR drove the team into a hole. Fletcher was coming in. Leipold was humiliated, in print, for having a boring hockey team. Gabby was all Lemaire had to ignite the offense and I'm sure higher powers were buckling to give Kaptain Koivu the perminent C.

With Lemaire being hired elsewhere later... he was not yet tired of coaching.

 

I am not sure it was that, he may have simply been tired of management's meddling in general.  At some point he just stopped having fun and wanted out.  I think we've all been there...you just sort of become naturally short with people because the accumulated crap you just don't have the patience to deal with anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

I am not sure it was that, he may have simply been tired of management's meddling in general.  At some point he just stopped having fun and wanted out.  I think we've all been there...you just sort of become naturally short with people because the accumulated crap you just don't have the patience to deal with anymore.  

 

In my opinion, I think it was this. Look at what Lemaire accomplished in his career both on the ice and behind the bench. He didn't half-ass anything. But the Wild ownership was more concerned with the bottom line than what was occurring on the ice. So they were more than happy to put a half-assed roster together to put on the ice just to maximize profits. I think Lemaire did the best he could with the rosters he was given, but none of those teams were going to get close to the Cup. And he was not going to be given a team that might get to the Cup, because that meant the ownership had to spend money. And Naegle absolutely did not want to spend any money.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Didn't read throug the whole thread, so forgive me if these points have already been mentioned. As far as attendance goes, they sell out the joint every night......to the tune of 106% of capacity. In that way, they are a lot like the Leafs, guaranteed to sell out, guaranteed fan support locally. However, I have to believe that managment wants to take profit to a new level....that means deep playoff runs. A deep playoff run(s) gets them to the promised land of profit.....and unlocks millions in merchandise sales. I have to believe ownership wants to unlock this door. They have not been wise with their investments, but it would be unfair to call them cheap also. I don't know anything about the Wild owner, so who knows if they really want things to be better for the fans.....but profit awaits....and that if nothing else, should be motivation to get better and win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

 Didn't read throug the whole thread, so forgive me if these points have already been mentioned. As far as attendance goes, they sell out the joint every night......to the tune of 106% of capacity. In that way, they are a lot like the Leafs, guaranteed to sell out, guaranteed fan support locally. However, I have to believe that managment wants to take profit to a new level....that means deep playoff runs. A deep playoff run(s) gets them to the promised land of profit.....and unlocks millions in merchandise sales. I have to believe ownership wants to unlock this door. They have not been wise with their investments, but it would be unfair to call them cheap also. I don't know anything about the Wild owner, so who knows if they really want things to be better for the fans.....but profit awaits....and that if nothing else, should be motivation to get better and win. 

 

Bingo. Leipold hasn't been afraid to spend money, unlike the original Wild ownership. The problem is, Leipold hasn't spent the money wisely. Players he's spent money on that haven't produced: Jason Pominville (the trade for him was sheer brilliance, the extension utter stupidity), Thomas Vanek (Mike Yeo had to be convinced that he was going to be a team player, ultimately bought out), Zach Parise (has yet to play a full season and point totals have been steadily declining since he signed a 13 year/$98M contract in 2012)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jammer2 said:

 Didn't read throug the whole thread, so forgive me if these points have already been mentioned. As far as attendance goes, they sell out the joint every night......to the tune of 106% of capacity. In that way, they are a lot like the Leafs, guaranteed to sell out, guaranteed fan support locally. However, I have to believe that managment wants to take profit to a new level....that means deep playoff runs. A deep playoff run(s) gets them to the promised land of profit.....and unlocks millions in merchandise sales. I have to believe ownership wants to unlock this door. They have not been wise with their investments, but it would be unfair to call them cheap also. I don't know anything about the Wild owner, so who knows if they really want things to be better for the fans.....but profit awaits....and that if nothing else, should be motivation to get better and win. 

 

Leipold has claimed he's lost money since he purchased the team even though we do sell out most nights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

Leipold has claimed he's lost money since he purchased the team even though we do sell out most nights.  

 

A good accountant will make the numbers say anything...so when business owners claim they lose money, I always take it with a very large grain of salt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IllaZilla said:

 

A good accountant will make the numbers say anything...so when business owners claim they lose money, I always take it with a very large grain of salt...

 

As one can take the 'sellout streak' when it was the same exact number for at least a few seasons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

A good accountant will make the numbers say anything...so when business owners claim they lose money, I always take it with a very large grain of salt...

 

 That is my thoughts on the matter also. Unless they have a little tiny arena (which is not the case, it's average), I'm suspicious when an owner cries poor, especially from a team that sells out every single night. Seems to me, the sell outs would at least cover the bills and the sweet commercial and merchandise deals are pure profit. Even more skeptical if they own the arena and the concessions, which are a cash cow if I've ever seen one....not even talking about the outrageous parking fees....etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've gone through this before a few months ago. 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.
 <-- link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

Leipold has claimed he's lost money since he purchased the team even though we do sell out most nights.  

 

And he can't be losing money. Because what smart business person would keep an endeavor that loses them money? I call no-believesies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 6:06 AM, IllaZilla said:

 

And he can't be losing money. Because what smart business person would keep an endeavor that loses them money? I call no-believesies...

 

Oh yea?  You think its...

 

Image result for Bullshit meter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is there anything Craig Leipold buys that doesn't lose money?

 

Forbes says he bought the team for $225 million in 2009. By November 2017 Forbes stated the team is worth $440 million.

 

How can he say he's losing money if he's doubled it in just 8 years? I've often pointed out he's wasting a ton of money on worthless signings... to the tune of about $80 million on some slug veterans, but he's still rolling in the dough.

Edited by rottenrefs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rottenrefs said:

Is there anything Craig Leipold buys that doesn't lose money?

 

Forbes says he bought the team for $225 million in 2009. By November 2017 Forbes stated the team is worth $440 million.

 

Must be that new math they’re teaching nowadays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Must be that new math they’re teaching nowadays...

But he's not so young.

 

Just added an edit as you posted this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rottenrefs said:

But he's not so young.

 

Just added an edit as you posted this.

 

Depends on what he calls a “loss”. And the tax laws have so many loopholes for businesses to use “losses” to reduce profits, thereby reducing tax burden. Like I posted earlier, a good accountant can make the numbers say anything. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Depends on what he calls a “loss”. And the tax laws have so many loopholes for businesses to use “losses” to reduce profits, thereby reducing tax burden. Like I posted earlier, a good accountant can make the numbers say anything. 

If he does his books the way the govt does, not making your projected profit equals a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filing a loss on Backstrom, Havlat, Heatley, Vanek and Pominville would have been wise. That covers a good 75 million or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 3
      Post
      (shrugs)  We are still not on the back end of their contract until AFTER this season.  I think we all realize tweaks are not enough, but it was monumentally foolish to give them 13-year deals AND no movement clauses.  And that isn't going to change; and no way will they waive them.  Not unless we make things really uncomfortable for them.  
    • 2
      Post
      I think that is the arguement. Naegle purposefully kept payroll low to maximize his profits when he sold. So what if he put a crappy team on the ice. He didn’t care. He saw the opportunity to make a bundle bringing hockey back to Minnesota and then selling the team to the highest bidder.  Leipold has spent money on this team. Unfortunately he hasn’t spent it wisely. 
    • 2
      Post
      Yes, but Gaborik was a young player. He wasn’t an established veteran. It was probably easier to do that with a kid like Gaborik, especially when you are in the HOF and have your name on the Cup umpteen times.    Would be be interesting to see how Lemaire would have handled the 3 Stooges...    
    • 1
      Post
      (shrugs)  Not sure if I see it that way.  I think the owner has paid in a lot, especially to two players and wants to get a return on the investment.  Since they're locked into this team is kind of mandates the other moves that take place.  Fenton couldn't go out and spend freely in free agency not knowing what #16 or #24 would cost otherwise he might as well have announced the rest of the league that we're going to trade them no matter what.     No doubt the Wild were thrown a bunch of horrible offers because people know our constraints.  Oh, you can't quite afford these two guys...let me offer you trash and hope you take it just because you need the cap relief.  As I once heard on a podcast, other GM's are not going to be throwing us lifelines, they're going to be throwing us anchors.     All the more reason to be mad at Chuck Fletcher for signing a literal anchor in Mikko Koivu to another way overpaid contract for another two seasons and giving the Klydesdale a no movement clause on top of it.  Toss in the horrific deal to Marcus Foligno too.     The problem with the Wild in regards to their signing of Pateryn; is they had to overpay to get him...when most teams draft players like that and develop them internally.  As much as the organization may want Carson Soucy to be that kind of player, I hate to say it folks...he really isn't.  
    • 1
      Post
      No, it doesn't.  I see other players being relegated, even on the best of teams.  Kessel had his best season of his career and still wasn't happy about being moved off Malkin's line.  Yet Mike Sullivan obviously made the move.  So, I think this an issue that is somewhat unique to this team where a few players run the show.  And for the point about team reputations and locker room environments, I am sure players are aware of that too and it can be just as toxic as a tyrannical coach can be.  If you're a new player and know 3 players rule the roost and you better conform, you might think twice about signing here unless you are their best friend or something like that.  
    • 1
      Post
      Nah, I think its more like this, and we're the Bob's....    

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×