In response to my post yesterday on Gary Bettman's tenure as NHL Commissioner, Chuqui at Teal Sunglasses offers up the most comprehensive, and cogent defense of his tenure I've seen as of yet:
Now, 12 years later, the league is finally trying to fix a contract it should have dealt with years ago. Where franchises failed under Ziegler and had to be moved, Bettman found ways to minimize the currency problems hitting canadian teams, and found a way to keep Edmonton in Edmonton (despite Pocklington's legal problems and financial implosion) and calgary. Expanding into Atlanta is probably a mistake, but columbus seems like it's a reasonable place for a team -- a lot more reasonable than anaheim or Tampa or (these days) Chicago or the Island, for that matter. The teams that had to be moved may not all be thriving, but they're doing better than they did in their old cities.And for all the whining and complaining, despite expanding to 30 teams, average attendance is ALSO up 2,000 a game, league wide . . .
People who think the "good old days" of the NHL before Bettman were really good don't really remember them. It's 12 years later, adn Bettman is STILL trying to clean up the damage left behind by his predecessors.
Chuqui is right to remind us how John Ziegler let Alan Eagleson play with the NHL like it was his own private money machine -- something that was brilliantly laid out by Russ Conway in Gross Misconduct. And indeed, when it comes to professional management of the league's business operations, Bettman rightly deserves credit for cleaning things up.
And in pointing out how in many ways Bettman is just a front man for the owners, Chuqui proves how I need to read my archives more closely from time to time.
A lockout, and the rage built up from watching a second season go down the drain in a decade can do that to you.
But there is one question that is going unanswered from yesterday's post:
Has the quality of the on-ice product improved over that interval?As a fan, do you believe you enjoy hockey more, or less than you did back in January 1993 . . .
Time and again, when I've asked that question, the answer has been a resounding no, and I think, the actual source of much of the rage directed at the Commissioner.
improved? I think the question should be “do you think the on-ice product has deteriorated over that interval? and the answer is yes.
I’ll comment on quality of play when I have a bit more time. In reality, I think it’s a mixed bag, combined with people fondly remembering the good parts of the Good Old Days and carefully forgetting the rest.