The state of the Islanders raises a question: when does an NHL team become irrelevant?
I'm not picking on the New York Islanders here, not in the least. I think that they're young still, and need a bit of polishing, but they have some outstanding players on that team. Are they the Eastern Conference's next version of the Blues? Probably not, but their rebuild seems to be plodding along fairly all-right. After all, it takes a hell of a lot of effort to undo the damage that a certain GM turned talking head did. Patience'll eventually be rewarded.
The New York Post's Larry Brooks would disagree with me on this one. In his article from this weekend, he just comes right out and says it in the title: "Islanders no longer matter." Well, ow. That's not the kind of thing that you want to read written about your favorite hockey team, especially when it's one of the rare times that the Isles have made it into the New York press. To be fair, the other teams in the area have a little more glamor (except for maybe the Mets) and some more "notable" players, but the Islanders have people to pay attention to as well. The trick is that the cycle of being bad to mediocre on ice needs to be broken for guys like John Tavares to be a bit more big named and for the newspapers to pay attention to the team again.
What causes irrelevance? Who looks at the NHL's list of 30 teams and chooses those that aren't worth the press' time? Is it based on record? Market? Roster? Proximity to flashier teams? Obviously it's not history, because if you want that, the Islanders and their four consecutive Stanley Cups are chock full of history. But in this day and age, with people's attention spans being what they are, history doesn't matter. Instant press and instant information has led to a "what have you done for me lately" mentality, and unfortunately the Isles haven't done too much.
They're not the only team that some might claim to be "irrelevant." The Phoenix Coyotes could be based on the perceived shortfalls of their location -- ditto with the Florida Panthers. They're doing stuff, but thanks to their markets and what their markets' press believe is important, it's not getting out there in the news -- it's irrelevant. The Chicago Blackhawks under Bill Wirtz looked like they were headed in the direction of the Islanders -- franchise with history but the sad-sackiness of the team'd sapped all of their fanbase's (and press') enthusiasm.
There's a lesson to be learned from the Blackhawks. They weren't irrelevant forever. Intelligent ownership and a smart front office turned the team around, got attendance numbers up, and made them the talk of Chicago sports (sure, it helps that the other three teams are average). Go back in time seven or so years to 2003-2004, the season before the lock-out. The Islanders were in the 8th place spot in the Eastern Conference with 91 points. Where were the Blackhawks? Second to dead last in the entire league with a paltry 59 points (and tied with the Washington Capitals). Last place? The Pittsburgh Penguins with 58. To put this in perspective, there's a chance that the Columbus Blue Jackets can finish with as many points this season as the Hawks and Penguins did in that year. Were they irrelevant? Are they still?
Irrelevant is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the past and plan for the future, teams like the Isles aren't irrelevant. If you look at the now, which is where we live, they are. Today's "the now" is tomorrow's past. There's no reason why, in six years or so, Brooks couldn't be writing this article about the "once mighty New York Rangers." Don't get too insulted by what people say, Islanders fans. It's all temporary.
Well, it's a bit depressing to read this reasonably accurate article about the hocky team I grew up watching. Unfortunately, Nassau County, on both a governmental and tax payer level has pretty much been deemed 'irrelevant'
Maybe it's a downward spiral stemming from the lack of a solid future. I think the 'team' as far as talent goes has quite a future, JT and Moulson have pretty much proven themselves, and there's plenty of players who show a considerable amount of promise, now it's just up to them to all flourish, BEFORE they get traded (Chara). But they need a home, and Nassau County has basically said 'find one elsewhere' Let's all not forget that the Nassau Coliseum is WAY more to the county, and Long Island, than a place for the Islanders to play hockey; with a tenant, it's a tax revenue generator (it got voted down because people thought of the expense of building w/o considering the lost tax revenue) ; it's a place for the circus; concerts; trade shows etc. etc. But the referendum got voted down. Shame on you Nassau (taxpayers and Gov't) After failing to realize the value of having such a venue in your county, it comes as no surprise to me how much if a fiscal hole you're in.
Hopefully Suffolk can make a move to get the Islanders after they (optimistically) only move to Brooklyn.
@Zellarman Articles based on lies and fabrications are not reasonably accurate. Larry Brooks knows nothing about the Isles prospects, his comments on Bailey stink of his guy failed former media relations coordinator Chris Botta who is only in the NHL media because Charles Wang paid him to blog after he resigned.
Last I looked the Cablevision Rangers have gone to one more playoff than the Isles since 1997 and got that watching from home backing in a year ago. The Cablevision owned Knicks have not won a single playoff game in over a decade so by Brooks logic they should receive no coverage.
But Msg gives the Post ad money and that means double-standards.
I guess if enough uninformed folks reads enough lies they accept them as factual. The Post is too cheap to cover the Isles, so they make up non-sense that the baseball teams financed their own baseball stadiums and Wang should pay for his own arena, but those same papers reported long ago the taxpayers got the bill for all the stadiums, the Devils arena in Newark and the Cablevision' Garden's tax exemption since 1981 which is 11m dollars a year.
@nyifancentral The article in discussion is the one at the top of this webpage, written by Laura Astorian. I guess if one folk discusses a different article, then hey, he can call whomever he wants "unimformed" Be informed that THE ARTICLE IN DISCUSSION, by me, is the one at the top of this page, not the one that Laura clearly holds a contradictory position with "The New York Post's Larry Brooks would disagree with me on this one" So....
@Zellarman I have no comment on Laura Astorian's article. If your response is about that person's article fair enough because that would not be uninformed. If you are making a point Brooks bile as reasonably accurate my response above to that speaks for itself.
Is there anything less relevant than Larry Brooks cablevision Rangers completely ignored all winter in first place?
