So apparently we struck a nerve with the Blueshirt Bulletin over our "
10 Things I Hate About the Rangers" feature, and the
wailing could be heard for miles. Well, being lawyers, the FHF aren't the types to back down from an email exchange/fight, so we sent a measured response to the Blueshirt Bulletin. Kind of like swatting a fly with a Buick. We are now hunkered down in the basement of FHF Headquarters, awaiting the fallout from Broadway (well, except for HF29, who remains MIA somewhere in the wilds of the Eastern townships). If you see specious reasoning and erroneous facts colliding with no sense of humour, run for it ... the Blueshirts are coming!
Dear Blueshirts Bulletin:
Wow. We expected a reaction to our little tongue-in-cheek top ten, but this is fantastic stuff. I'm intrigued by your response to us having some fun at the Ranger's expense, but I think your passion is clouding your judgement. Let's go through your points one-by one.
Your ignorance is astonishing. The NY Americans remained in business -- in the Garden -- for fifteen years after the Rangers came into the leauge. It was MSG's owner in 1941 -- Jim Norris -- who ran them out of the building. Norris, by the way, owned the Red Wings and (illegally) the Blackhawks at the time. He used his ownership of the Rangers' home building to keep them from playing home games in the playoffs, including in 1950 when the Wings beat the Rangers in double-OT of the seventh game of a Cup final series in which five games were played in Detroit and two in Toronto. He also looted them (as well as the Blackhawks) of players, like Gordie Howe (who first came up with the Rangers at age 17) and Harry Lumley. His control of the Garden was wrested from him by an antitrust suit brought against him by the US Justice Department. The NHL, in its wisdom, named the Norris Trophy after him.
Yes, the Americans remained in business and playing at MSG after the Rangers came into being. However, nothing I said is untrue:
1. Rickard promised the Americans that there wouldn't be another hockey tenant at MSG.
2. Rickard and MSG management saw how successful the Americans were at the box office, and decided to go back on their word and get a team.
3. When the Rangers proved an immediate success, it negatively affected the Americans profile in comparison because they were struggling on the ice; naturally, fans gravitate towards a winner, so as the Rangers crowds went up, the Americans crowds went down. As they struggled more at the box office and on the ice, the franchise started a downward spiral that ended when the NHL revoked the franchise. James Norris might have dealt the final blow to the Amerks, but stating that the introduction of the Rangers into the market didn't help bring about the demise of the Americans is either naive, ignorant or both. Tex Rickard went back on his word, founded a team to directly compete with the Americans, and is as responsible as anyone for their end. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. (Lovely story about Norris, by the way. Has nothing to do with our topic, but thanks for the history lesson. Imagine, some of the founding fathers of the NHL were less than reputable sorts! Astonishing.)
Now Montreal "Canadiens" -- that's an original name. Especially for the biggest city in a province that doesn't even want to be part of Canada.
If you knew your history, you would probably leave the Canadiens name and any comments about separatism out of this conversation. Montreal and its citizens have always been very proud of their roots in Quebec AND Canada, and in every referendum or election where separatism is an issue, the city of Montreal and it's surrounding municipalities votes overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in Canada. As for the team name, "Canadiens" is an ancient term used by the original French inhabitants of the province of Quebec. It has a 500 year history and association with the francophone people and the Canadiens carry it proudly as Quebec's representative to the world. The Habs themselves have categorically stated that, should the unthinkable happen and Quebec actually leave Canada, the Canadiens name would remain as is.
How many Cups would you have won without the 50-mile rule, eh?
Ah, the 50 mile rule. Whenever talk gets to the success of the Canadiens, someone brings up the 50 mile rule. No one talks about the advantages the Leafs enjoyed handpicking the best and brightest out of Ontario, or the Red Wings enjoyed by plucking the best out of the Southwestern Ontario/Winsdor/Sarnia hockey hotbed (don't forget, most of the Leafs 13 Cups and the Wings 10 Cups came before the effects of the oh-so-unfair 50 mile rule were eliminated thanks to the draft). No, it's only the Canadiens who greatly benefited. It couldn't have been the excellent scouting system, shrewd trades, or foresight to sponsor junior teams across the country that helped.
Was the core of the franchise French Canadian kids? Yes. Were the Canadiens merely playing by the rules set out by the league they were part of? Yes. Were the Rangers, Bruins, and Blackhawks at a competitive disadvantage due to geography before the rule was lifted? Yes. Should the Canadiens apologize for it? Should I feel guilty about it? Hell no. Should I point out the Habs claimed almost half of their Cups after the rule was lifted, thanks to excellent hockey decisions, while the Rangers continued to flounder?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Habs management in the 50's and 60's probably still would have had the inside track on French Canadian kids like the Richards, Beliveau, Geoffrion and Moore because they wanted to play for their hometown team, but let's for a minute pretend some of them escaped the Canadiens vast scouting network and sponsored leagues. How many Cups would have gone elsewhere? Between 1950 and 1970, the Habs took ten titles. Say for argument's sake that they lose 3 to the Beliveau-led Bruins, 2 more to the Leafs, and 1 each to the Blackhawks and Wings. (I assume that since the 50 mile rule is no longer around, the Habs found a few gems in the suburbs of Toronto and remained competitive enough to grab 3 Cups in 20 years.) That's still 17 Cups in their history; maybe Frank Selke and Sam Pollock knew a thing or two about hockey after all. Don't hold out the magical 50 mile rule as a excuse for 50 years of Rangers bumbling.
And the Forum, that's a pretty famous arena. I love to visit it whenever I'm in Montreal -- oh wait, it doesn't exist anymore? Since when? Over TEN YEARS! But you said "The Montreal Forum just called" -- where from, a time machine?
Yes, the Forum no longer exists as an arena (although the building remains, having been converted into an entertainment venue ... so you could go visit if you wanted. Check out the history of "hockey's mailing address" in the concourse level). Other famous sites around the world that are no longer in existence as they once were include the Chicago Stadium, Maple Leaf Gardens, the Boston Garden, the lost Mayan city of Macchu Picchu, the Temple of Solomon, the walled city of Jericho ... the point is, being famous and being current aren't co-dependent. Fans in China and Russia and France all know the Forum whether it stands or not. I'm also pleased to see your logic will accept that an arena can make a phone call, but only if it is still standing, so you toss a time machine into the equation. That leap over the entire joke is mind boggling.
And what exactly happened back in the day to the Montreal Arena, which the Canadiens shared with the Montreal Wanderers? It burnt to the ground, under mysterious circumstances, forcing the Wanderers to disband. What was that you said about the Tex Rickard and the Amerks? And how about the Canadiens being part of the group that disbanded the NHA because they didn't like Eddie Livingstone, just because he was so innovative that his team beat them? Yeah, that's a history to be proud of.
Interesting theory on the Montreal Arena. I have no idea if the Canadiens intentionally burned down their own rink in order to destroy the already struggling Wanderers, but I think burning your own home down and being forced to move to your previous smaller home sounds a little counterproductive to running a successful business. It makes for a nice conspiracy theory but doesn't make Tex lying to the Americans about the terms of their MSG agreement any less true. And if "being part of the group" means being part of "every other team in the league" then yes, the Habs up and left Livingstone and helped form the NHL. I'd like to think all those teams didn't take their puck and go home merely because Livingstone's team was successful; it might have also been because Livingstone could be a royal pain-in-the-ass. Of course, you probably know it was the Wanderers ownership who spearheaded the drive to get Livingstone out, but that wasn't a convenient fit for your rant.
And you had to go down to 7th place to find names you can make fun of on the all-time scoring list -- skipping over Rod Gilbert, Brian Leetch, Jean Ratelle, Andy Bathgate, Mark Messier, and Walt Tkaczuk. What, you couldn't come up with any jokes about those guys?
Yeah, I made fun of some of the low-hanging fruit on the Rangers all-time scoring list. If you had paid attention, that's kind of the point. Like it or not, Steve Vickers and Adam Graves aren't on the tip of the tongue when someone says "all-time greatest NHLer's", yet there they are, among the top ten Rangers scorers of all-time. It was a dig at your team's lack of star power over the years, and I think a rather good one. Look at the Habs all time top scorers for comparison:
1. Lafleur
2. Beliveau
3. H. Richard
4. M. Richard
5. Robinson
6. Cournoyer
7. Lemaire
8. Shutt
9. Geoffrion
10. Lach
Stars, every one of them; all Hall of Famers save Lemaire. That's what an all-time scorers list should look like; good God man, can't you see the humour in your team's history at all? Of course I skipped over Messier and Leetch and Gilbert. They are all-time greats and everyone knows it. I would laugh just as hard if somehow Denis Herron or Steve Penney was featured prominently amongst Plante, Dryden and Roy on a list of all time Habs goalies.
You idiots -- your site is pathetic. It sure looks like it has a lot of visitors. Too bad none of them like to leave comments.
If you'd like to respond, there's a wide-open comments section below my post on
fourhabsfans.com (as you pointed out, our comments section isn't exactly overflowing ... touche. Let us get a full year (and an actual hockey season) under our belts and see where our blog is.) However, you might want to re-read it so you don't go off again, accusing me of ignorance and foaming at the mouth over some harmless, tongue-in-cheek filler.
God help us if the Columbus bloggers get as angry over some goofy jokes, because I think Ten Things I Hate About the Bluejackets is next.
Cheers,
HabsFan10
