4 Step Fast Fix for the NHL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gee Wally

Old, Grumpy Moderator
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
74,324
88,119
HF retirement home
Joe_Strummer said:
why can't the league just "flush" the floaters? :D ... those are the kind of players I loathe as well


That's why I suggested a roster reduction... say 3 (or more) less skaters per team...

It would require the lower guys on the food chain to have a bit more skill..

I think you'd see more scoring too as the game progressed. The better conditioned guys would excel while those that weren't in shape would flounder.
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
Injektilo said:
Oh c'mon. There is a massive difference between goalies of 20 years ago and goalies of today. Teams didn't even have goalie coaches back then. When was the last time you watched a game from the 80's and studied the goalies? There's a massive difference between positioning in net, which is by far the most important aspect of goaltending today. As for pad size, Broduer and Hasek have been the two best goalies of the last decade, and they wear less padding than almost all other goalies. It matters, but not nearly enough as positioning and technique do. Go watch a game from the 80's and tell me the goalies were just as good back then. I'd take any backup from today's goalies over any star goalie from before the early 90's.


And players are much much better coached today. I remember a Don Cherry quote from when he used to coach the bruins, and he described teaching a new player all the teams plays on napkin over lunch.
Coaching is all about systems and analysis and videotape, and it's far more pervasive than it was 20 years ago.



Jesus, just watch a frickin game from the 80's and tell me it's the exact same thing...

First of all, do not use the Lord's name in vein in any thread in which you are addressing me.

Second, have I ever watched a game from the 80's? Of course I have. I have one of the largest collections of game tapes in the US. I actually worked as a goalie coach for awhile a long time ago, and I was one of the few remaining stand-up goaltenders when I finished playing.

Next, the fact that you claim that positioning has gotten better simply proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Positioning was the entire basis for the stand-up style. If you didn't have good positioning, you didn't stop any pucks.

Positioning is exactly what is wrong with today's goalies. The butterfly is great against people who cannot shoot high. But if you play against players with skill, you are a good skater and you position yourself like the best positional goalies did, the positional goalies have a distinct advantage over the butterfly guys. I played against butterfly guys and I ate them for lunch because of positioning.

You take your backup from today. I will take Ken Dryden.

Find someone who saw Dryden play who would take Manny Fernandez or Roberto Luongo over him.

Players are better coached today, but the plays aren't any more advanced than they were before. The trap has been around since the 50's in case you didn't know. The Russians played it in '56. Today's plays are simply taken from the past.

You young whippersnappers and your myopic viewpoints... :shakehead
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
Zednik said:
How about bigger nets ? I would add 6 inches on the left, 6 inches on the right. We would see more goals, and more exciting games IMO.

That is one thing I wouldn't do. Certain things should not be messed with, as far as I am concerned. There need to be five players on the ice in regulation. The nets need to be 6x4. There have to be bluelines. The redline needs to be there for cosmetic purposes (and nothing else). I would even stick to the North American ice surface.
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
Munchausen said:
This would be a terrible mistake. Watch some European hockey. The no red line rule only encourages teams to play more defensively. You think this will open up the game? Not in the least. It will just have the coaches have their Dmen stay deeper, more trapping, less pinching... I never want to see the no red line rule in the NHL.



No way this ever happens under Bettman. 1-2, if they struggle in the post-CBA era, maybe. 9? Never going to happen.

You never know. The NHL has a unique opportunity to reinvent itself without getting the say-so of the NHLPA. If they were ever going to do it, now is the time. And I think we could see some drastic changes.
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
futurcorerock said:
Did i really just read that people want to outlaw the Butterfly?

All the maneuver does is make goalies efficient on the 2nd, 3rd shots. This maneuver is also great for the NHL we see today where guys like Rick Nash who utilize the technique of camping in front of the net and finding the puck on his stick and the goalie with a hole.

There are plenty of ways to beat a butterfly goaltender. Kinda forgot one thing about the Butterfly: Immobility across the crease.

Namely, putting him out of position with dekes and trick maneuvers.
.

Ding ding ding!

Positioning is the downside of the butterfly.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Top Shelf said:
Agreed. To me that is what widening the ice would solve. The skill players need to space to move more than anything else IMO. We can talk about bigger blue lines, crackdowns on obstruction and tag up off sides rules til we are blue in the face but to me these are minor changes that wouldn't see any real significant improvements to the on ice product. Yeah a combination of these things should increase goal scoring but would it be anything to make the average sports fan take notice - I doubt it.

Wider, international size ice is never going to happen.

There was a window of opportunity right before the last round of expansion right before the flurry of new arena construction.

To do it now would cost the owners at least 3 rows of the most expensive seats all around the rink.
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
Top Shelf said:
Agreed. To me that is what widening the ice would solve. The skill players need to space to move more than anything else IMO. We can talk about bigger blue lines, crackdowns on obstruction and tag up off sides rules til we are blue in the face but to me these are minor changes that wouldn't see any real significant improvements to the on ice product. Yeah a combination of these things should increase goal scoring but would it be anything to make the average sports fan take notice - I doubt it.

That's why I suggested contraction.

Do you honestly think that Mogilny, Jagr and Modano are interested in clutching and grabbing?

If you contract, the pluggers go away. There are fewer jobs available, so teams aren't going to play pluggers. And the stars aren't going to play in the AHL.

Contraction would solve several problems at once.

1. The teams that cannot stay afloat on their own can go away now and allow the NHL to trim the fat.

2. It gets rid of the pluggers, while showcasing the stars more.

3. It keeps salaries low. If you roll back to 20 teams, then you have 20 possible teams for which to play instead of 30. How could someone like Darius Kasparaitus ask for $5m a season when he's now considered below average because the wheat has been separated from the chaff. Because of contraction, every team can ice DMen better than Darius. If he wants to play, he has to ask less. If he sits out? So what? There are only 19 other teams in a league that EVERYONE wants to play in.
 

Flyboy34

Registered Something
Jul 7, 2003
395
0
33,000 FT
6. As the average skill level increases, the need for a reduction in goalie equipment size is reduced.
 
Last edited:

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
1. Call the rules as written each and every time regardless of score, time, player, or team.

2. Move goal lines back to ten-feet.

3. Call the rules as written.

4. Reinstate tag up offsides.

5. Call the rules as written.

6. Automatic icings.

7. Call the rules as written.

8. Increase the size of the neutral zone (easily accomplished by either moving the blue lines two feet each or painting the lines thicker).

9. Continual training and monitoring of referees.

10. Really stick to the “15 second†face off rule.

11. Call the rules as written.
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
Hockee said:
First of all, do not use the Lord's name in vein in any thread in which you are addressing me.

Second, have I ever watched a game from the 80's? Of course I have. I have one of the largest collections of game tapes in the US. I actually worked as a goalie coach for awhile a long time ago, and I was one of the few remaining stand-up goaltenders when I finished playing.

Next, the fact that you claim that positioning has gotten better simply proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Positioning was the entire basis for the stand-up style. If you didn't have good positioning, you didn't stop any pucks.

Positioning is exactly what is wrong with today's goalies. The butterfly is great against people who cannot shoot high. But if you play against players with skill, you are a good skater and you position yourself like the best positional goalies did, the positional goalies have a distinct advantage over the butterfly guys. I played against butterfly guys and I ate them for lunch because of positioning.

You take your backup from today. I will take Ken Dryden.

Find someone who saw Dryden play who would take Manny Fernandez or Roberto Luongo over him.

Players are better coached today, but the plays aren't any more advanced than they were before. The trap has been around since the 50's in case you didn't know. The Russians played it in '56. Today's plays are simply taken from the past.

You young whippersnappers and your myopic viewpoints... :shakehead



By positioning in net I'm refering to the fact that goalies today go down on their knees alot more than they used to, which stops alot of shots that used to go in. I remember one analyst on CBC back in the early 90s constantly saying that the vast majority of goals go in along the ice, not in the air. Good goalies today are the ones that drop down in the butterfly to stop low shots and then can get back to their feet just as fast to cover the rebound. The good goalies are the ones that can move back and forth across the crease on their knees (covering the lower area of the net) and then at the same time are big enough to take away the top part of the net. Kinda like Luongo.


I'd just like to highlight this :

Positioning is exactly what is wrong with today's goalies. The butterfly is great against people who cannot shoot high. But if you play against players with skill, you are a good skater and you position yourself like the best positional goalies did, the positional goalies have a distinct advantage over the butterfly guys. I played against butterfly guys and I ate them for lunch because of positioning.

So, you admit that todays players are much more skilled, ie they skate faster, shoot harder etc, and yet today's goalies are worse than they were 20 years ago? So why isn't scoring twice as high as it was 20 years ago? Or do you mean today's NHLers just don't know how to shoot high? Sure, a crappy butterfly goalie who can't rise to his feet again is gonna suck, but all the NHL calibre ones don't have that problem. Why would there be a trend over the last 15 years towards butterfly goalies and away from stand-up goalies if they're worse netminders? If it's just the size of the equipment that makes today's goalies better, why aren't there any standup goalies with huge equipment? They'd be invincible! Oh, wait there was Chechmanek..... and we know how well he's done.

You may have been a goalie coach years ago, but I'm speaking from talking to friends of mine who are goalie coaches today and who are taking lessons today. They tell me the position is constantly changing, it's still evolving and stuff they were told ten years ago they're told not to do anymore. Technique is by far the most important aspect of being a strong goalie.


Go back and watch some of those games from the 80s you have then, and watch guys using wooden sticks take wristshots from the tops of the circles that go right along the ice and into the corner of the net.

Players are more skilled today than there were before, it's silly to think goalies are less skilled today than they were before.


And my points on over-coaching detracting from the spontinaity of the game are much better put in this thread than I ever could.



you old fogeys and your stuck-in-the-past ways..... :shakehead
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
A big factor for moder goalies is that their equipment has been lightened a lot through the years. You take goalies that had played with both kinds of equipment, like Grant Fuhr when they changed to the newer and lighter pads. You would think those guys felt like they had no equipment on at all when they got the lighter pads.

I think the lighter goalie pads and equipment has led to the increase of the butterfly style also, not just being better trained. With the older heavier equipment a lot of goalies if they were laying down all the time to make saves would not have had quite the same speed to get back up, especially by the third period or later in the game.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Top Shelf said:
Agreed. To me that is what widening the ice would solve.

<<<snipped>>>

Instead they will add thicker blue lines and try to enforce the infamous "crackdown on obstruction".
Unfortunately, the time to increase rink size was prior to the expansion of the 90s . . . . most teams are in new buildings and I don’t think the owners are willing to absorb the coast to retro fit the arenas (if it were at all structurally possible in the first place).

So we’re stuck with the smaller rink . . . . however, if you increase the neutral zone (which the thicker blue lines will do) and call infractions as written (particularly obstruction penalties) there should be a marked increase in the game’s flow (something that I dearly miss). The league has to be serious about the obstruction calls, to the point where referees can be fined, suspended, or fired for continually missing calls.


(Yeah, I'm a dreamer . . . . but a gal's gotta have hope, right?)
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
Oh, and reducing the size of the goalie equipment has nothing to do with firewagon hockey. Sure, more goals will go in, but it just means the same number of scoring chances will happen. There will still be the same sort of neutral zone clogged hockey.


Make the width of the rink bigger, remove a few teams or reduce the size of rosters in order to get rid of the worst players on each team, and make the neutral zone longer. Then call games the way the WJC's this year were called, any stick contact on a player with the puck is a penalty. Once players learn that (it may take a few months of games full of four on four and three on three because of the penalties...) the obstruction will drop and the skilled players will have more room to work.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Injektilo said:
Oh, and reducing the size of the goalie equipment has nothing to do with firewagon hockey. Sure, more goals will go in, but it just means the same number of scoring chances will happen. There will still be the same sort of neutral zone clogged hockey.


Make the width of the rink bigger, remove a few teams or reduce the size of rosters in order to get rid of the worst players on each team, and make the neutral zone longer. Then call games the way the WJC's this year were called, any stick contact on a player with the puck is a penalty. Once players learn that (it may take a few months of games full of four on four and three on three because of the penalties...) the obstruction will drop and the skilled players will have more room to work.
What correlation is there between reducing the number of teams and improving the on ice product (which I gather is the point of your initial changes)?

I think it is a fallacy to assert that expansion has watered down the talent level of the league. On the whole, I believe that today’s players are more skilled, better trained, exceptionally well coached, bigger, and more fit compared to their counter parts of ten or twenty years ago. Additionally, scouting has moved beyond Canadian juniors and now includes American colleges (plus high schools and prep schools) and Europe. The influx of Europeans alone has provided enough players to warrant the addition of eight or ten teams.

The problem with today’s NHL has nothing to do with the talent level (which is exceedingly high) and everything to do with rule changes and lack of enforcement. Over the past ten/fifteen years the goal lines have moved from ten to thirteen feet (the AHL is now playing at eleven-feet as a test), tag up offsides has been removed, obstruction as been “tweaked,†reduced the neutral zone, and so on. Factor in inconsistent to downright poor officiating (or more accurately a mindset that says “let them play it outâ€) it is no wonder very smart coaches have designed and implemented schemes whose sole purpose is to take advantage of the lack of rule enforcement while neutralizing the more “skilled†player.

Now, specifically regarding contraction of teams, it isn’t going to happen. It would cost the league entirely too much money. Not only would the league have to pay the owner for the franchise, but also would have to honor valid player contracts (those not picked up by other teams), pay off any outstanding building leases/rents, and return any monies earned from advertising or broadcasting. So, no I do not think the league will contract any teams. Now, allowing a team to fold or preventing them from relocating (thereby forcing them to fold on their on accord) is a horse of a different color.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
HockeyCritter said:
Unfortunately, the time to increase rink size was prior to the expansion of the 90s . . . . most teams are in new buildings and I don’t think the owners are willing to absorb the coast to retro fit the arenas (if it were at all structurally possible in the first place).

So we’re stuck with the smaller rink . . . . however, if you increase the neutral zone (which the thicker blue lines will do) and call infractions as written (particularly obstruction penalties) there should be a marked increase in the game’s flow (something that I dearly miss). The league has to be serious about the obstruction calls, to the point where referees can be fined, suspended, or fired for continually missing calls.


(Yeah, I'm a dreamer . . . . but a gal's gotta have hope, right?)

Nothing wrong w/ dreaming - I'm right there with you.

Somebody brought this point up in a thread a few months ago. It was in regards to having minimum and maximum rink dimensions. It would be at each team's discretion (and cost) to decide what size rink they wanted. This would add to a home ice advantage, teams could build based on the size of the rink (larger ice surface = faster team, smaller ice surface = larger stronger team). The cost would be absorbed by that franchise.

I thought it was an interesting idea and over time as new rinks are built or redesigned the cost of installing a larger ice surface would be built in if a team chose to move to the larger ice surface.

I like most of the ideas tossed around here but I just don't think they will have the desired impact the NHL is looking for. I think it will take something drastic like a larger rink, 4 v 4 or bigger nets to really have a noticeable effect. Regardless as a fan I am open to anything the NHL wants to try. More than anything, even though I'm satisfied w/ the current game, I like that the NHL is recognizing that they need a shot in the arm in terms of increasing the quality of the on-ice product to the avg fan and appear to be serious about making changes to the game to achieve their goals.

Next step - marketing.
 

Hockee

Registered User
Feb 22, 2005
43
0
Albuquerque
HockeyCritter said:
What correlation is there between reducing the number of teams and improving the on ice product (which I gather is the point of your initial changes)?

Common sense.

10 fewer teams means 250 fewer players. Who's gonna go? Will it be equally distributed amongst the leading scorers and the pluggers? Or will it just be pluggers?

So you have 20 teams, 500 jobs. Only the 500 best players would get those jobs. 250 fewer pluggers. You could even reduce the roster size a little more if you wanted to.

Do you still not see it? That's why people have talked about contraction in the first place. That's the only reason anyone would ever want to do it. Fewer teams means that the remaining teams get better players. Better players improves the quality of on-ice product.

And yes, expansion diluted the talent in the NHL. That is not debatable. Sure, expansion coincided with the opening of Europe (for the most part), but if it hadn't been for expansion, those players (the best of them, anyway), would be playing for 21 teams, not 30.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Hockee said:
Common sense.

10 fewer teams means 250 fewer players. Who's gonna go? Will it be equally distributed amongst the leading scorers and the pluggers? Or will it just be pluggers?

So you have 20 teams, 500 jobs. Only the 500 best players would get those jobs. 250 fewer pluggers. You could even reduce the roster size a little more if you wanted to.

Do you still not see it? That's why people have talked about contraction in the first place. That's the only reason anyone would ever want to do it. Fewer teams means that the remaining teams get better players. Better players improves the quality of on-ice product.

And yes, expansion diluted the talent in the NHL. That is not debatable. Sure, expansion coincided with the opening of Europe (for the most part), but if it hadn't been for expansion, those players (the best of them, anyway), would be playing for 21 teams, not 30.
Talent “dilution†is certainly debatable; I just debated you on this very point. If you disagree with my points that’s fine, but to summarily dismiss the possibility is a wee bit on the sanctimonious side.

Regarding your stated viewpoint that fewer teams ensure that only the “best†players will be afforded roster spots, I respectfully disagree. North American hockey is not like most European leagues where the players rely primarily on the finesse and less on the grunt. Every team is going to need its pluggers and grinders, it’s fourth line lunch pail group to augment the skill set of the “skilled†players. If there were to be a 30-percent reduction in the workforce, that reduction would be nearly evenly spread across all matter of players. Each team is going to require two goalies, a scoring line or two, a shut down line, and an energy line.

Reducing the number of teams, thereby reducing the number of player will do nothing to improve the quality of the game. What’s wrong with today’s game has nothing to do with the quality of player, the number of teams, or even the location of the franchise but everything to do with lack of rule enforcement, smaller neutral zones, crowded ice surface, and rule changes as well as smarter players and coaches and better conditioned athletes.

While one can understand those who wax nostalgically about days gone by, the simple fact is that things change. To remain stagnate is to sign a death warrant.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
HockeyCritter said:
Regarding your stated viewpoint that fewer teams ensure that only the “best†players will be afforded roster spots, I respectfully disagree. North American hockey is not like most European leagues where the players rely primarily on the finesse and less on the grunt. Every team is going to need its pluggers and grinders, it’s fourth line lunch pail group to augment the skill set of the “skilled†players. If there were to be a 30-percent reduction in the workforce, that reduction would be nearly evenly spread across all matter of players. Each team is going to require two goalies, a scoring line or two, a shut down line, and an energy line.

I think contraction wouldn't decimate the bottom 3rd of players, but the middle third.

Your top line players will pretty much be unaffected.

Your fourth line grinders will also pretty much be unaffected - because in general they are inexpensive.

The players who will be most affected will be:

Your 2nd tier 1st line scorer will be bumped down to a second line player - how will they adjust to reduced ice time, stats, and eventually $'s.

Your second line scorer who is not physical enough to play on a 3rd or 4th line. He will be squeezed out by more talented 1st line players and will not be effective in a 3rd or 4th line role.

Your more expensive veteran 3rd line player who will have to battle cheaper, younger players.

I know this wasn't meant to be yet another CBA thread, but I'll digress:

Obviously, players don't want contraction, which is why I think if the lockout continues too much longer, the league may very well consider playing the contraction card as a threat. How would the NHLPA react to the prospect of >10% of their members being out of work and the resulting disruption if supply & demand driving down salaries.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
Munchausen said:
The problem with the league isn't the goals scored. It's the scoring chances.
No, the problem is goalies. The whole idea of what constitutes a scoring chance has changed because goalies are so good.

If you don't believe it, ask yourself this. When was the last time that you saw a forward skate down the the wing and then fire a shot past the goal from 20-40 feet out on any kind of angle. Almost never anymore. It used to happen all the time. That used to be a good scoring chance. It isn't anymore. It would be considered a weak goal.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
kdb209 said:
I think contraction wouldn't decimate the bottom 3rd of players, but the middle third.

Your top line players will pretty much be unaffected.

Your fourth line grinders will also pretty much be unaffected - because in general they are inexpensive.

The players who will be most affected will be:

Your 2nd tier 1st line scorer will be bumped down to a second line player - how will they adjust to reduced ice time, stats, and eventually $'s.

Your second line scorer who is not physical enough to play on a 3rd or 4th line. He will be squeezed out by more talented 1st line players and will not be effective in a 3rd or 4th line role.

Your more expensive veteran 3rd line player who will have to battle cheaper, younger players.

I know this wasn't meant to be yet another CBA thread, but I'll digress:

Obviously, players don't want contraction, which is why I think if the lockout continues too much longer, the league may very well consider playing the contraction card as a threat. How would the NHLPA react to the prospect of >10% of their members being out of work and the resulting disruption if supply & demand driving down salaries.

It would be especially hard on the back up goalies if the earth crashed into the sun - which has as much chance of happening as contraction. And is worth about the same amount of talk.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
Hockee said:
That's why I suggested contraction.

<snip>
3. It keeps salaries low. If you roll back to 20 teams, then you have 20 possible teams for which to play instead of 30. How could someone like Darius Kasparaitus ask for $5m a season when he's now considered below average because the wheat has been separated from the chaff. Because of contraction, every team can ice DMen better than Darius. If he wants to play, he has to ask less. If he sits out? So what? There are only 19 other teams in a league that EVERYONE wants to play in.

How will it keep salaries low at the time of contraction? Contract 9 teams & the players who will be signed by the remaining teams will logically be the better players. Their salaries are already higher & their contracts are guaranteed (you can bet those salary figures would carry over even if the teams were contracted). [The Lightning seem to always be a favorite target for contraction. Let’s say we have three players who would be gobbled up in Lecavalier ($4.75M), Richards ($3M this year, I believe) and Kubina ($2M+). This leaves out St. Louis (anticipated $5M) and Khabibulin ($6.75M). Which teams are going to be able to comfortably add that kind of guaranteed payroll increase without severe salary dumps or putting them over an assumed salary cap?] Seems to me that all this will accomplish would be to *increase* the overall salaries for the remaining teams right off the bat, especially when you consider that to accommodate the incoming stars, other players will have to be cut & their contracts will still have to be paid. Add those players on at their existing salaries and come contract renewal time, history indicates they're not going to ask for a new contract at a lower salary...

Can teams like Calgary, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Edmonton afford to add these additional salaries to their payrolls? Would cold, hard fiscal logic dictate those teams would be contracted so the more stable franchises would remain, even if they’re in “non-traditional†markets? Or would sentimentality rule the day, placing the already struggling franchises in an even more precarious position than they're already in?
 

Munchausen

Guest
Hockee said:
That's why I suggested contraction.

Do you honestly think that Mogilny, Jagr and Modano are interested in clutching and grabbing?

If you contract, the pluggers go away. There are fewer jobs available, so teams aren't going to play pluggers. And the stars aren't going to play in the AHL.

Contraction would solve several problems at once.

1. The teams that cannot stay afloat on their own can go away now and allow the NHL to trim the fat.

2. It gets rid of the pluggers, while showcasing the stars more.

3. It keeps salaries low. If you roll back to 20 teams, then you have 20 possible teams for which to play instead of 30. How could someone like Darius Kasparaitus ask for $5m a season when he's now considered below average because the wheat has been separated from the chaff. Because of contraction, every team can ice DMen better than Darius. If he wants to play, he has to ask less. If he sits out? So what? There are only 19 other teams in a league that EVERYONE wants to play in.

Similar results could be acheived in a much more realistic manner (than contracting 1/3 of the teams, a thing that would need to be done over the NHLPA's dead body) by getting rid of an entire line and reducing the roster number to about 19 players (2 healthy scratches). That way, you see more of the stars simply because they play more. The 4th line garbage is thrown out the window and they roll 3 lines at all times (no room for goons and bangers that can't hold a stick anymore).

It's not as drastic as your suggestion mind you, but I feel it has a better chance of happening than massive contraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->