4 Step Fast Fix for the NHL

[txpd]

You are wrong.

Players are better trained physically, but not mentally. There is no difference there.

The butterfly was around in the days of Gretzky and Kurri. They scored anyway.

Pads and equipment have had a huge effect. This is not debatable.

You're going to have to come back with a little more than you came with here, because frankly you are just talking out of your tailpipe.

I am not sure what you were watching in gretzky's 80's days. stand up goaltending was the style played by most goalies into the early 90's. watch some gretzky highlights and see how often the goalie is standing and waving his leg pad at the passing puck. Tony Esposito was about the only prominent Butterfly guy of that time. Fuhr was a standup, Billy Smith, standup.

Additionally there is a complete difference in philosophy between the stand up goalie and the butterfly goalie. The stand up goalie tries to move to stop the shot.
He reacts to the shot and tries to stop it. The butterfly goalie plays the net, not the shot. He gets in proper position then takes away all of the bottom of the net and leaves the top corners open. again...go back and look at those gretzky goals.
see how few of them were water bottle knockers.

You can cut down the pads, but goaltending will still be better. additionally in gretzky's time a team goaltending coach was a rare thing. now each team has one.

go ahead and contract all the teams you dont like, but i think the facts shoot down the theory that the talent is deluded from the 24 team days. Its seems you want to go back to a time when the league was 85% Canadian players. The fact is that as the NHL as grown so have its sources for players.

It used to be that American players in general and college players in particular were not given much of a chance at the NHL level. That was still the case when Adam Oates broke in...he was undrafted for god's sake. The Capitals got Peter Bondra in like the 7th round because they were the only team that scouted the guy in slovakia. THAT would never happen now. The fact is that European players and college players that were not given the chance for NHL careers in the past have filled those jobs created by expansion.

It wasnt long ago that russians were a rare in the NHL. its pretty obvious that there are a lot of outstanding russian players.

Lastly on that subject the 3rd line guys of 1985 couldnt keep up with the 3rd line guys of today. 3rd liners today are often defensive specialist that take top ice time. In 1985 they were just 3rd string and not that good.

 

[kdb209]

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).

It will keep salaries low for the same reason that the PA's 24% rollback offer was a joke - there currently not a lot of players under contract. Team's saw the lockout coming and signed very few players past '04-'05. IIRC from another thread, less than 1/2 of all players will be under contract (RFAs,UFAs) if play resumes in Oct. After next year, the number drops even further. And guaranteed contracts can be bought out - which might have to happen in the wake of contraction and a dispersal draft - but that's a one time cost leading to an overall lower salary environment.

BTW, I think contraction is a very unlikely event barring a very extended lockout or bad Impasse endgame leading to multiple franchise bankrupcies. Of course if a team does go bankrupt, you can kiss any guaranteed contract $'s out the window - just ask Mario.

 

[txomisc]

nope I don't like it. If a team is penalized that it really hurt. Also it would require more skill to move the puck out . They would have to clear the redline. Short handed or not.

More skill is what I'm hoping for all around with my suggestions.

Are you also for allowing the team with the man advantage to cross the blue line as if its not even there? You know there could be guys camp in front of the net and players can pass across the blueline all they want as long as they are on the powerplay

 

[kruezer]

Are you also for allowing the team with the man advantage to cross the blue line as if its not even there? You know there could be guys camp in front of the net and players can pass across the blueline all they want as long as they are on the powerplay

That would just be ridiculous IMO.

However, I agree with GW, I would make teams come to the redline to clear the zone on the PP, why not? It encourages puck possession, which is always good.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

It will keep salaries low for the same reason that the PA's 24% rollback offer was a joke - there currently not a lot of players under contract. Team's saw the lockout coming and signed very few players past '04-'05. IIRC from another thread, less than 1/2 of all players will be under contract (RFAs,UFAs) if play resumes in Oct.

RFAs will still have qualifying offers to be met if they're not under a current contract. The lowest under the NHLPA's proposals was 100%-105%-110%. Under the league's proposal, it could drop to 75%. Meet somewhere in the middle and the new team could likely still have to pick up 100% of this year's salary for an RFA from a contracted team. (Even using the 75% offered by the league, the player would simply immediately file for arbitration.)

Realistically, the only way I see that this plan would lower salaries is if every player in the NHL has his contract reworked. And the only way I see that working is if every player is declared UFA.

Chaos.

Point being, assuming that contracting nine teams will automatically guarantee lower salaries is just overly simplistic. It would be extremely complicated and it certainly wouldn't be cheap for anyone.

 

[me2]

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.

Contraction is grossly overrated.

1. New European players have filled the voids created by adding more teams. Hockey didn't just grab the next 200 lest talentented Canadians and stick them in uniforms, which seems to be how some people think about expansion. The Europeans are from new talent pools that were starting to be exploited on mass in the 90s. That is different from scrapping the bottom old existing (US & Can) pools.

There is as much talent around today as their was in the glory days of hockey. So lack of talent isn't the key problem.


2. Getting rid of the plumbers. Is Sakic more likely to undress Lidstrom or Malik? Is Igilna more likely to power past Pronger or Belak? The greater the mismatch the greater the chance the star has to showcase his skills.

If you get rid of the worst 30% of players you have just made all of the 3rd and 4th line checkers that much better. Better pluggers + trap = more effective trap. This is not a solution, its a bigger problem.

If you want better hockey target the true problems: the trap & clutch and grab. These make hockey boring, removing the worst players just makes the traps more efficient. If you want to get rid of large, slow, clutch and grab grunts, then enforce the rules. Try removing the red line, tag up offsides etc.


ZERO TOLERANCE: if you lay a hook on some guy even if its so minor it does nothing then call a 2 min penalty. No shades of grey, no letting it go because it didn't affect the skater. If the stick touches the skater, bing thats 2 mins. Players clutch and grab because they get away with it because refs are seeing things in shades of grey, "its a hook but its not too bad, I let the other side get away with one like that". Over time its shifting to more clutch and grab.

Make it so simple the players no not to hook and hold. 1 weeks and every player would have it worked out, very simple.

Goodbye big, slow, lumbering player. In come a new batch of faster more numble 5th and 6th Dmen. Up goes the tempo of the game. Powerforwards can power over the smaller Dman, speed merchants can zip without being hooked.


3. Yes it does lower salaries for each player. No it does not lower team total spending. The Rangers, Wings, TO, Philly and others would still over spend, they'd just get better value for their money. So what if Kasparaitus gets $5m, under contract his wage goes down but the Rags would spend that money on someone else. If anything it just makes it harder for a team like Edmonton to compete.

If you want to keep wages down try a better strategy, like a cap (soft or hard).

 

[kdb209]

RFAs will still have qualifying offers to be met if they're not under a current contract. The lowest under the NHLPA's proposals was 100%-105%-110%. Under the league's proposal, it could drop to 75%. Meet somewhere in the middle and the new team could likely still have to pick up 100% of this year's salary for an RFA from a contracted team. (Even using the 75% offered by the league, the player would simply immediately file for arbitration.)

But not all of the RFAs on the contracted teams would necessarily be qualified. Not every player exposed to a post contraction dispersal draft would necessarily be selected. They would simly become a UFA if no team thought they were worth a qualifying offer.

And who knows what CBA environment this will be happening in - will there be 75% qualifying, will there be arbitration, what will the arbitration comps look like in a post contraction league?

It may take a season or two to settle out, but salaries will be lower in a post contraction world - supply and demand.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

But not all of the RFAs on the contracted teams would necessarily be qualified. Not every player exposed to a post contraction dispersal draft would necessarily be selected. They would simly become a UFA if no team thought they were worth a qualifying offer.

Of course not. But the examples I used were Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards and Pavel Kubina (not to mention Marty St. Louis). Do you really think they wouldn't be selected? I specifically referred only to the impact players everyone wants who are already making multi-millions. Taking them in a dispersal draft simply will not lower payrolls wherever they end up.

And who knows what CBA environment this will be happening in - will there be 75% qualifying, will there be arbitration, what will the arbitration comps look like in a post contraction league?

The original proposition in the first thread of this post didn't mention any of that, it just said to contract 9 teams. Going under the premise of the thread, we have to assume there will be qualifying and arbitration.

It may take a season or two to settle out, but salaries will be lower in a post contraction world - supply and demand.

I still don't see it happening, at least not to the degree some seem to think it will. You have your own players. You dump a bunch to make room for top players from other teams, who have the highest salaries. A season or two go by -- then you make offers to all these players for considerably less than what they're currently making and expect them to take it? Pay cuts would have to be considerable to lower the higher paid players & make room for the increasing salaries of the lower paid players -- you can't cut pay for everyone every contract. Our beloved boys have shown they have no qualms about playing for less elsewhere rather than being sensible -- they may take their supply & demand back to Europe rather than suffer drastically reduced salaries here.

Be that as it may -- there isn't going to be a post-contraction world, and if there is it certainly won't be to the tune of 9 teams. But it's fun to talk about and see the differing points of view. I just think it's a lot more complex than many here seem to consider, and I really don't think the sure-fire way to quick fix a league is to destroy nearly a third of it.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

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.

First off, let me just offer a note to the beauty of these (and any) boards. Twice, in a thread that's lasted half a day and included almost 60 posts, someone has suggested that an assertion "isn't debatable." I think we're proving that most anything is debatable.

As to this thread, and to goalie play in particular, the increased skill of goalies is compounded by the rise in the importance placed on defensive schemes, plus the lack of enforcement of obstruction and the like. Not to mention the size of the players. One of the reasons you don't see the kind of chances arnie refers to above is because players don't have the time or space to accomplish that on a regular basis. So the shot is never as precise as it might be if the player could settle it on his stick, or take an extra split-second to really transfer his weight. You need a better qualityn of shot to beat today's (on the whole, mind you) better-positioned, more athletic goalies.

This thread includes a lot of interesting ideas toward "opening up" the game. Rule enforcement will always be a bit subjective, but it's the best single way to accomplish it. Well, other than expanding the size of the ice surface, which I think we've all agreed isn't going to happen. Hey, what if we petitioned teams to take their $300 million lockout fund to re-do the rinks?

 

[LordHelmet]

I've had an idea for a while to crack down on the obstruction, interference, etc.. Everyone pretty much agrees that the problem is that the refs don't call it. Why don't they call it? Easy. The refs don't want to be seen as deciding the game. They want to let the players play, so they only call the most blatant infractions.

Based on that concept, it stands to reason that increasing the penalty for committing one of these infractions - say forcing all power plays to last 2 minutes - makes the refs less likely to blow the whistle.

If you want the calls to be made, you need reduce the impact they have on the outcome of the game. Leave obstruction & interference as 2 minute penalties, but take away the change in manpower. For each obstruction/interference infraction after that, you sit an additional 2 minutes. Oh, and for stats purposes, if you're in the box for O/I, you get a - if the other team scores, but can't get a + if your team scores..

This accomplishes three things:
1) Taking away the change in manpower allows the ref to make the call without the fans & media thinking that he decided the game by giving team 'A' a power play.

2) Guys that consistently obstruct & interfere will get less ice time. If you do it just 4 times in a game, you're sitting in the box for almost 8 minutes. Your coach has to adjust his lines & pairings for half a period. This naturally means that..

3) Star players will cut O&I from their game entirely. Coaches will want their best players available, and will tell guys to cut out the O/I. Goal scorers & playmakers that negotiate contracts based on their scoring totals won't want their ice-time reduced. Defensive guys won't want to risk hits to their +/-.

4) Guys that consistently O&I will become less valuable to their teams. They will make fewer rosters and get less ice-time. Guys that play without O&I will become more valuable.

 

[Hockee]

I am not sure what you were watching in gretzky's 80's days. stand up goaltending was the style played by most goalies into the early 90's. watch some gretzky highlights and see how often the goalie is standing and waving his leg pad at the passing puck. Tony Esposito was about the only prominent Butterfly guy of that time. Fuhr was a standup, Billy Smith, standup.

Additionally there is a complete difference in philosophy between the stand up goalie and the butterfly goalie. The stand up goalie tries to move to stop the shot.
He reacts to the shot and tries to stop it. The butterfly goalie plays the net, not the shot. He gets in proper position then takes away all of the bottom of the net and leaves the top corners open. again...go back and look at those gretzky goals.
see how few of them were water bottle knockers.

You can cut down the pads, but goaltending will still be better. additionally in gretzky's time a team goaltending coach was a rare thing. now each team has one.

go ahead and contract all the teams you dont like, but i think the facts shoot down the theory that the talent is deluded from the 24 team days. Its seems you want to go back to a time when the league was 85% Canadian players. The fact is that as the NHL as grown so have its sources for players.

It used to be that American players in general and college players in particular were not given much of a chance at the NHL level. That was still the case when Adam Oates broke in...he was undrafted for god's sake. The Capitals got Peter Bondra in like the 7th round because they were the only team that scouted the guy in slovakia. THAT would never happen now. The fact is that European players and college players that were not given the chance for NHL careers in the past have filled those jobs created by expansion.

It wasnt long ago that russians were a rare in the NHL. its pretty obvious that there are a lot of outstanding russian players.

Lastly on that subject the 3rd line guys of 1985 couldnt keep up with the 3rd line guys of today. 3rd liners today are often defensive specialist that take top ice time. In 1985 they were just 3rd string and not that good.

You still don't get it.

Talent *is* diluted.

The infusion of Europeans happened. It would have happened even without expansion (especially since it began before expansion). Now there are 30 teams. If not for expansion, these same players would be competing for jobs on 21 teams.

It's a fact. Expansion has diluted talent.

 

[Hockee]

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?

You're acting under the assumption that there would be contraction, and then a CBA signed with the NHLPA. If the NHL decides to contract, it will be to reformat the league. It would only do that if it had no intention on signing a CBA.

Make no mistake about it. A new CBA kills the league. Period. It would simply be a bandaid.

A new CBA is bad for fans. It creates a stopgap, whereby we see no real change because the owners would have to compromise in order to maintain the status quo.

We as fans do not want the status quo. We want what we had in the 80's, and that can't happen with a new CBA with the NHLPA. The NHL needs to revamp itself and THEN perhaps look at some form of union.

 

[Hecht]

what's firewagon hockey????

 

[Hockee]

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.

It's worse for the fans than my idea.

The NHLPA is all but dead now. The NHL owners can starve out the PA. If a new deal isn't in place by September (and for the sake of the NHL, I hope it isn't), then the PA is completely dead.

If that happens, contraction is very likely. I would like to see 9 team contract, but we'll see what happens.

 

[Hockee]

RFAs will still have qualifying offers to be met if they're not under a current contract. The lowest under the NHLPA's proposals was 100%-105%-110%. Under the league's proposal, it could drop to 75%. Meet somewhere in the middle and the new team could likely still have to pick up 100% of this year's salary for an RFA from a contracted team. (Even using the 75% offered by the league, the player would simply immediately file for arbitration.)

Realistically, the only way I see that this plan would lower salaries is if every player in the NHL has his contract reworked. And the only way I see that working is if every player is declared UFA.

Chaos.

Point being, assuming that contracting nine teams will automatically guarantee lower salaries is just overly simplistic. It would be extremely complicated and it certainly wouldn't be cheap for anyone.

It's called capitalism.

Right now, there are so many pluggers that anyone with above average skills can expect $5m a year. See Uwe Krupp and Darius Kasparaitus.

However, after contraction, 1/3rd of the league is gone and you have fewer jobs with more people vying for them. It becomes a buyer's market automatically.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

You're acting under the assumption that there would be contraction, and then a CBA signed with the NHLPA. If the NHL decides to contract, it will be to reformat the league. It would only do that if it had no intention on signing a CBA.

Of course I am, because that's the premise set forth in the thread in the first place. The plan was:

1. Bring back the tag up offsides rule.
2. Eliminate the 2 line pass whistle.
3. Contract 9 teams.
4. Limit the size of goalie pads and ENFORCE the new rules.

There's no mention of any change as to unions, CBAs, qualifying offers, arbitration rules, etc., etc., therefore, I composed my response based on the plan as outlined by the originator of the thread.

 

[Hockee]

2. Getting rid of the plumbers. Is Sakic more likely to undress Lidstrom or Malik?

Do you want to see him go up against Lidstrom or Malik?

Is Igilna more likely to power past Pronger or Belak? The greater the mismatch the greater the chance the star has to showcase his skills.

Do you want to see Lidstrom defending Modano or Jamie Allison?

If you get rid of the worst 30% of players you have just made all of the 3rd and 4th line checkers that much better. Better pluggers + trap = more effective trap. This is not a solution, its a bigger problem.

So you think in a league full of skilled players, the skilled players are going to clutch and grab? Have you ever watched the World Cup or Olympics?

3. Yes it does lower salaries for each player. No it does not lower team total spending. The Rangers, Wings, TO, Philly and others would still over spend, they'd just get better value for their money.
If you want to keep wages down try a better strategy, like a cap (soft or hard).

Well no spit, Sherlock. Of course there's going to be a cap. That was a given. Contraction is IN ADDITION TO the cap. The PA even agreed to it. And my plan obviously would only go into place if the situation between the PA and owners doesn't improve by September, or if the owners decide that they want to improve the league.

 

[Paisano*]

How would you determine which 9 teams get the ax? If you go by support or attendance, you're going to lose some teams that have been around for a while- Chicago, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Washington among them. So there is no way that is going to happen. The NHL will stay at 30 teams, some may move to better markets but it will stay at 30. Decreasing the leagues footprint across North America only reduces visibilty in a league that is merely a shadow now. If they want to improve the game on the ice, go back to the rules of the 70's concerning goalie equipment, rules and go back to the one ref system. Bring the enforcers of the 70's back into the game to police their own game and that will stop the clutching, grabbing and cheap hits on the stars of the game. It will bring back the 50 goal scorers and the excitement of the game!!

 

[Hockee]

Of course I am, because that's the premise set forth in the thread in the first place. The plan was:



There's no mention of any change as to unions, CBAs, qualifying offers, arbitration rules, etc., etc., therefore, I composed my response based on the plan as outlined by the originator of the thread.

I am the originator of the thread. I guess I just operate under the assumption that everyone has come to the realization that the PA has lost. At this point, the PA holds absolutely NO POWER whatsoever. They lost.

My plan operates under the assumption that the NHL would retool and that the union would have to take on some other form. There's obviously a cap, that's not even a question. Old contracts mean nothing (they mean nothing right now, hate to break it to you...that's all over with).

 

[me2]

You still don't get it.

Talent *is* diluted.

The infusion of Europeans happened. It would have happened even without expansion (especially since it began before expansion). Now there are 30 teams. If not for expansion, these same players would be competing for jobs on 21 teams.

It's a fact. Expansion has diluted talent.

Is it your argument that talent on each team is substantially diluted from the 1980s to 2004? Or is that you think teams should be 50% stronger than in the 80s to provide the same level of entertainment (doesn't something seem faulty about that argument)?

There is about a 15% increase in Canadian population. 15% more hockey players to spread around, 15% more teams without loss of quality.

The ratio of European players to Canadian players has increase from between 1/9 to 3/5. That's a lot more more talent.

Per team the talent should be every bit as good as the 80s. Dillution has not ruined hockey (financially its been bad but not talent wise). The NHL has pretty much caught up now and the talent gap is filled. The problems are with the style of the games not the level of talent.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

How would you determine which 9 teams get the ax?

Same thing I was wondering. Seems the majority want "non-traditional" teams contracted, even if they're more successful than many of the old standards. I fear sentimentality would rule and the new system would be severely flawed from the get-go.

Decreasing the leagues footprint across North America only reduces visibilty in a league that is merely a shadow now.

Not to mention the hit its already diminishing credibility would take.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I am the originator of the thread. I guess I just operate under the assumption that everyone has come to the realization that the PA has lost. At this point, the PA holds absolutely NO POWER whatsoever. They lost.

No, they haven't.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I am the originator of the thread. I guess I just operate under the assumption that everyone has come to the realization that the PA has lost. At this point, the PA holds absolutely NO POWER whatsoever. They lost.

My plan operates under the assumption that the NHL would retool and that the union would have to take on some other form. There's obviously a cap, that's not even a question. Old contracts mean nothing (they mean nothing right now, hate to break it to you...that's all over with).

If every NHL player is essentially declared UFA ("old contreacts mean nothing" and every contract must be renegotiated), then that's an entirely different ballgame. I wasn't able to glean that from your original post -- I fear my ESP only extends to my boss, and that's only on my good days!

As for the old contracts meaning nothing now, in the real world that's something that will be determined by the new CBA. I seriously doubt the owners are going to declare every contract null and void.

 

[mymkovski]

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.

First time I've heard this, and I have to admit, I really like the idea. Definitely would be a very interesting addition to the game, and it would be very interesting to see what teams have what dimensions....

 

[me2]

Do you want to see him go up against Lidstrom or Malik?

Do you want to see Lidstrom defending Modano or Jamie Allison?

Both. I love watching stars blow by pylons with nifty moves.

I love watching elite defensemen counter those moves. If the star forward knows they won't work they probably dump it in or get penned in by the trap.

If all I get is elite defensemen countering moves with the help of elite defensive forwards, that's not so good. Watching a super talent team of elite trappers vs a super talented team of elite trappers = BORING BORING BORING.

Teams can play up tempo games if they want to, using the current levels of talent. Some teams already do. Teams just have to want to do. Contracting doesn't stop coaches implementing winning strategies and if the trap is most successful strategy then most will use it.

So you think in a league full of skilled players, the skilled players are going to clutch and grab?

Look around, the NHL is full of talent laden trapping teams or teams that employ dubious hooking and holding strategies. They do it, not because they are low on talent, but because the tactics work.

Have you ever watched the World Cup or Olympics?

Teams played an up tempo game at the olympics. Teams made a choice to play good hockey. NHL teams can make that choice too.