4 Step Fast Fix for the NHL

[Hockee]

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.

A new CBA would require the NHLPA to still have some sort of bargaining power. They have none. The NHLPA is dead.

Think outside the box. The writing is on the wall. The union is done.

 

[Hockee]

No, they haven't.

Keep telling yourself that.

Nobody is even arguing that the NHLPA holds any cards at all. They don't. They lost.

Goodenow cost the players $1b and has NOTHING to show for it.

 

[Munchausen]

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.

You can say it's worse for the fans, but if you want a discussion here, I'd appreciate if you could also argue a bit your point. Because honestly, I don't see how reducing the roster and bringing the forward lines to 3 is worse for the fans than contracting 9 teams (which all have fans).

Furthermore, I think you're underestimating the PA. They still have a lot of power on what goes on in the NHL just as long as they remain a union. The fact they'll have to cave on a financial level doesn't mean they are not an important part of hockey related decisions.

And how realistically do you go on and contract 9 teams? What teams do you contract? Who pays the 500+ millions it will take the league to do so? How do you convince 9 owners to give up on their assets, when all the last teams have gotten in this league on the likely promess from Bettman he would fix the financial problems and make it an attractive market for those expansion teams? What, he just stabs 'em all in the back now? He fights this lockout with the small market teams in mind only to kill them when all's over? It's never going to happen as long as Bettman is the NHL commissioner and even if he wasn't, it's easier to say contract 9 teams than actually do it by buying all the owners out.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The butterfly style was pioneered by Patrick Roy, and he was a rookie in 1986.

That is not true. The butterfly has been around for decades. Tony Esposito used the butterfly. Dan Bouchard used the butterfly. There are others that used the butterfly as well, many of them European stars like Tretiak and Zurilla. Lots of goaltenders used the butterfly but were not as successful for many reasons. The reason it was not popular is because the padding for a goaltender was not as good as it is today and when a goaltender went to his knees to cover the lower portion of the net he exposed his poorly padded upper body to the puck and took a beating. The large deer-hair leg pads were the best protection a goaltender had so he kept those square to the shooter and stopped the puck using his pads or gloves, rather than getting hit with the puck and bruised to the point of having to ice down after every single game, and some times periods. Once equipment started to improve for goaltenders the butterfly became a more realistic style to employ. Patrick Roy did not pioneer anything but become the first goaltender to attain uber-success by relying strictly on the style. Just wanted to add that very obvious correction.

 

[Gee Wally]

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

no..Team on the powerplay can't have guys offside. same as now.

Also ...I'm not a big fan of contraction...The game need exposure....

I'm a MUCH bigger fan of roster reduction. I think that would up the overall skill level.
It may also help in a cap and payroll situation.. I don't know..haven't given that aspect much thought ..it just dawned on me now.

I'm more focused on the overall improvement in the game than the dollar and cents.

 

[Munchausen]

I'm a MUCH bigger fan of roster reduction. I think that would up the overall skill level.
It may also help in a cap and payroll situation.. I don't know..haven't given that aspect much thought ..it just dawned on me now.

I agree 100%, reducing the roster is the way to go. Taking Atlanta as an example, that means you see more of the Heatley, Savard and Kovalchuk during a game and less of the Simon, Larsen and Lessard. Plus, it would force coaches to think a bit more about the offense since they will no longer be able to afford 2 checking lines.

As for the payroll reduction this will generate, well although it can only help, I think it would be insignificant. Given it's the 4th liners and reserve forwards who would get canned, that means no more than 1-2M on average per team. Still, that's 1-2M you can use to keep a franchise player longer.

I think whatever change the NHL think of, it should reward offense and aggressivity, so that coaches don't go for the trap and conservative systems. You have to find a logical reason for a coach to want to use 2 man forechecking, D pinching, less puck dumping and cycling, etc. That's why I like the shootout. Because even though traditionalists cringe when they hear the idea, the fact remains that coaches hate it so much that they would no longer play for the tie, they would coach for the win, either in regular time or in OT, so they don't have to go to a shootout. That in itself would IMO be a great indirect consequence of a SO on the way the game is played.

 

[Sotnos]

I'm all for :

...
Very unbalanced schedule .

Maybe I'm the only one who's confused here, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Enlighten me, please.

The idea of reduced roster size is something I hadn't thought of much before now, but you all are making some convincing arguments. Much more interesting idea than contraction, that's for sure.

 

[Gee Wally]

Maybe I'm the only one who's confused here, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Enlighten me, please.

The idea of reduced roster size is something I hadn't thought of much before now, but you all are making some convincing arguments. Much more interesting idea than contraction, that's for sure.

I want to go back to rivalries.. Now I know I can't go way back to my youth of The Original 6 when we played each team at least every other week with a lot of back to backs.. But the game needs MORE interdivisonal games.

Who the hell wants to see the 'Bolts when I want to see more of the Habs.

 

[Sotnos]

I want to go back to rivalries.. Now I know I can't go way back to my youth of The Original 6 when we played each team at least every other week with a lot of back to backs.. But the game needs MORE interdivisonal games.

OK, I thought that's what you meant, but wasn't entirely sure.

I go to games to see the Bolts and don't care about the opponent, but I think the SE teams would fight this for all they're worth. The snowbirds & transplants who hang on to old loyalties who (for better or worse) make up part of the Bolts ticket-buyers want to see their home teams, not the Panthers or the Thrashers. Same is true in south Florida and a few other markets, I'd imagine. Teams from the Northeast & teams with big bandwagon followings sell more tickets here. Throwing several more interdivisional games on the schedule isn't good for the bottom line IMO, though the difference may be marginal or disappear after a few years if these so called "rivalries" generate some interest. That's not to mention that we might see a repeat of the 'Tampa success effect' so opponents will become less important: i.e., once the Bucs started winning, it suddenly seemed there were a lot fewer Packers/Steelers/Cowboys/whatever fans around a whole lot more people claiming they'd been Bucs fans FOREVER.

From what I hear straight from the Bolts players themselves, rivalries get started in the playoffs, not the regular season, and I doubt they're the only guys who feel that way.

Who the hell wants to see the 'Bolts when I want to see more of the Habs.

You sound like my dad, but heck he's turning 80 this year, he's entitled to be set in his ways. He can't imagine why anyone would go see a new team when the Original Six still exist, lol. Variety is the spice of life Wally! Don't be like my dad, I know you're not that old, are ya?

[personal note: No, I'm not retirement age, my dad was pretty old when I was born]

 

[Beauty eh?]

How about eliminating the current amount of players a team can have on the bench? Basically, drop 5 skaters off each team for a game. This would eliminate each team's "4th line." Getting rid of those guys would allow for 2 scoring lines and 1 checking line only. The scoring players would get more playing time, and as a result there would be more goals per game by the average. And Joe Fan would be getting his money's worth, knowing he just dropped $50 to go to a game but at least got to see the top players play.

I know the friggin' PA would probably file a grievance over it though. But, if you can't contract teams, you contract players. Players who shouldn't be playing in the NHL as it is.

 

[Crossbar]

The snowbirds & transplants who hang on to old loyalties who (for better or worse) make up part of the Bolts ticket-buyers want to see their home teams, not the Panthers or the Thrashers. Same is true in south Florida and a few other markets, I'd imagine. Teams from the Northeast & teams with big bandwagon followings sell more tickets here.

Yup its the same here in South Florida.

BTW I like the idea of the NHL reducing the roster size.

 

[garry1221]

How about eliminating the current amount of players a team can have on the bench? Basically, drop 5 skaters off each team for a game. This would eliminate each team's "4th line." Getting rid of those guys would allow for 2 scoring lines and 1 checking line only. The scoring players would get more playing time, and as a result there would be more goals per game by the average. And Joe Fan would be getting his money's worth, knowing he just dropped $50 to go to a game but at least got to see the top players play.

I know the friggin' PA would probably file a grievance over it though. But, if you can't contract teams, you contract players. Players who shouldn't be playing in the NHL as it is.

or you eliminate those 5 players only to have your scoring lines get exhausted quicker in the latter stages of the game, thus resulting in more clinks off the post/crossbar, resulting in a game that has the potential for a good game, but stops short of a great game. we've gotta face it, there's no way around the number of dressed players... i agree with everyone who's already said that we need to bring the old rule books out of the dust and start using and enforcing them.

 

[djhn579]

How about eliminating the current amount of players a team can have on the bench? Basically, drop 5 skaters off each team for a game. This would eliminate each team's "4th line." Getting rid of those guys would allow for 2 scoring lines and 1 checking line only. The scoring players would get more playing time, and as a result there would be more goals per game by the average. And Joe Fan would be getting his money's worth, knowing he just dropped $50 to go to a game but at least got to see the top players play.

I know the friggin' PA would probably file a grievance over it though. But, if you can't contract teams, you contract players. Players who shouldn't be playing in the NHL as it is.

Dropping the number of players on the bench may result in the top players getting tired. How about putting in a rule that at least 4 players on the game day roster must have less that 2 years NHL experience and each must have at least 10 minutes of ice time at the end of regulation? If a player is just on the team to be a goon, few teams are going to want to put them on the ice for 10 minutes a game, and by forcing the use of less experienced players you create the opportunity for mismatches that the top players could exploit and possibly score more goals. This also gives the young guys a better chance to develop since they will be getting more ice time.

 

[Injektilo]

From what I hear straight from the Bolts players themselves, rivalries get started in the playoffs, not the regular season, and I doubt they're the only guys who feel that way.

Well, they used to get started in the regular season when there was only 6 teams obviously, but once you get to 21+ teams that gets a hell of alot more difficult.

I think with the Conference seeding the playoffs as opposed to the divisional seeding it makes it alot less likely that teams will face eachother multiple times over the years, which allows for rivalries to build up. There are flukes of course, like Dallas-Edmonton and Toronto - Ottawa, but it's not the same as when there were only three other teams you could play in the first two rounds of the playoffs, meaning as long as you kept making the playoffs there was at least one team you'd face at least every year. Now there are 7 different teams you can face at any point up to the conference finals, so it's only the fluke ones where you keep facing the other team year in and year out.

Rivalries really do have trouble building up, and it's a shame, because sometimes playing your biggest rival is the only thing exciting about a regular season game.

 

[Injektilo]

And regarding the "drop players from the roster" debate..... I think it's pretty obvious that coaches already play the most skilled players as much as possible, 25-30 minutes for defence and 20-25 minutes for forwards. If it were possible to play the most skilled players for 30-35 minutes they would, but at a certain point their abilities diminish when they're tired and it's better to use the less skilled players.

 

[Munchausen]

And regarding the "drop players from the roster" debate..... I think it's pretty obvious that coaches already play the most skilled players as much as possible, 25-30 minutes for defence and 20-25 minutes for forwards. If it were possible to play the most skilled players for 30-35 minutes they would, but at a certain point their abilities diminish when they're tired and it's better to use the less skilled players.

Not true at all. Lots of coaches will match their checking line (s) against the other team's top lines. The fact they have often 2 lines playing a checking role gives less ice time to the scoring forwards. I'm a habs fan and I've seen many games where Joe freakin Juneau got more ice time than guys like Koivu or Zednik. Coaches love to play defensive hockey. Take away from them the ability to have 2 offensive lines and 2 checking lines and you might see them finally giving the ice time to the guys that can score. Also, as far as time is concerned, 3 lines means around 20-25 minutes of ice for each line, give or take considering the special units ice time, not 30-35.

 

[Beauty eh?]

Not true at all. Lots of coaches will match their checking line (s) against the other team's top lines. The fact they have often 2 lines playing a checking role gives less ice time to the scoring forwards. I'm a habs fan and I've seen many games where Joe freakin Juneau got more ice time than guys like Koivu or Zednik. Coaches love to play defensive hockey. Take away from them the ability to have 2 offensive lines and 2 checking lines and you might see them finally giving the ice time to the guys that can score. Also, as far as time is concerned, 3 lines means around 20-25 minutes of ice for each line, give or take considering the special units ice time, not 30-35.

Yeah, what he said!

 

[Buffaloed]

The league can change the rules all its wants and it's not going to have much of an impact on how the game is played. There's adequate rules on the books now that would result in a more wide open game if they were enforced. Fans also find games that feature the referee as the main attraction undesirable. The league will only cut down on obstruction until the penalties become an issue at the box office.

Most old players agree that the players today are bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than they've ever been. The dilution of talent theory doesn't hold much water.

The way the game has changed for the worse is driven by economics. Making the playoffs is the key to financial success or failure. The safest and surest way to make the playoffs is to play the trap. While success should be rewarded, the penalty for failure is too high The league has taken a step to address that with its limited plan to share playoff revenues. I doubt if the NHL even realizes that this will have a greater impact on how the game is played on the ice than any of its proposed rule changes. It's a lot easier to open things up if the owner isn't risking millions in losses.

If the league really wants to make the game more offensively oriented, it needs to be done with financial incentives. By this time everyone should realize that its all driven by money. There's no financial incentive to play an entertaining game on the road. The objective of many teams is to play it close to the vest and get a point. There's no reward for packing the seats on the road. A team that pays through the nose for a superstar may draw hundreds of thousands of fans on the road. When Calgary visits Buffalo, the Flames don't get a dime of the revenues produced by fans paying to see Jarome Iginla.

Entertaining hockey has to be rewarded if the NHL wants to improve its product. It can't be done through edicts and mandates, or tinkering with roster sizes. The way to reward entertaining teams is to share regular season attendance revenues. A system where the home team keeps 60% of the revenues and the visiting team takes 40% on a per game basis rather than a pool would accomplish this. Teams like the Wings, Leafs, and Rangers who draw well on the road would be minimally affected, whereas teams like the Devils and Wild would have to play a more entertaining game or lose out on potential revenue. The overall effect would be increase attendance everywhere as the product would improve across the board. It also might be enough revenue sharing to get the players to sign a CBA that the owners can live with.