When a CBA in any workplace expires, the terms of the previous one are held enforceable until a new one is agreed to. Right now, even though there are no games, the previous CBA is still enforceable and legal (Someone correct me if I am wrong, please).
In any event, this idea to me sounded really off the charts when I first looked at the thread. As I have been reading along, I think that this may have been the owner's plan after all. Of course it does nothing to solve the "problems", but it does put the NHL back on the radar screen in the US, while further strengthening the owner's position for an impasse later on (like next January, and they might never lose a complete season).
Basically, if this makes the owners money, they will do it. And the players would have to play, because they would not even be allowed to strike.