Speculation: enlarge the playoffs

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

No thanks.

I watched hockey back in those days and it was ridiculous that all those teams made the playoffs. The regular season hardly meant a thing. Just don't be in the basement.

Plus the playoffs go on forever as it is. I'd definitely be in favor of knocking some games out of the regular season. You never quite know how these changes will work out but it seems like you'd get better hockey and healthier players.

 

[Bench]

I get the thinking behind it, I would never support it though. To credit your point on March 1st (60-64 GP for each team) only 1 team made the playoffs that wasn't in it at that time - Philly. But, Pitt was actually the 8 seed at that time, in the last 20 games they went 16-4 and added +35 to their GD, hitting their stride then led them to the cup.

I don't want to watch less hockey. I hate the off season, all the ******** we talk every day kills me. I'm marking the days to the world cup. 50-60 games **** that.

This is just idle musings. The league would never shrink the number of regular season games. That's revenue lost across the board with tickets and television.

 

[Run the Jewels]

cap just makes you pay from awful decisions. removing the cap doesn't for rich teams.

Well the next lockout will likely be about allowing teams to get out of bad contracts. So there's less and less need for a cap, which has always been sold by the owners as a form of cost certainty.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Well the next lockout will likely be about allowing teams to get out of bad contracts. So there's less and less need for a cap, which has always been sold by the owners as a form of cost certainty.

couple of out of jail cards every 8-10 years helps but it's not always enough. that won't save us for example. and many other teams that are suffering now and the nect lockout comes too late. no cap and we would be in much better situation than where we are now.

 

[Bench]

couple of out of jail cards every 8-10 years helps but it's not always enough. that won't save us for example. and many other teams that are suffering now and the nect lockout comes too late. no cap and we would be in much better situation than where we are now.

They should really just adopt the NFL contract system that would allow more player movement. I get why the NHLPA wouldn't want that, though. Having contracts inked be iron clad for the entire amount is a sweeeeet deal.

For those that don't know, here's a good rundown of the NFL contract structure.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/73449/how-do-contracts-work-glad-you-asked

If a team releases a player before paying part of that player's guaranteed salary or guaranteed bonus, the team still must pay that money. This doesn't happen very frequently, however. In most cases, the player has already received all guaranteed money by the time he's released. The remainder of the contract vanishes.

For example, David Akers signed a three-year, $9 million contract with the San Francisco 49ers before the 2011 season. The team paid a $1.7 million signing bonus to Akers. That money was guaranteed. He received it up front. The 49ers also paid $1.3 million in salary to Akers for the 2011 season, plus another $3 million in salary to him last season. Akers was scheduled to earn the remaining $3 million via salary for the 2013 season, but he will not get that money because the 49ers released him Wednesday.

So, the three-year, $9 million deal Akers signed wound up being a two-year deal for $6 million, plus a relatively small amount earned through incentives.

The dead money when you release a player is a lot more forgiving than current NHL buyouts.

 

[Run the Jewels]

They should really just adopt the NFL contract system that would allow more player movement. I get why the NHLPA wouldn't want that, though. Having contracts inked be iron clad for the entire amount is a sweeeeet deal.

Yeah, the players have caved on every lockout because they aren't the billlionaires. The next lockout will almost certainly result in either something either exactly along these lines or the first big move towards something like the NFL model.

So again, no real need for a salary cap. Cost certainty will have been achieved and the owners will be able to get out of any and every ****** contract they write up.

 

[Flowah]

You still have managers making awful decisions like Scott Gomez and Wade Redden getting insane contracts. Hell, even Ken Holland had one of those awful free agent signings in Stephen Weiss. So the idea a cap is going to prevent General Managers from making awful decisions seems like wishful thinking. There has also been a reliance on longer term with the cap in place. This has created lots of bad contracts that either end up being bought out or being put on LTIR or buried in the minors (Redden specifically). All bad outcomes due to trying to game the cap.

There should be a cap floor based on league revenues but a salary cap has only hurt successful teams. It hasn't done anything to make crap teams any better.

You will never be able to stop managers from making terrible signings and giving out terrible contracts.

At least a salary cap punishes GMs who make bad signings by not letting them buy their way out of it. A salary cap rewards GMs who draft well and sign well. No salary cap would have allowed a team with tons of money but terrible cap management, like the Leafs, to actually be competitive without good drafting or signings.

I like the floor and cap. It forces ingenuity. It does force parity. However it is clear it doesn't benefit the Wings as of right now because Holland doesn't seem to know how to operate in a cap world to maximize cup contendership.

 

[Mijatovic]

So, why not let more teams into the playoffs? Go back up to 3/4 of the league, or 24 teams.

You a big fan of rewarding mediocrity or something? What happens if your kids are getting D's? You going to take them on a trip to Disneyworld for showing up?

 

[lidstromiscool]

Remove teams if anything, making the playoffs when 75% of the league does also isn’t special or even good.

 

[Flowah]

Again, unless you change the entire playoff format or start handing out byes, which I doubt hockey fans would like, you need either 4, or 8, or 16, or 32 teams in the playoffs. If you do 24 or some crap you end up with 12 teams on each side which means 6 matchups with means you end up with 3 winners. Someone has to get a bye.

And since I consider 8 to be too few and 32 to be too many, I'll be content with 16 for now.

 

[jkutswings]

They should really just adopt the NFL contract system that would allow more player movement.

I wish. I'd find the Robert Kraft-i-est owner in the league, and make that franchise my 1B team at a minimum, if not my outright new favorite.

Play well...get paid handsomely. Play poorly...nice knowing ya.

 

[Winger98]

I think the word you're looking for, Winger98, is embiggen.

it's a perfectly cromulent word.

No thanks.

I watched hockey back in those days and it was ridiculous that all those teams made the playoffs. The regular season hardly meant a thing. Just don't be in the basement.

Plus the playoffs go on forever as it is. I'd definitely be in favor of knocking some games out of the regular season. You never quite know how these changes will work out but it seems like you'd get better hockey and healthier players.

I grew up with hockey in the 80s, and I didn't mind. I sorta miss fire wagon hockey (and I really miss it while watching the Wings last year...ugh).

The bolded is a big reason I want fewer regular season games, though. The regular season is a a much harder grind than it used to be, and I think it's hurting the game - and it's players.

I'd also like to see them raise the roster limit back up to at least 24. Allowing teams to carry more players would allow them to swap guys out easier, and maybe give guys a rest throughout the season. Give us an extra spot, for instance, and I bet we carry AA and find a way to work him into ~55 games just giving other guys a rest.

You a big fan of rewarding mediocrity or something? What happens if your kids are getting D's? You going to take them on a trip to Disneyworld for showing up?

No, expanded playoffs is more of a carrot for shrinking the season. Bench has already hit on why shrinking the regular season won't happen - revenue. But if there are more playoff games and more teams getting in on that money, it helps offset the loss of revenue from fewer regular season games. And, as it is, I don't think the money from the playoffs goes into the coffers to be divided up with the players. So the owners could be looking at some nice pocket money.

 

[Flowah]

Give us an extra spot, for instance, and I bet we carry AA and find a way to work him into ~55 games just giving other guys a rest.

Or we sign another vet for depth.

 

[Winger98]

Or we sign another vet for depth.

hey, if it brings back Happy Hudler I think I'd be okay with it

 

[Run the Jewels]

I like the floor and cap. It forces ingenuity. It does force parity.

What it creates is a **** product. You will never again have great rivalries like you had in the past. I'm sorry but no one cares about Nashville playing San Jose.

 

[takimaki]

Add another team when we hit 32 teams, a #9 seed and have #8 and #9 do a best-of-3 "play in" round. All other teams get a short rest to start the playoffs, and 2 more teams get to make some playoff cash.

Cut a few games off the season if possible, too.

 

[Flowah]

hey, if it brings back Happy Hudler I think I'd be okay with it

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not

Is Huds taken yet? I bet he signs cheap.

What it creates is a **** product. You will never again have great rivalries like you had in the past. I'm sorry but no one cares about Nashville playing San Jose.

I don't really care about rivalries. I don't think having big market teams with flush owners being able to outspend mistakes creates a very good overall hockey product, even though my team would probably benefit from it.

And it makes winning all the more satisfying, frankly. We basically bought a cup in 02. Now they're all earned as hell through excellent drafting and crafty cap management.

 

[Winger98]

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not

Is Huds taken yet? I bet he signs cheap.

A bit of both. I'd rather have him than Helm. And, yeah, he's still out there.

 

[Reddwit]

Yeah, the players have caved on every lockout because they aren't the billlionaires. The next lockout will almost certainly result in either something either exactly along these lines or the first big move towards something like the NFL model.

So again, no real need for a salary cap. Cost certainty will have been achieved and the owners will be able to get out of any and every ****** contract they write up.

Yeahhh the NFL structure in the NHL is never going to fly. The NFL is huge in terms of players, it's huge in terms of NFLPA members, it has the shortest pro career on average, the worst average salary, and the earliest career peak of all sports.

In short, the NFLPA represents a ton of young, desperate athletes who are willing to sacrifice long-term long-shots at stardom for money now and up front. It probably also helps that the SES of the two groups greatly favors the NHL, which further contributes to the desperation.

Those are the facts. But anecdotally and on first impression, I also wouldn't be surprised if the NHL also paid the most to their depth or at least secondary players, which, if true, would mean the truly desperate players - the 4th liners and fringe NHLers - make up the substantial minority.

 

[One Blurred Eye]

Reduce the bench size to 10F/5D, or 9/4, concentrates more skill on the ice for longer stretches. Players would have to adopt a more sustainable pace which would cut down on injuries. Coaches can't rely on a constant stream of expendable, interchangeable bottom-line system plugs to play block-the-shot and dump-and-chase all night, and the shortened bench makes playing the matchup game more difficult. Cycle-cycle-cycle-point-shot-hope-for-random-bounce-into-net might occasionally be replaced by a series of skillful passes and and a snipe. Before the PA throws a fit, the truncated bench spots are turned into dressed reservists, able to replace a player permanently in a game due to injury or a simple strategic gambit. Coaches ala baseball managers forced to decide whether to take an offensive player out in favor of a defensive specialist to hold a late lead, or insert a faceoff specialist to win a crucial draw. Imagine the consequences in the playoffs should a game go to overtime.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Keep it the same or have less. No need to have more

 

[Run the Jewels]

I don't really care about rivalries.

That's fine but you are in the minority. Rivalries are what drove every major sports league. People want to see the best of the best and not for just one season. Whether it was Lakers-Celtics or Wings-Avs those games and series generated league wide interest and grew both sports.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

So much this. Last thing we need is to have more teams make the playoffs, in a league where already over half the league qualifies.

The league had 2/3 and more of its teams in the playoffs for most of the 20th century, so why would it be a problem now?

 

[Big Poppa Puck]

No. It would just devalue the regular season even more.

 

[avssuc]

Ideas for more offense (not necessarily advocating them; just that they should lead to more offense):

• Remove the Edmonton rule. You get X minutes of power play time, regardless of how many goals you score. Has the side benefit of making teams think twice about all the hooking and holding that’s no fun to watch.

• Implement a timer, where you are only allowed X seconds of puck possession in your defensive zone. The, “cycle behind the net 3 times†is no fun to watch, and even if the timer results in more dump and chase, I’d even rather see that than all the trapping and other dead puck nonsense.

• You play until somebody wins. No ties, no shootouts. First OT is 4-on-4. Second OT is 3-on-3. The odds of a game ever going to a third OT are incredibly slim to begin with, but I’d even consider 2-on-2 for that. And it would do away with points from shootout losses, and whether a win was in regulation or not.

• Do away with 5-on-5 altogether, and make the game 4-on-4, with 3 forwards, and 1 defenseman. That both provides more open ice for forwards, and makes Detroit’s shortage of defensemen much less problematic. (OK, that last one is tongue firmly in cheek.)

I think you are confusing the "Montreal Canadians Power Play Rule" with the "Gretzky Rule". I had no idea of either until I read your post and looked for the history, but let's 86 both of them, and all the stuff you mention.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...yer-inspired-NHL-rules-changes?urn=nhl,263622