Lockout talk on ESPN2's Cold Pizza

[CarlRacki]

Fairly decent round-table type discussion (minus the table) on the lockout this morning featuring Bill Clement, EJ Hradek and beat writers from the NY Daily News and Boston Globe.
Some highlights were:

- all believe the players will eventually have to cave if we want to see hockey in 2005 (and that includes the start of next season)

- all think any season, even as few as 16 games or an open playoff tourney, is better than no season at all

- Clement and Hradek don't believe the owner's want to break the union, but certainly won't mind seeing it greatly weakened

- Clement is the only one who thinks there will be a season

- programming ESPN is airing instead of hockey is drawng twice the ratings. Yikes.

All in all, nothing really new but it's good to finally see some hockey discussion in the US.

Click to read more...

 

[Chili]

programming ESPN is airing instead of hockey is drawng twice the ratings.

That goes beyond the cba.

They can come to an agreement on a new cba but the bigger problem is still on the ice.

Scary.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Fairly decent round-table type discussion (minus the table) on the lockout this morning featuring Bill Clement, EJ Hradek and beat writers from the NY Daily News and Boston Globe.
Some highlights were:

- all think any season, even as few as 16 games or an open playoff tourney, is better than no season at all

As much as I want to see NHL hockey this year, that would be ridiculous. IMO 40 games is the minimum for it to be considered a legitimate season.

If a deal gets done in the very near future and they don't think there is time to play 40 games, I'd rather them squeeze in 40 games and only allow 8 teams into the playoffs instead of 16.

The owners would never go for it, becuase their money is made in the post-season and not the regular season.

 

[i am dave]

Wow, I'm shocked they didn't include Kit Hoover in on the discussion....

 

[RangerBoy]

They need to feed Kit Hoover

 

[Egil]

As much as I want to see NHL hockey this year, that would be ridiculous. IMO 40 games is the minimum for it to be considered a legitimate season.

If a deal gets done in the very near future and they don't think there is time to play 40 games, I'd rather them squeeze in 40 games and only allow 8 teams into the playoffs instead of 16.

The owners would never go for it, becuase their money is made in the post-season and not the regular season.

Why? What is so important about the regular season? All the regular season does is seed teams for the postseason tournament, and playing every team in the conference twice is an IDEAL seading structure, and is only 28 games. Heck, you can get really creative and make 4 pools (2 of 7 teams, 2 of 8 teams), and play home and away against that for a 12-14 game season, top 4 from each pool advance to the playoffs.

As long as the playoffs remain 4 rounds of best of 7, then any reasonably based seeding procedure is perfectly acceptable to me. And heck, the fewer games played in the regular season, the better each game will be more (much higher intensity).

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Why? What is so important about the regular season? All the regular season does is seed teams for the postseason tournament, and playing every team in the conference twice is an IDEAL seading structure, and is only 28 games. Heck, you can get really creative and make 4 pools (2 of 7 teams, 2 of 8 teams), and play home and away against that for a 12-14 game season, top 4 from each pool advance to the playoffs.

As long as the playoffs remain 4 rounds of best of 7, then any reasonably based seeding procedure is perfectly acceptable to me. And heck, the fewer games played in the regular season, the better each game will be more (much higher intensity).

I prefer a minimum of 40 games. I heard JD on the radio talking about a possibility of 36, which I could live with, but IMO anything less than that would lead me to think the season is less than legitimate.

 

[Bruwinz37]

I prefer a minimum of 40 games. I heard JD on the radio talking about a possibility of 36, which I could live with, but IMO anything less than that would lead me to think the season is less than legitimate.

At this point I dont really care about legitimate. If there is a whole season lost and part of next year's I think the NHL is done as we know it. This is not a healthy organization. They cannot afford to lose a whole season so get in whatever you can and salvage this train wreck.

 

[CarlRacki]

I prefer a minimum of 40 games. I heard JD on the radio talking about a possibility of 36, which I could live with, but IMO anything less than that would lead me to think the season is less than legitimate.

I understand what you're saying, but tend to agree with the argument that no hockey is worse for the league's future than an illegtimate season. Regardless of what happens, if there's hockey played this year the season will always be marked with an asterisk, whether it be 40 games or 20 games.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I understand what you're saying, but tend to agree with the argument that no hockey is worse for the league's future than an illegtimate season. Regardless of what happens, if there's hockey played this year the season will always be marked with an asterisk, whether it be 40 games or 20 games.

I disagree about the season being marked by an asterisk if 40 games are played. IMO the 1995 Stanley Cup won by the Devils (48 games) was very legit.

 

[Sotnos]

I disagree about the season being marked by an asterisk if 40 games are played. IMO the 1995 Stanley Cup won by the Devils (48 games) was very legit.

Agreed. Something around a half-season is OK, but it's not a real "season" with just a playoff tourney, that would be completely ridiculous. I just can't see that scenario happening.

 

[tantalum]

Agreed. Something around a half-season is OK, but it's not a real "season" with just a playoff tourney, that would be completely ridiculous. I just can't see that scenario happening.

I like the tourney idea BUT not for the Stanley Cup. A tourney used to determine draft order and used to generate excitement about the game would be just fine.

 

[amazingcrwns]

The Cup has to be on the line if you want teams to compete. If you're playing a tournament for draft order then teams would just tank to get a higher pick.

I posted the idea of a 28 game season (each team in conference once at home and once on the road) with each conference winner getting a bye in the first round of a league wide tournament.

First round or two of the tournament would be a best of 5 series then the regular best of 7 series' to complete the playoffs.

Both the regular standings at the end of the season and playoff performance would be used to determine draft order, Stanley Cup awarded to the winner of the playoffs.

It's not a full season but more of a sprint for a bye in the tournament. with only 28 games you have more intense games and every point counts.

Just my opinion on the matter, I'd personally prefer a longer season but I think this is the minimum that I could accept in order to award the Stanley cup.

 

[tantalum]

The Cup has to be on the line if you want teams to compete. If you're playing a tournament for draft order then teams would just tank to get a higher pick.

I posted the idea of a 28 game season (each team in conference once at home and once on the road) with each conference winner getting a bye in the first round of a league wide tournament.

First round or two of the tournament would be a best of 5 series then the regular best of 7 series' to complete the playoffs.

Both the regular standings at the end of the season and playoff performance would be used to determine draft order, Stanley Cup awarded to the winner of the playoffs.

It's not a full season but more of a sprint for a bye in the tournament. with only 28 games you have more intense games and every point counts.

Just my opinion on the matter, I'd personally prefer a longer season but I think this is the minimum that I could accept in order to award the Stanley cup.

I meant to include some sort of incentive to avoid tanking it...monetary awards for both player and team alike. I think it's possible but I don't think you award the cup.

 

[CarlRacki]

The Cup has to be on the line if you want teams to compete. If you're playing a tournament for draft order then teams would just tank to get a higher pick.

I posted the idea of a 28 game season (each team in conference once at home and once on the road) with each conference winner getting a bye in the first round of a league wide tournament.

First round or two of the tournament would be a best of 5 series then the regular best of 7 series' to complete the playoffs.

Both the regular standings at the end of the season and playoff performance would be used to determine draft order, Stanley Cup awarded to the winner of the playoffs.

It's not a full season but more of a sprint for a bye in the tournament. with only 28 games you have more intense games and every point counts.

Just my opinion on the matter, I'd personally prefer a longer season but I think this is the minimum that I could accept in order to award the Stanley cup.

I had the same thought regarding teams tanking. One way that could be avoided, however, is through financial incentives for games won, rounds reached, etc. Chances are guys who've missed most of a year's salary won't be willing to throw away thousands and thousands of dollars so they're ownership gets a good draft pick the following year.

 

[PecaFan]

I disagree about the season being marked by an asterisk if 40 games are played. IMO the 1995 Stanley Cup won by the Devils (48 games) was very legit.

Not to me. 1995 is the *only* year when the Cup was not won by a top 7 team. The Devils were 9th overall that year. Winning the Cup is supposed to be a marathon. A long hard regular season, followed by a brutal long playoff. 1995 didn't have that.

I don't begrudge the Devils their Cup, and they certainly were a great team around that time (many forget how good they were the year before, if Brodeur was a little more experienced they get by the Rangers and win the Cup in '94). They followed the rules that were in place.

Maybe they would have won it anyways, we'll never know. I just don't count it when I do stats, etc.

 

[NJD Jester]

Not to me. 1995 is the *only* year when the Cup was not won by a top 7 team. The Devils were 9th overall that year. Winning the Cup is supposed to be a marathon. A long hard regular season, followed by a brutal long playoff. 1995 didn't have that.

So if Detroit had won that marathon, would the Wings' Cup have been legit in your eyes, being that they were the top team in the league that season?

<JESTER>

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Not to me. 1995 is the *only* year when the Cup was not won by a top 7 team. The Devils were 9th overall that year. Winning the Cup is supposed to be a marathon. A long hard regular season, followed by a brutal long playoff. 1995 didn't have that.

I don't begrudge the Devils their Cup, and they certainly were a great team around that time (many forget how good they were the year before, if Brodeur was a little more experienced they get by the Rangers and win the Cup in '94). They followed the rules that were in place.

Maybe they would have won it anyways, we'll never know. I just don't count it when I do stats, etc.

You might have an argument if the Devils were a one year fluke. That theory tends not to hold any water when they were a great team the year before and have been a great team in the decade since.

Along the was to winning the Cup they dominated 3 of their 4 playoff victims;

Boston out in 5 games, and had a .594 win%. Outscored 14- 5
Pittsburgh out in 5 games, and had a .634 win% Outscored 17-8
Detroit out in 4 games, and had a .729 win % Outscored 16-7

 

[kenabnrmal]

I have little problem with a shortened season followed by a full playoff. To me, the regular season is about the right to play in the playoffs, and the playoffs are a separate entity. The playoffs are enough of a marathon, and grueling enough to warrant the crowning of a Cup champion. Thats just me though.

 

[thinkwild]

I still would want to see a shortened season and playoff, but Im not sure the bragging rights for winning this year will be that great. We have now come to the time where any season will be an asterisk season.

But we seem to be getting our hopes up a little too much that there will be a season this year I think. I dont think the owners want it. There are more important precedents they want to win first. I think they want basketball and hockey players locked out the same time

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I dont think the owners want it. There are more important precedents they want to win first. I think they want basketball and hockey players locked out the same time

in the words of the greatest band ever ...

"Sad but true"



DR

 

[txomisc]

any season shorter than 30 games or so may really throw the draft order for next season out of whack.

 

[bleedgreen]

The Cup has to be on the line if you want teams to compete. If you're playing a tournament for draft order then teams would just tank to get a higher pick.

I posted the idea of a 28 game season (each team in conference once at home and once on the road) with each conference winner getting a bye in the first round of a league wide tournament.

First round or two of the tournament would be a best of 5 series then the regular best of 7 series' to complete the playoffs.

Both the regular standings at the end of the season and playoff performance would be used to determine draft order, Stanley Cup awarded to the winner of the playoffs.

It's not a full season but more of a sprint for a bye in the tournament. with only 28 games you have more intense games and every point counts.

Just my opinion on the matter, I'd personally prefer a longer season but I think this is the minimum that I could accept in order to award the Stanley cup.

sweet avatar - ive got that one saved myself. go whale.

 

[sabresfan65]

Why not run a 20 game season for seeding and then every one makes the playoffs and the top seed in each league gets a first round bye. first pick goes to the worst record eliminated in the first round, second pick to the 2nd worst record eliminated in the first round, etc. Then it all comes down to the playoffs. Sure some crappy team could get lucky and win their first round series, but that will just cost them one of the top 14 picks. It would be interesting to see what some teams do with the worst record in the league but forcing a 7th game in the first round series. Do they try to make the second round or tank the game to get themselves the top pick?

Probably not a good idea but and interesting one anyway.

 

[amazingcrwns]

sweet avatar - ive got that one saved myself. go whale.

Hey thanks, It actually has to do with a sim league project that's being worked on on the Bruins Board.

We wrote our own CBA and restarted the NHL from scratch, leaguewide draft, 40 mil salary cap 33 mil salary floor. We used everybody's latest salary (last season if they are currently a FA) Right now we're in the middle of a buyout draft (where players who went undrafted are now available at 2/3rds their salary) and just started a 20 rd prospect draft.

The project started either late sept or early october and we've still got a lot of drafting to do. we're planning on 5 simulated seasons after all the teams are set up.

I'm the co-gm of the Hartford Whalers, Sanderson is our Captain. If anybody's interested in seeing what we've done so far here's a link to the HFL homepage

http://www.geocities.com/njw1223/Hockey_Future.html