LOL... trim rosters?

[Schlep Rock]

Ok, I have to... on another league message board (BCHL), there is some poster who claims having 23 players on a roster is stupid since 3 don't play every night and goes on to claim it could save the NHL $50 million to trim the roster down to 20 and have everybody play.

Does anybody else here actually believe this would be a good idea and if so, why? And do NOT cite it would improve a "watered down" league. Any other arguement is fine lol.

Click to read more...

 

[Lady Rhian]

I kind of like that idea myself. Keeps players from thinking their jobs are safe, makes them work harder to stay in the NHL. We get by with 3 defensive pairings, why not just 3 lines instead of four?

 

[GKJ]

We get by with 3 defensive pairings, why not just 3 lines instead of four?

82 games with very few days off, now you want to put them on the ice more?

 

[acr*]

Healthy scratches are there for a reason.

If a starter hurts himself in warmups and your farm team is off in Manitoba or somewhere, you need those guys

 

[Schlep Rock]

I kind of like that idea myself. Keeps players from thinking their jobs are safe, makes them work harder to stay in the NHL. We get by with 3 defensive pairings, why not just 3 lines instead of four?

How does it make them work harder? The push of a young kid in the press box, busting his you know what in practice everyday will drive you.

The ONLY way this works is if one-way contracts/waivers are eliminated. After your first deal or two, you're on a 1-way or waiver eligible so you are in more of a comfort zone.

 

[futurcorerock]

You want to really save money have one foward one defenseman and a goalie. Bt if a player gets hurt or receives a match penalty you play the rest of the game short handed.

The hell are you talking about?

Why would they shave off a goalie?

So I take it that if Curtis Joseph gets injured, you'll see Nik Lidstrom putting on goaltender pads and manning the posts?

 

[Backin72]

The hell are you talking about?

Why would they shave off a goalie?

So I take it that if Curtis Joseph gets injured, you'll see Nik Lidstrom putting on goaltender pads and manning the posts?

 

[PecaFan]

Of course rosters should be trimmed. Most of you are too young to know that rosters have been *expanded* recently, once in the 80's, and once in the 70's.

These spots have goon to fourth line goons. The game will be just fine, in fact better off, with these guys gone.

It's a total myth that the game is harder to play physically now than it was back then. Better, easier travel, medical treatments that are far better, way better conditioning, there would be *zero* problem with each guy on the top three lines playing a minute or two more.

 

[EricBowser]

I strongly believe the NHL needs to reduce the game roster to 16 skaters and 2 goalies. The team roster to 20 players (2 scratches per game).

This would force teams to go with 10 forwards, eliminating the use of a 4th line of goons and clutchers. Coaches wouldn't be able to match lines as much either and most players play better iwth more ice time so I don't think the increase would bother too many guys especially if the game is more about offense than clutching and defense.

3 jobs x 30 teams = 90 players out of a job x $1.8 avg = $162 million average savings

Not bad if you ask me, will the NHL do such a thing through impasse, I doubt it but they should.

 

[Schlep Rock]

I strongly believe the NHL needs to reduce the game roster to 16 skaters and 2 goalies. The team roster to 20 players (2 scratches per game).

This would force teams to go with 10 forwards, eliminating the use of a 4th line of goons and clutchers. Coaches wouldn't be able to match lines as much either and most players play better iwth more ice time so I don't think the increase would bother too many guys especially if the game is more about offense than clutching and defense.

3 jobs x 30 teams = 90 players out of a job x $1.8 avg = $162 million average savings

Not bad if you ask me, will the NHL do such a thing through impasse, I doubt it but they should.

Alright... I'm sorry but this is a TERRIBLE arguement.

The 3 players that would be cut from a team would be making a combined $1-$1.5 million under a new CBA so you'd be looking at a max of $45 million in savings. From there, this is to say the rosters stay the SAME. What happens when a player on the NHL club gets hurt? He still gets paid so now the AHL team is sending one of their guys up and now he's on the NHL payroll and this $1.5 in savings per team is now around $1-$1.2 (depending on length of injury).

It won't result in any significant savings.

 

[wazee]

If cutting the roster to 20 would save 50M imagine how much they could save if they went to 4 on 4 hockey. That should get the roster size down to 18 at most.

 

[Munchausen]

I'd actually love to see an entire line scrapped from the NHL. This is a way to make the game better. 2 offensive lines and a checking line or 3 offensive lines, and throw the 4th line caliber players away. That means any enforcer / energy guy will actually need to know how to play, no more room for useless goons. That way, you actually see the stars play a lot during a game (which is what you pay to see) and the players always remain happy, since they all see loads of ice time. It's also a good way to stay in the game, since you don't get cold and out of focus because of the long stretches of inactivity on the bench.

That would also allow for a thing the Russians do that I love, because it allows for added chemistry and possibilities, which is always roll the same 5 players at a time. the same 3 forwards always playing with the same 2 Dmen. This is a system I love. It allows for better complementarity (for example, you might want to put a big and tough Dmen at all times with a line of 3 small and skilled finesse forwards, so that nobody takes liberties on them. Might also want your best puck mover at all times playing with your best offensive weapons).

I'd keep 2-3 healthy scratches though (who might be the present regular 4th liners of the league) because you don't want to call up a player everytime there's a minor injury to one of your players, and it's good to have somebody to push you in the back and try to take your spot if you fall asleep.

All that being said, for this to work, I think the schedule would need to be reduced to about 70 games a year, which is also something I'm all for. This is indeed a way to counter the ill effect of a watered down product, but the NHLPA would of course never agree to that.


edit - typo

 

[Lady Rhian]

Of course rosters should be trimmed. Most of you are two young to know that rosters have been *expanded* recently, once in the 80's, and once in the 70's.

These spots have goon to fourth line goons. The game will be just fine, in fact better off, with these guys gone.

It's a total myth that the game is harder to play physically now than it was back then. Better, easier travel, medical treatments that are far better, way better conditioning, there would be *zero* problem with each guy on the top three lines playing a minute or two more.

Bravo!

 

[me2]

Alright... I'm sorry but this is a TERRIBLE arguement.

The 3 players that would be cut from a team would be making a combined $1-$1.5 million under a new CBA so you'd be looking at a max of $45 million in savings. From there, this is to say the rosters stay the SAME. What happens when a player on the NHL club gets hurt? He still gets paid so now the AHL team is sending one of their guys up and now he's on the NHL payroll and this $1.5 in savings per team is now around $1-$1.2 (depending on length of injury).

It won't result in any significant savings.

23 into $37.2m = $1.6m each

20 into $36m = $1.8m each

Therefore the players all be getting a "pay rise".


Threatening to get rid of 15% of the NHL workforce if they don't agree to the deal looks pretty good to me. Surely the NHLPA would take $42.5m between 20 players as its matches the unions $49m cap ($48.8m) since both pay $2.125m per player.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

It would be 90 players cut but those players would not be making the league average. Maybe 400 000 or 500 000. That is much different then 1.8 million.

 

[dolfanar]

I think you could easily go to a 22 man roster. 1 extra D and forward are all you need.

To Pecafan
yes the ggame day rosters have increased, but the number of "extras" teams are allowed to carry has been curtailed in recent years. In the 80's teams often carried 4-5 extras, and the roster limit went from 24 to 23 with the last cba/expansion.

As for bringing down the game-day roster... I'm not completely against the notion, but it's not the kind of thing you do willy-nilly. And you'd probably have to shorten the season as well. i just don't see it happening.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 22 man total roster in the next CBA though.

 

[gb701]

The problem with this proposal, like many of the others going up on their own, as that taken in isolation there are too many holes (there is a reason why they have negotiated the current rules), but put in combination with some of the other proposals and moderated, the numbers start to make sense and the savings are real.

I am in favour of anything that drives the cost down, so long as at least some of the savings reduce my ticket price once the owners are making a reasonable return on investment. I haven't seen much about that side, however.

 

[Riddarn]

4th liners seldom add anything to the games. Take them out of the game and I think you'll see the game will open up, because the teams cannot afford to have two checking lines to shut down the opposing offense all the time.

And sure, going down to three lines will probably require going down to 70 games or so, but is that a bad thing?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

4th liners seldom add anything to the games. Take them out of the game and I think you'll see the game will open up, because the teams cannot afford to have two checking lines to shut down the opposing offense all the time.

And sure, going down to three lines will probably require going down to 70 games or so, but is that a bad thing?

4th liners give the 1st and 2nd line players a chance to get a breath. Personally I like watching 4th liners cycle the puck and create scoring chances doing so.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I don't think run and gun hockey will ever be back unless they find a way to eliminate all obstruction and force the players to serve a full 2 minutes even if the opposing team scores. Allthough I hope it doesn't come to this, if two to four teams fold, that will help the talent pool a large amount.

 

[Clint]

I actually think that this could be a pretty good idea as long as the number of games is shortened from 82.

Question: If the NHL were to implement this rule change... how would they go about doing it? Would it have anything to do with the CBA's definition of how many players arer dressed per team, or could the league just say, "There. 9 forwards, 6 defensemen. No more 4th liners. Trim your rosters."

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I actually think that this could be a pretty good idea as long as the number of games is shortened from 82.

Question: If the NHL were to implement this rule change... how would they go about doing it? Would it have anything to do with the CBA's definition of how many players arer dressed per team, or could the league just say, "There. 9 forwards, 6 defensemen. No more 4th liners. Trim your rosters."

Roster limits are collectively bargained.

I'm not opposed to trimming roster limits by a player or two. I do think, though, that it will have minimal impact on how the game is currently played or resultant coaching strategy.

 

[Flukeshot]

I definitely agree with the posters who've brought up points for cutting down the roster and in-game roster. Forth liners usually play about 8 minutes each. Surely among the other 9 forwards they could split up a collective 24 minutes of play. The average ice-time per forward would be 20 minutes opposed to 15. If a guy can't play 20 minutes in a game he shouldn't be in the NHL. Cut the roster down to 20 or 21 from 23 and that gives you your spares still.

It would lead to shorter shifts as well so that players were fresh on the ice. Or it would lead to more fatigue and players who didn't change up quick enough would cause errors and more errors=more scoring chances.

Also teams would be saving about $1.5m likely. The NHLPA should propose/accept this when a deal is eventually made. As mentioned the avg player salary would go up and they'd be sticking it to all those fringe players who have spoken out saying they'd be scabs.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

Now, I don't claim to have come up with this idea....

But it was 2-3 years ago that this idea smacked me in the face...

I was following the line combos of every NHL, and I noticed many teams were dressing 6 defenceman but a lot of teams where only rolling 5 defenceman.
The biggest example of this is Colorado who had DJ Smith and Jeff Paul play less then a minute a game some nights.

I think the general idea of dropping roster sizes is a great idea.
Something like 10 Forwards, 5 Defenceman and a rover (someone who could play either position). So including the 2 goalies you have 18 on the ice, give them 3 healthy scratches. 21 players. I don't see much wrong with that. It drops what? 2 jobs from every team, it's not much but it gets rid of those useless contracts, maybe Barnaby or Steve Webb don't keep their jobs.

And I'm not picking on goons, Tomi Kallio wouldn't play in this limited league either... Dopita would of been dropped much sooner.

I've been in favor of this for a while. Go for it.

 

[Riddarn]

It would lead to shorter shifts as well so that players were fresh on the ice. Or it would lead to more fatigue and players who didn't change up quick enough would cause errors and more errors=more scoring chances.

A thing I didn't think about before I read this: What if those 5 minutes of extra ice time could force players to go just a little more for endurance rather than just explosiveness? It would probably benefit the good skaters and good positioning players most but it would also force some players to give up a few pounds in favour for a few percent of boosted O2 capacity. It could be a boost for the Paul Kariyas and Martin St.Louis of the future.