The best divisional alignment is no divisional alignment!
But actually, I know the NHL says it won't do a radical re-alignment, but I have had an idea for a while that I think works extremely well, but is radically different than anything any pro sports league uses: No divisions or conferences, just a set of "Rivals" that each team plays more games against. Each team would get 3 teams they play 6 times a year, and 4 teams they play 4 times a year (I call these "A-Rivals" and "B-Rivals"). But these teams would not be restricted to groups, so it maximizes the schedule's relevance for every team in the league.
For example, here's what I would do for a few teams' A-Rivals:
VAN: SEA, CGY, EDM
CGY/EDM: EDM/CGY, VAN, WPG
SEA: VAN, SJ, VGK
WPG: EDM, CGY, MIN
MIN: WPG, CHI, DAL
DET: CHI, CBJ, NSH
CBJ: DET, PIT, WSH
PIT: CBJ, PHI, WSH
And so on, so forth. Same deal with B-Rivals, they are not set groups, but relevant to each team.
Then, to supercharge these "A-Rivalries" like crazy, have playoff qualification go like this:
-Each team who finishes 1st amongst its A-Rivals clinches a playoff spot regardless of overall record.
-Each team who finished last amongst its A-Rivals misses the playoffs regardless of overall record.
-Since the number of 1st place teams normally falls within a range of 5-10 teams, the remaining playoff spots are given to each 2nd place team (amongst its A-Rivals, remember) in order of overall record.
-If a 3rd place team has a better record than a 2nd place team that clinches a playoff spot, this team also clinches, but only in pairs with each lower 2nd place team that clinches. In other words, if it's down to 1 more spot (16th), the lower 2nd place team gets it. This make every spot you gain relative to your A-Rivals matter.
The playoff format for this idea is a whole other animal, but I do have a cool idea for that, might explain later if anyone wants to know.
Also, yes, I have mapped out every A and B-Rivalry in the league. If you want to know what it looks like for your team, ask!