The Dispearsal Draft

[Chimaera]

Maybe he doesn't want to move clear accross the country (lets says a team like the Sharks took him). Maybe he's rather stay near his familty and sign a contract with the Blue Jackets or the Black Hawks?

You're missing the point. Even without a dispersal draft, Hatcher is 'probably' going to be moving somewhere. I say probably, because the Wings might go another route and ship out some other overpaid talent. But, he is going to be moving. If the Red Wings, or any other close to the cap (or over) team can trade a player and get some return, they're going to do it. Even if it means just getting a pick, or a couple of pucks. Because a buyout still means they have to pay that amount of money, while having nothing to show for it. Yes, a GM could come to a player and say, give me a list of teams you want to go to, but that doesn't have to happen.


Additionally, even if a player is bought out, odds are the player in question is going to seek the most money they can get on the open market, irregardless of where it is. If there are few teams with similar amounts of money, they might make a location judgement on the group, but not definitely.

I'd like to feel sympathy for Hatcher, but I just don't. He'll have the millions in his bank to keep him company, and keep his fire going to keep his family warm. He's still going to get paid. He'll still have a job come next season, as long as he can lace em up. Lots of players are forced to move when they don't want to. That's just professional sports.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

A dispersial draft would be ridiculous. No need for it at all. Never want to see it.

There is a need for something.
Without the 24 percent rollback, how does Detroit get under the cap?

 

[BrickRed]

There is no need for a dispersal draft (especially if the 2004-2005 contracts are done away with), since all teams are in one way or the other under the cap for 05-06 with the 24% rollback. Some have more players under contract than others.

Those teams that are approaching the cap figure and only have a few players under contract will just have to rely upon the Lonny Bohonoses, Josh Green, and other scrubs to fill out their team. Other teams that planned for the lockout, will have the benefit of cap room to go out and sign the big name UFAs to fill out their roster.

Bettman warned all teams that the lockout was coming so they'd better plan for it. I just can't see him going back on his word and grandfathering ANYTHING. It's not fair to those teams that focused on their player development and other aspects of hockey that would ensure they remain competitive in a CAPPED NHL immediately after the work stoppage ended.

Teams with fat contracts to useless players will have to either bite the bullet or buy those players out, The buyout amount WILL count towards that year's salary cap for their team.

I agree. The NHL cannot permit a situation where the rich teams buyout players with money not counted under the cap and then sign other elite players on the cheap looking to play for a championship that were themselfs bought out by other teams.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I hate the idea of a dispersal draft. Everyone knew there would be a cap, so if teams are over the cap thats their own fault. Make the team buy out the contracts of players to get them under the cap. So if the Wings have to buy out Hatcher so be it but allow him to sign a contract anywhere he chooses. After all why punish Hatcher for Illitch's mistake?

A couple things JW.
I am oppose to the draft. However, I do think it is wrong to say that "everyoine knew there would be a cap."
Fact is, not everyone knew it. Everyone knew the owners wanted a cap, but that is another story.
Second, old contracts were signed under old rules. Evem with the expectation that rules might change, it seems fair to me to make provisions that protect teams that played fair under old rules from any harm under the new rules.
IE:Grandfather clauses.

Finally, even if there was a dispersal draft, there is no guarantee whatsoever that anyone would pick up Hatcher, Yashin, etc, etc, etc.

SO I really doubt this will ever be considered seriously.

The NHL needs some sort of grandfather clause to help with transition.
I can't believe that any fair minded person would even argue against such a mechanism. But I'm sure the argument will come.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

How would a dispersal draft punish Hatcher? He's still going to get his cash. In a buyout, he'd probably get a lump sum, and that'd be the end of it. In a dispersal, he'd get all of his money that's owed to him on the end of the contract.


I don't think we're talking about 200-300 players moving around from team to team like a complete fantasy draft. This would ultimately be like 20-30 at maximum to help relieve the salary burdens of some teams, giving them a bit more manueverability. It's going to happen anyways, through either buyouts, or trades like the Jagr deal to NY, where Jagr's contract is still lacing 'em up for the Caps.

Jeez, the bloodsuckers in the small markets got their inch and their mile, now they want a ligh year.
They're practically frothing at the mouth.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

A couple things JW.
I am oppose to the draft. However, I do think it is wrong to say that "everyoine knew there would be a cap."
Fact is, not everyone knew it. Everyone knew the owners wanted a cap, but that is another story.
Second, old contracts were signed under old rules. Evem with the expectation that rules might change, it seems fair to me to make provisions that protect teams that played fair under old rules from any harm under the new rules.
IE:Grandfather clauses.

Finally, even if there was a dispersal draft, there is no guarantee whatsoever that anyone would pick up Hatcher, Yashin, etc, etc, etc.

SO I really doubt this will ever be considered seriously.

The NHL needs some sort of grandfather clause to help with transition.
I can't believe that any fair minded person would even argue against such a mechanism. But I'm sure the argument will come.

I think it was safe to say everyone knew there would be a different economic system. I'm opposed to the draft too but if your gonna make these teams get under the cap force the teams to buy out thier own players and let them choose where they go.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What about the idea of a dispersal draft where a team could choose to protect between 6 and the current 21 players used for the waiver draft?

Teams that want to dump some contracts could make them available and teams that want to protect their roster could do so.

You could even allow a 50% buyout vs the cap for any player put into the draft and not selected. (player would still get 2/3 buyout)

So now you are suggesting that players not receive what is promised them in their contract?

 

[Chimaera]

A couple things JW.
I am oppose to the draft. However, I do think it is wrong to say that "everyoine knew there would be a cap."
Fact is, not everyone knew it. Everyone knew the owners wanted a cap, but that is another story.
Second, old contracts were signed under old rules. Evem with the expectation that rules might change, it seems fair to me to make provisions that protect teams that played fair under old rules from any harm under the new rules.
IE:Grandfather clauses.

Finally, even if there was a dispersal draft, there is no guarantee whatsoever that anyone would pick up Hatcher, Yashin, etc, etc, etc.

SO I really doubt this will ever be considered seriously.

The NHL needs some sort of grandfather clause to help with transition.
I can't believe that any fair minded person would even argue against such a mechanism. But I'm sure the argument will come.

Fair minded person?


how fair is that to the Caps, or the Penguins, or the Blue Jackets, or every other team except the top 6 or 7 teams that went out and spent and spent and spent. Especially when they were only spending and raising costs against their other high payroll teams.

The Caps and other teams (to some extent) took their lumps prior to the lockout and planned for it. It was hard to get rid of everyone. They took basically pennies on the dollar for what they spent to get those players, in order to ensure cost certainty. The Caps stockpiled prospects, cheap affordable talent, and other waiver wire players, who would allow the Caps to add players at the end of a lockout.


Now, that they're set to benefit from a bit of fiscal planning, it's fair to say, oh, wait, we're going to help out the teams that took advantage of everything for the past 10-15 years. Who cares about you.

It's just like this everyone gets a shot at the Crosby lottery draft system. That's garbage. People say, my team's good. We'd make the playoffs. Yet, they still deserve a shot at a top pick in a draft. That's a joke. Everyone and their mother knows the Caps will be a bottom basement team when the NHL returns. Probably for a year or two. Yet, it's 'fair' to help out other teams who have way more talent, and have benefited for the past 10+ years.


I'm sorry, but sympathy just won't come from me. The teams with the high payrolls, and the big markets have ruined the sport. Their uncontrolled spending, their want for paying 3rd liners exorberant sums of money nearly killed hockey. Heck, it still might, because as far as I can tell, there still isnt' a CBA in place. Those 6-7 teams drove up the market, squeezed out the smaller market teams from ever being competitive unless they too spent. They took advantage, even signing players to expensive contracts, right up until the point of the lockout. Spending without any thought towards a Cap.

The top payroll teams have dominated the sport for too long. There are 20 or so other teams who are tired of it, and for the betterment of all, aren't going to let contracts be grandfathered in, or bought out to allow teams to gather up cheaper quality talent. The free ride is over.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I think it was safe to say everyone knew there would be a different economic system. I'm opposed to the draft too but if your gonna make these teams get under the cap force the teams to buy out thier own players and let them choose where they go.

I suppose that's true.
But I think it's terribly unfair to force any teams to be punished for contracts under the old system

They have to provide a transition period for these teams. I'm practically sure almost no one agree with me, but this period should last as long until every current contract on that team expires or is traded/

Am I saying that the WIngs should be able to go out and sign UFAs until Robert Lang's contract expires? No.
But I don't think they should be punished for it either.

Now, a dispersal draft might be more palatable if teams losing player were to receive compensatory picks at the end of the first round in next year's draft, or something.

 

[SENSible1*]

So now you are suggesting that players not receive what is promised them in their contract?

I guess you missed the part about the player still getting his 2/3 buyout that is standard in ALL player contracts.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Fair minded person?


how fair is that to the Caps, or the Penguins, or the Blue Jackets, or every other team except the top 6 or 7 teams that went out and spent and spent and spent. Especially when they were only spending and raising costs against their other high payroll teams.

The Caps and other teams (to some extent) took their lumps prior to the lockout and planned for it. It was hard to get rid of everyone. They took basically pennies on the dollar for what they spent to get those players, in order to ensure cost certainty. The Caps stockpiled prospects, cheap affordable talent, and other waiver wire players, who would allow the Caps to add players at the end of a lockout.


Now, that they're set to benefit from a bit of fiscal planning, it's fair to say, oh, wait, we're going to help out the teams that took advantage of everything for the past 10-15 years. Who cares about you.

It's just like this everyone gets a shot at the Crosby lottery draft system. That's garbage. People say, my team's good. We'd make the playoffs. Yet, they still deserve a shot at a top pick in a draft. That's a joke. Everyone and their mother knows the Caps will be a bottom basement team when the NHL returns. Probably for a year or two. Yet, it's 'fair' to help out other teams who have way more talent, and have benefited for the past 10+ years.


I'm sorry, but sympathy just won't come from me. The teams with the high payrolls, and the big markets have ruined the sport. Their uncontrolled spending, their want for paying 3rd liners exorberant sums of money nearly killed hockey. Heck, it still might, because as far as I can tell, there still isnt' a CBA in place. Those 6-7 teams drove up the market, squeezed out the smaller market teams from ever being competitive unless they too spent. They took advantage, even signing players to expensive contracts, right up until the point of the lockout. Spending without any thought towards a Cap.

The top payroll teams have dominated the sport for too long. There are 20 or so other teams who are tired of it, and for the betterment of all, aren't going to let contracts be grandfathered in, or bought out to allow teams to gather up cheaper quality talent. The free ride is over.

Get real. That was the old law of the land.
Teams like the Wings played by the rules.
WHenever a new law is passed, you have to make sure that former law abiding citizens can make the transition in a fair way.

I could care less about the 20 other teams. They're allready getting their salary cap.
You can't punish a team for competing hard. You simply can't.

There needs to be a way to bring the big market teams under the cap.

A dispersal draft isn't going to work.
For one, it makes the league look Pejorative Slured.
For two, it's just the wet dream of some small market pansy who likes Jagr's hairdo.
For three, there's no gaurantee that anyone actually picks up the salaries of any of the guys the teams want to dump?

Do you think anyone will take Cujo???
I don't.
He was available on the waiver wire last year. Twice.
And no one took him.

So let's get real.

You want your bloody salary cap?

Good.

Now find a way to make it work.

If you're solution is "Just buy the players out", then don't expect your "solution" to get out of committee, because owners like Illitch won't let it.

And if you start pissing off the rich owners, you jeopardize your solidarity.

 

[habfan4]

I suppose that's true.
But I think it's terribly unfair to force any teams to be punished for contracts under the old system

They have to provide a transition period for these teams. I'm practically sure almost no one agree with me, but this period should last as long until every current contract on that team expires or is traded/

Am I saying that the WIngs should be able to go out and sign UFAs until Robert Lang's contract expires? No.
But I don't think they should be punished for it either.

Now, a dispersal draft might be more palatable if teams losing player were to receive compensatory picks at the end of the first round in next year's draft, or something.

IMO "unfair" would be defined as selective enforcement of any new ecomonic restraints contained in a new CBA. Obviously, the teams that planned for the new economic model are in better shape going forward, however, if Colorado, Philly or Detroit etc... have to make some unpalatable choices in an effort to shed some salary, so be it, the rules are the same for every team.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

IMO "unfair" would be defined as selective enforcement of any new ecomonic restraints contained in a new CBA. Obviously, the teams that planned for the new economic model are in better shape going forward, however, if Colorado, Philly or Detroit etc... have to make some unpalatable choices in an effort to shed some salary, so be it, the rules are the same for every team.

Are you picking a fight with the players?
Or are you picking a fight with the rich owners?


Because at this point, what you don't want is owners to start griping at eachother.

 

[habfan4]

Are you picking a fight with the players?
Or are you picking a fight with the rich owners?


Because at this point, what you don't want is owners to start griping at eachother.

Neither?

In terms of the players: Buyouts and trades were part of the pre-lockout landscape in the NHL and they'll continue to be part of the landscape when the new CBA is signed. The only difference is that the motivation for using these tools has changed. IMO the players will view any such movement as “business as usualâ€

In terms of the owners: I think it disingenuous to suggest that anyone on the ownership side would be ignorant of the potential terms of a new CBA and their effects on their respective businesses. Those who acted accordingly will be in better shape going forward, those who didn't will have to make some tough choices - nothing unfair about it

 

[SENSible1*]

Neither?

In terms of the players: Buyouts and trades were part of the pre-lockout landscape in the NHL and they'll continue to be part of the landscape when the new CBA is signed. The only difference is that the motivation for using these tools has changed. IMO the players will view any such movement as “business as usualâ€

In terms of the owners: I think it disingenuous to suggest that anyone on the ownership side would be ignorant of the potential terms of a new CBA and their effects on their respective businesses. Those who acted accordingly will be in better shape going forward, those who didn't will have to make some tough choices - nothing unfair about it

The big market owners will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Chimaera]

Get real. That was the old law of the land.
Teams like the Wings played by the rules.
WHenever a new law is passed, you have to make sure that former law abiding citizens can make the transition in a fair way.

I could care less about the 20 other teams. They're allready getting their salary cap.
You can't punish a team for competing hard. You simply can't.

There needs to be a way to bring the big market teams under the cap.

A dispersal draft isn't going to work.
For one, it makes the league look Pejorative Slured.
For two, it's just the wet dream of some small market pansy who likes Jagr's hairdo.
For three, there's no gaurantee that anyone actually picks up the salaries of any of the guys the teams want to dump?

Do you think anyone will take Cujo???
I don't.
He was available on the waiver wire last year. Twice.
And no one took him.

So let's get real.

You want your bloody salary cap?

Good.

Now find a way to make it work.

If you're solution is "Just buy the players out", then don't expect your "solution" to get out of committee, because owners like Illitch won't let it.

And if you start pissing off the rich owners, you jeopardize your solidarity.

No, you're missing the point. I have said repeatedly, that I think that a dispersal draft is a good starting point and a decent idea.

How does it not make sense? It would work generally like the Rule 5 draft in Baseball, the Waiver Draft in the NHL to an extent, and almost like an expansion draft in any other sport. It wouldn't be a forced thing where teams have to take players, but it would allow other teams looking to add players to do so. You can say it sounds Pejorative Slured, but I think you're missing the idea. with a structured framework, it would give a decent avenue to allow some teams, if they so desired, to drastically slash payroll.

I don't think that they should just protect 6-8 players like some have suggested. I think teams should be able to protect more along the lines of 15-18. Incentives could be given for teams to both offer up players and for the teams who take the players. What it would eventually break down to is a system where some teams with cap room, would take on a player like CUJO, in exchange for a prospect or two. As a GM in the NHL, I'd take CUJO in a second if I knew I'd get a solid prospect and get him at a cheaper rate. Especially if I have money to spend. Baseball regularly makes trades like this. Sammy Sosa ring a bell? He was shipped out to a team who could afford him. Other teams have made similar trades.

Now that wouldn't have to be done through a draft. But it's going to be done irregardlessly of whether or not you, or the big market teams want it.

I understand the implication of playing by the old rules. That's fine, they played by them then. But these are tough times. Hockey is quickly falling behind the other sports. If you want to call for fair play, and playing by the rules, then if a Cap is made, the teams should be made to stick by them. Whether that means they have to ship out players with prospects to get Cap relief, whatever it takes to get under the cap.

And the days of being afraid of the rich owners are over. The majority of hockey owners aren't making money, and they aren't happy. While it might impact some of the top market franchises in the short run, those owners will realize in the long run, they will grow their profits more so with a cap, then with free spending. Controlled player salaries, and salaries tied to revenue means owners will make more money if they're fiscally smart, and they hold a fan base. Which the top market teams will consistently do.

I'm not talking about making your precious team give away each legitamate NHL player they have, leaving a team with CUJO, Hatcher and 28 rent a players. One or two players from each top market team, moved to a smaller market team would be better for the league.

And as a side note, I've already gotten over my Jagr fix, had him here in Washington, and see just how flawed that past system was. Adding another 15million+ onto the payroll to make sure he succeeded was a joke. Teams couldn't keep up the spending and still be viable.

Like it or not, this isn't rec hockey, this is a business.

 

[ATLANTARANGER*]

Personally I think a dispersal draft is a deal killer

The Dispearsal Draft

If such a draft does take place before next season as it has been rumoured... could someone please clarify what proportion it will have?

I think it would work much like a mega waiver draft. Teams will be able to protect X number of players, leaving those players they can no longer afford (under the Cap) to be picked up by the other teams.

OR

does it mean EVERY player will be entered into the mother of all drafts. And anyone could end up anywhere. And we'll have something like Koivu in Nashville, Bonk in Edmonton, Theodore in Long Island, Souray back in NJ, Zednick in Clolumbus, Bulis in Detroit, etc...

Could someone just clarify that for me? Thanks.

I think the repercussions within the players union would be huge. I think if the union agreed to present a CBA with such an element in it you could see the NHLPA splinter. Remember this is not like the waiver draft where only a couple of players move around, this could envolve wholesale player movement and above all else people have to remember that they do have family concerns.

 

[Chimaera]

I think the repercussions within the players union would be huge. I think if the union agreed to present a CBA with such an element in it you could see the NHLPA splinter. Remember this is not like the waiver draft where only a couple of players move around, this could envolve wholesale player movement and above all else people have to remember that they do have family concerns.

It depends on what type, and how much really.



If it's a draft where you can protect most of your team, (15-20) then there probably wouldn't be too much of a concern. Yes, some people will be moved, but that probably would break down to 20-30, as opposed to a wholesale turnover. While there might be some concerns about that type of shakeup. I think the NHLPA would have less problem with that, then the eventual buyout and probable salary drop that might occur. Collusion is a word the NHLPA might learn to hate quickly.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What it would eventually break down to is a system where some teams with cap room, would take on a player like CUJO, in exchange for a prospect or two. As a GM in the NHL, I'd take CUJO in a second if I knew I'd get a solid prospect and get him at a cheaper rate.

You'll have to clarify this.
Are you saying that the team would pick up Cujo in the draft, and then somehow get a prospect?
Or that Cujo would cost a prospect?

I ask this because Cujo didn't even get a nibble on the waiver wire (ie, no cost for Cujo) on two occasions last season.

I understand the implication of playing by the old rules. That's fine, they played by them then. But these are tough times. .

But these are not tough times for teams still above the expected cap. For the most part, these teams could afford to be far higher than the expected cap.
I don't think it hurts ANYONE to allow teams to at least keep the players currently on roster and under contract.

And the days of being afraid of the rich owners are over. The majority of hockey owners aren't making money, and they aren't happy. While it might impact some of the top market franchises in the short run, those owners will realize in the long run, they will grow their profits more so with a cap, then with free spending. Controlled player salaries, and salaries tied to revenue means owners will make more money if they're fiscally smart, and they hold a fan base. Which the top market teams will consistently do. [/Chimaera]

I'm not talking about being afraid of the Illitches.
I'm talking about keeping some semblance of cooperation among the owners.

I don't think anyone is going to take Cujo or Hatcher in any dispersal draft.
So if there is no grandfather clause, that forces Illitch to eat those contracts.
Right now the owners have the players behind the eight ball. The last thing they want to do is tell a guy like Illitch, or whoever, that, hey, you're going to have pay out 20 Million for some players that will never play for you again.

Find a realistic, equitable way to do it.

Like it or not, this isn't rec hockey, this is a business.

Right.
And it's a succesful business in Detroit.
If you hadn't noticed, Mike Illitch is in the hockey hall of fame.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I suppose that's true.
But I think it's terribly unfair to force any teams to be punished for contracts under the old system

They have to provide a transition period for these teams. I'm practically sure almost no one agree with me, but this period should last as long until every current contract on that team expires or is traded/

Am I saying that the WIngs should be able to go out and sign UFAs until Robert Lang's contract expires? No.
But I don't think they should be punished for it either.

Now, a dispersal draft might be more palatable if teams losing player were to receive compensatory picks at the end of the first round in next year's draft, or something.

Didn't Bettman tell all of the teams at least the year before the CBA expired that the NHL was going to try and make sure that there wasn't any grandfathering of contracts under the new CBA?

Didn't the Leafs still sign Belfour to a 2 year deal worth $8M per year right after that? Why should they get relief when they knew the rules were going to be changing, and they still flipped the league the bird?

Every owner and GM knew this was potentially coming on the horizon. If they went out and signed guys like Holik or Tkachuk to insane contracts anyway, I don't see why they shouldn't be held accountable. I know, being held accountable is a bizarre idea, but I think the time has come.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Right.
And it's a succesful business in Detroit.
If you hadn't noticed, Mike Illitch is in the hockey hall of fame.

It's such a successful business that the Red Wings have to make it to the Stanley Cup finals to make money.

 

[Chimaera]

You'll have to clarify this.
Are you saying that the team would pick up Cujo in the draft, and then somehow get a prospect?
Or that Cujo would cost a prospect?

I ask this because Cujo didn't even get a nibble on the waiver wire (ie, no cost for Cujo) on two occasions last season.




But these are not tough times for teams still above the expected cap. For the most part, these teams could afford to be far higher than the expected cap.
I don't think it hurts ANYONE to allow teams to at least keep the players currently on roster and under contract.




Right.
And it's a succesful business in Detroit.
If you hadn't noticed, Mike Illitch is in the hockey hall of fame.

First, I'm saying, in a trade involving a player like Cujo, or Hatcher, or whoever, a deal would work like, Cujo + some decent prospect for a cheaper vet/younger player. The prospect would be part of the impetus to get another team to 'eat' most of the salary. If a team's gonna pay a player part of his salary, and I get something back in return, Cujo's not as bad of a player to pickup.

How does it not hurt anyone to grandfather in old contracts? Part of the whole new system isn't just to make the big bad large market teams cut spending. It's to allow other teams to even out the talent gaps by the eventual reduction in payrolls of large market teams. Those reductions will allow other small market teams to gain more 'reasonably' priced players at fair market, instead of the high price mark up.

Grandfathering in those contracts definitely hurts the small market teams who were going to benefit from the eventual slash of payroll. Not to mention, if you allow the 'old contracts' to stay on the books, does that mean a team like the Rangers can just go out and spend money? Or are they stuck with the rosters they had pre-lockout?

It might be a successful business in Detroit, but it would be a pretty lame season if Detroit was to faceoff against 6 other teams who could afford to ice a roster. There is no TV dollars to balance the gap between rich and poor, no cost certainty until this point. That's what needs to be achieved.

 

[Chayos]

How would a dispersal draft punish Hatcher? He's still going to get his cash. In a buyout, he'd probably get a lump sum, and that'd be the end of it. In a dispersal, he'd get all of his money that's owed to him on the end of the contract.


I don't think we're talking about 200-300 players moving around from team to team like a complete fantasy draft. This would ultimately be like 20-30 at maximum to help relieve the salary burdens of some teams, giving them a bit more manueverability. It's going to happen anyways, through either buyouts, or trades like the Jagr deal to NY, where Jagr's contract is still lacing 'em up for the Caps.

a dispersal draft won't happen because the big market teams would be eating payroll and getting nothing back. Players will be traded with the original team eating part of the salary, but getting back a prospect or cheaper player.

On the oiler board the speculation is already on about who we will be able to get with Ethan Moreau who scored 20 goals in 03/04 and is cheap at $1.2 mill and very effective as well. He could net a player that could help the oilers who is to expensive for teh other team.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I think the repercussions within the players union would be huge. I think if the union agreed to present a CBA with such an element in it you could see the NHLPA splinter. Remember this is not like the waiver draft where only a couple of players move around, this could envolve wholesale player movement and above all else people have to remember that they do have family concerns.

Who doesn't?

How is this any different than a player that is traded? Are trades not made simiply because a player doesn't want to pull his kids from school?? I don't think so. The player has a choice - report to his new team or retire.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

It's such a successful business that the Red Wings have to make it to the Stanley Cup finals to make money.

Year to year profit isn't where Illitch makes his money.