Finally, your rationalization makes my point exactly. Its all about $$$$ and not the game. Its a side show.
By helping sell the NHL, they're growing the game. Is it wrong to have a spectacle, like the Winter Classic, enjoy high visibility to the general public and not exclusively cater to pre-existing fans such as yourself?
This is a selfish rant, in my opinion. In your view, it cheapens the game because it does nothing for you and arguably detracts from one game (more so than in-arena one-sided blowouts and the occasional boring game, I presume) - yet people have attested to the amazing atmosphere surrounding the Classic, independent of the on-ice events. Fact is, quality is not solely predicated on whether or not it is held indoors, it's routinely affected by variables beyond our control. The Winter Classic impacts one regular season game of hockey between two teams, hardly the affront to fans, players, the league and, presumably, humanity that you dramatize it to be. Nor can I see how it makes a mockery out of the game. Games are played in suboptimal conditions in arenas too. Sometimes teams goon it up. The event was never planned on being held in the rain (which would be a truly terrible event) yet it so happens that the weather is somewhat out of our ability to rein in. Don't see why that holds any significance in whether a Winter Classic should be held or not. What are some tangible effects of the Winter Classic? Well, people are talking about hockey, people are attending the Classic in droves and people producing documentaries (the HBO special). I don't know how any of that would happen for an All-Star Game.
As for the All-Star Game, personally, I find that it's wholly unnecessary for several reasons:
1) Potential injuries for a game which ultimately means nothing
2) Players altogether aware of 1), thus playing a pseudo-game of hockey
As a result, the All-Star game is mostly a shooting gallery and not very interesting to watch or taken seriously by anybody, even hockey fans. It holds very little of the things that makes hockey truly great (passion, intensity, etc). Not very marketable as a clash of wills where there is none to speak of.
So, rather than being a meaningless exhibition, as a regular season game at least it's worth something. You argue that's giving it too much importance- but borrowing from your Olympic rebuttal, I would imagine myself that being injured in a game that doesn't mean anything to anyone is worse than being injured in a game that matters. At least they're trying to help their team win a game worth points than the true "sideshow" (re: All-Star Game). The ice isn't slanted in any direction as both teams play in equally good or terrible circumstances- also there won't be any questions of whether or not they played for the win because it does have consequences in the standings and a high degree of visibility (compared to your run-of-the-mill regular season clash).
Now, obviously, there are things that could be improved and other things that aren't altogether necessary and who knows- the novelty may wear off soon. These issues will be discussed ad infinitum between the NHL and the NHLPA (and, of course, HFBoards). But I just can't see how it's decidedly
negative for either the game of hockey or the league, or the players or anybody involved. Well, besides naysayers such as yourself who would rather the sport bury itself in the deep recesses of the north and never market to the heathen masses lest it result in deviation from the
status quo. Holding the All-Star Game outside is not going to make it any bigger than it already is because there is already
nothing on the line. No goal, zero intensity.
Note: I especially like your conjecture of what players would prefer and etc, mostly cause it makes for good fiction. If there was any indication that players were against the Winter Classic, I'm sure there would've been at least an inkling of such sentiment based on a little more than "I bet Bettman and his cronies are silencing everyone who agrees with my otherwise carefully articulated and well substantiated point". That portion of your argument based on what ifs is precarious at best and foolish at worst.
