Lots to think about here and some great comments from Jeff and Jason. I see there isn't that much difference between us now, much to my dismay
For those of you not into this, fair warning, this is going to be a long post.
First key point, H.E. is right and I've admitted as much, I am a disgruntled fan. Supremely bitter in point of fact, so factor that in, if you haven't already.
I agree entirely a cap at $30 million will do nothing, it's absurd. It would need to be indexed and probably somewhere between $50-60 million at current salaries. I do believe that owners will fill their cap space, providing they can afford to do it. And that to me is a huge difference between the NFL and NHL. As you pointed out, TV revenue for NHL sucks ****, the opposite of the NFL. That's where my comment on profit sharing came from. The league has to survive as a league first, individual teams in individual markets second. That's part of my rationale for a cap, because people are inherently selfish and stupid. Hello, Colorado? I see your point regarding the players, but it's only hypothetical money they are giving back. Yes, the contracts are signed, but honestly, making 7 million versus 8.5 million, where's the great suffering? Gesture duly noted however.
I agree about the NBA cap, it is a farce but that is really up to that league to manage. Our little football league up here has a cap too and it is equally a joke.
I completely agree that hockey is in bad shape because of Bettman and the owners. Owners signed the contracts and nobody held a gun to their head, but at the same time, I view a cap as self control being forced upon them. You can't have an agent for a guy like Forsberg leveraging against Colorado an offer from New York for 8 mill versus the Avs 5.5 if there's no room under the cap. Essentially the players own the owners right now and it goes back to that loyalty thing. Forsberg has been a Nord/Av his whole career, why didn't he take less to stay? Greed, a normal human reaction. As far as Bettman goes, well, he's only about money and loves the game about as much as I like chopped liver.
The NHL over estimated it's popularity and over expanded.
Could not agree with you more. Sadly a portion of that has come at the expense of Canadian franchises. Bettman openly stated he doesn't like Winnipeg as a market. But ask some guy like Don Cherry or Wayne Gretzky about Winnipeg as a hockey market. Our biggest problem was a crappy arena compounded by the lack of a deep pockets owner and a piss poor Canadian dollar. Well, we built a new arena too late, we still don't have anyone that could rightly own a team worth that much (hey, we're a small town popn. 700,000) and Bettman says he's never allowing back here.
I know that goals and excitement are what the NHL needs to draw in new fans. Despite what you may believe, the NHL DOES need 7-6 contests.
I know what you mean, but I have to disagree and I'll use the basketball analogy again. I don't really care about some player in the NBA that averages 25 a game, half of which are dunks if they're all travel balls. I admit readily, I'm a dinosaur, I like rules to be applied as they were invented. Sports should be entertaining for the skill in the game and if you have to cheat to get the fans, well, then I guess I want no part of it. Now, the cheating part does not apply to what you suggest as rule changes and contraction of the league would help no doubt. But the players and the owners won't accept contraction, so fuggedaboutit.
If a team like Toronto is capped out and a player wants to go there because he grew up there or he has family there, that eliminates his free agent right to go where he most desires. How exactly does a team make room to get him? Would they cut 3 players to get under the cap for 1 guy?
I'm going to disagree here. If the caliber of the player is high enough, you bet they'll dump players. Heard of Eric Lindros
And I'd contend the number of star quality players that take lower salaries do it more so to win a cup, than anything else: Hull, Bourque, Selanne. Worked for one of them. But those are guys towards the end of their careers, still talented, but it's almost always a last gasp effort. I've yet to see a guy at the peak of his career state that granny lives in Edmonton and I'd like to play there, so I'll take a $5 mill cut in pay
As far as rule changes you suggest, I completely agree. I'm just not convinced that's going to take the game to the 7-6 level, perhaps more along the lines of what Jeff suggests at 4-2. It would be a more open, faster game, but will the scoring go up? Maybe yes, maybe no. Part of the contraction + rule changes means you're going to the top 20 goalies in the league too, with better backups for all teams. Plus better defensemen and all around players. You're definitely getting rid of the dogs, but there will be a concurrent rise in the defensive abilities in general too. I'm even a fan of shoot-outs. As a traditionalist I'm not overly keen, but I've seen them in the WHL and it doesn't change the game dramatically and it does keep fans in the stands even longer.
I guess my dogmatic approach is still bitter about the fact FOX put a ******* blue streak on the puck. Gimicks suck ****, plain and simple. Hockey should be played in places where fans understand and appreciate the game. Places like Texas, for example. I expect you knew, but Texas has more professional (at all levels) hockey teams than all of CAnada. Go figure. But dragging it kicking and screaming into NASCAR country? Who the hell was that stupid?
At this point I will openly apologize for presuming to know who you'd contract, I was dead wrong. And I agree with all the teams you suggest, save Pittsburgh and not to kiss Jesse's ass. It's because I think Pennsylvania is a decent hockey market with a long history and good fans. They have fans out when the team sucks horribly, that's the litmus test as far as I'm concerned.
What you seem to be saying is that hockey works in Canada, who cares if it works in the US. Well, whether or not you want to admit it, it's the US's game now and if it doesn't work here, it's gone. It will always be "Canada's sport" but it's going to have to work in the US if it's going to survive, bottom line.
Well, yes and no, but I understand how you could see my viewpoint that way. I do care if it works in the US, but I don't think the game should be changed dramatically to make it work in the US. I think it has worked for a considerable period of time in the US in hockey markets. I don't think it works in the non-hockey markets which we addressed in the contraction areas. I'm not keen on the thought that it's the US' game now, I think that's Bettman speak (not to insult you). It's been dragged there and made into a US major sport, but with piss poor success. I also think it can survive at a satisfactory level without players needing to have 8 million dollar salaries. That's the biggest illusion they suffer from. Again, bowling = hockey at the professional level in the US in terms of TV ratings. Players (and owners!) really, really need to grasp that this is not a major league sport. Salaries should not be remotely comparable to the NBA/NFL/MLB, nor should owners incomes.
This is where teams should be, IMO:
New Jersey
Boston
New York (I could live with one there, but two I understand)
Montreal
Philadelphia
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
Toronto
Hamilton
Chicago
Calgary
Colorado
Dallas
Detroit
Edmonton
Los Angeles (I'm real marginal on this one, it's a market size issue)
Minnesota
St. Louis
Vancouver
Winnipeg
Quebec City - maybe, given the Habs are there.
That's 20-22 teams. Is it over represented in Canada? Maybe, depends on the goal: to get rich? Yup, overrepresented. To play a fantastic game at a professional level where it's appreciated, understood and supported? Nope, about right.
I'm marginal on Washington, Buffalo, San Jose partly because of ignorance about the market strength, partly because of non-traditional hockey market (SJ).
That's by no means all I have, but it's pointless to blather to one's self. On to Jeff's comments.
First off, an apology to Americans in general. For the hockey fans out there, I appreciate your knowledge and appreciation of the game and my comments are not directed at you. More so at the general public and with the realization that hockey is a wee bit complicated if you never grew up with it. It's frustration at the fact that OUR game is becoming American and needs the US to survive, even if I disagree. And that's what Jeff's point is so well put, Americans simply as a rule for the non familiar fan, don't understand it. So it's boring. It's essentially the same if I start whining about baseball no-hitters, a fantastic analogy. That is an accomplishment. The difference in hockey is that a 0-0 game now is not necessarily a matter of skill and team work so much as it is clutch, grab and dump. Yawn.
The shoot out as I mentioned above will drive a proportion of the traditionalists nuts, but I think the AHL handles it well. It's fun and while it changes the standings, it does so only to a minor degree. Where you'd see a real outcry is if it was instituted in the playoffs. Canuckleheads live and die with 5 overtime periods, that's the greatest part of spring. Messing with that would get some serious feedback. But for the regular season? Go for it.
Anyhoo, little over a week and the discussion can go into hibernation for quite a while.
