Apparently it excites many of the US owners though, Nashville for example. Those owners (apparently) feel it is worthwhile to have the shortened season to maintain/rebuild the profile of the league, especially in less popular markets. The appeal of playoffs also looms for those owners, because they tend to get much better attendance (I think that says something all by itself) for playoff games than for regular season games.
There is still a cap (apparently) in the latest owners offer, so don't expect much.
I have to admit, I'm getting quite a kick out of guys willing to displace other players and play for less money, yet they are supposedly a unified union (really, what union do you know that scabs at other jobs?) and steadfastly refuse a cap. You refuse a cap that would lower your pay to $5 million a year, but you'll play for minor hockey in Detroit for less than $200 grand?? Explain that logic to me again, please.
Sorry, I'm stubborn. I hope the owners stick to it and break the union. Lots of players mentioned that they'd go to the WHA to play for less (that league, had it flown would have had a $10 million cap per team). So again, if you're willing to take that cap, why not an NHL cap?
So if it's a two year lockout, how many of the upper-echelon players will actually have a career left starting in 2006?