NHL New Rule Discusssions/New Schedule Format

[RPI-Fan]

...

A team can buy the player's contract out for 2/3 of that $9 million, or $6 million. The player gets the $6 million up front and that player's salary is off the team's books for good. It will not count against the cap.

...

I heard that multi-year buyouts DO count against the cap? Not sure that it's right, just wondering if you've heard definitely that what you said is correct (I think that hockeyrumors site was where I saw the multi-year thing -- but that Eklund guy has been dead-on lately, especially with the new schedule format).

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

No.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

I heard that multi-year buyouts DO count against the cap? Not sure that it's right, just wondering if you've heard definitely that what you said is correct (I think that hockeyrumors site was where I saw the multi-year thing -- but that Eklund guy has been dead-on lately, especially with the new schedule format).

No, I haven't heard anything definitive, but everything I have ever read (never checked hockeyrumors) has said that if you buy a player out his contract is off the books. Though this rule only pertains to players who are bought out over the course of the next week or so.

I did hear that after this year, in fact, I think after the end of next week, buyouts will count against the cap, but because of special circumstances (the new CBA), the NHL is giving teams a sort of one time "get out of contract free" card.

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Problem with bringing in both no-touch icing & no red line, is that the amount of missed passes you'll get will dramaticlly increase whistles from icing.

Missed passes aren't icing anymore, though (depending on how liberal the linesmen are about making that call, I guess.)

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

are shootouts going to be there for the playoffs too?

I'm not sure exactly. Maybe someone else will be able to answer this for you.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

I'm not sure exactly. Maybe someone else will be able to answer this for you.

they have 4 times

"NO"

[Easy Mac]

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

As for 10 or 20 minute OTs in the regular season, that way lies madness. Madness. That's a lot of extra hockey to be played over the course of an 82 game regular season that's far too long as it is. No one wants regular season games ending at 11:00 pm. Five minutes is fine as is the shoot-out

Well, first off, I disagree that no one wants games ending at 11:00pm. I for one wouldn't mind it. Just as long as they ended at 11pm so I could still watch Adult Swim. But an extra couple of minutes every once in awhile is "a lof of extra hockey"? Hardly.

Secondly, shootouts are teh suk. I HATE THEM! An extra 5 minutes in OT would make a lot of them not happen. The only good thing they do is eliminate teams playing for the tie, so now hopefully both teams will play to win in OT and the shootouts won't need to happen as much.

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.

I don't either. If John Galt was here, he'd say that shootouts were gay!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

so if i get this correct:
soccer: shootouts are dumb, its not how the game is played.
college fb: the get it from the 25 yard line is dumb, thats not how the game is played.
pro football: coin flip is unfair and not how the game is played.
hockey: shootouts are awesome!

i don't think i understand the minds of sports fans.

I can't speak to the football aspect, but there is a key difference between hockey and soccer. Hockey shootouts are awesome, well I wouldn't say "awesome", but perfectly acceptable, so long as they are limited to regular season games ONLY and follow some sort of overtime period. They should not be used to determine the winner of a play-off game. In soccer (and international hockey), World Champions are crowned as a result of a shootout. That's just not right.

The NHL got this one right, I think.

Does that help give you some insight into, at least, the mind of this sports fan?

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Well, first off, I disagree that no one wants games ending at 11:00pm. I for one wouldn't mind it. Just as long as they ended at 11pm so I could still watch Adult Swim. But an extra couple of minutes every once in awhile is "a lof of extra hockey"? Hardly.

Secondly, shootouts are teh suk. I HATE THEM! An extra 5 minutes in OT would make a lot of them not happen. The only good thing they do is eliminate teams playing for the tie, so now hopefully both teams will play to win in OT and the shootouts won't need to happen as much.

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?

2 pts for regulation or overtime/shootout win, 1 point for overtime/shootout loss.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Which brings up a point. Now that there are no ties, do we need Points in the standings anymore? Are they keeping the 1 point for an OT Lose?

yes

you win in regular regulation, overtime or shootout you get 2 points in the standing.


you lose in regulation you get no points

you lose in overtime or shootout you get 1 point.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by JeffR

Missed passes aren't icing anymore, though (depending on how liberal the linesmen are about making that call, I guess.)

I know, I was just telling DD why they went with a semi-NTI rule...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

hockey: shootouts are awesome!

Most (but not all) hockey fans hate shootouts. They're similar to using a HR derby to decide a tied baseball game -- not a good or fair tie-breaker, but the sort of thing that generates excitement among casual non-fans.

Given that the NHL needs a lot of those casual and non-fans to come back, and given how damn boring the games are these days, shootouts are probably a necessary evil even though in theory it's a brutally stupid way to decide a game.

[vtbub]

Hate the shootout, would rather see a 10 minute OT with 4 on 4 the second five minutes.

The rest sounds good.

[bronconick]

A shootout isn't the end of the world, if they actually pull off opening the game up before that. If there are 25 solid scoring chances for each team because the obstruction is down, the number of games that end in ties is going to drop anyway. It's a lot easier to tie a game 1-1 when each team only gets 15 shots and 3 chances then tie a game 4-4 with 60 shots on net between the team and the goalies playing acrobaticly.

[Wolfpack]

That's unfortunate that they're still using points if every game is win/lose. It should be all-or-nothing. Use regulation wins vs. OT/SO wins as some sort of tiebreaker instead. It would also simplify the standings for the casual fan.

[klayman]

The shootout means that the less talented teams will play for the draw in hopes of winning the 50-50 shootout and the two points. Especially when it comes to overtime. Why take chances in the 5 min overtime, when you get at least a point, and an equal chance to win the game?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I just don't think that anything's wrong with tie games, but I'm not upset about the shootouts at all. As long as we don't have the scores like JonInMiddleGA mentioned (13-11 or something like that), I think everything will be fine.

[RPI-Fan]

I think the ideal system would have been:

3 points for regulation or overtime win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.

But people would have whined about that being too complicated.

[ice4277]

I can't see how we are going to have crazy scores now. All the league will do is start to actually enforce rules on how big goalie equipment can be. The goalies have been over-protected the last few years. As was mentioned earlier, compare equipment from the 80's or early 90's to what some of them wear today and its sick.

As for the other rule changes, I'm for pretty much all of them, except penalty shots to decide tie games. Personally it feels pretty bush-league to me, but I can understand the mindset behind it, and it probably will be exciting, to some degree. But I still would rather have gone without them. Other than that, the league and players did a great job with most of the other new rules.

[Suicane75]

Until they put teams back in Winnipeg, Hartford and Quebec the NHL can kiss my big black ass.

CFB overtime and Hockey and Soccer shootouts can kiss my big black ass too.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Most (but not all) hockey fans hate shootouts.

I fell in this category before last season, I hated the idea of a shoot-out. But after seeing live throughout last years AHL season, I became a supporter... and I think ALOT of minds will change as well after the 2005-06 NHL season.

[ISiddiqui]

Most of the rules are good aside from the dumbass shootout rule. What the fuck is wrong with having a tie? Jeez, Louise! I also dislike the new 'trapezoid' where goalies can't handle the puck. Bah... let them handle it!

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

I think the ideal system would have been:

3 points for regulation or overtime win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.

But people would have whined about that being too complicated.

I agree. And I don't think it's too confusing.

[Maple Leafs]

Do we know for sure that both teams are guaranteed a point from a shootout? The last article I saw on the subject, before this week, said that it would be two points to the winner and zero to the loser regardless of how the game ended. I haven't seen anything in the coverage of the new rules that has it one way or the other, does anyone have a link?

[TazFTW]

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/shootout072205.html

The League will award two points to a team that wins in regulation, overtime or the shootout; one point to a team that loses in overtime or the shootout; and no points to a team that loses in regulation.

[Maple Leafs]

Brutal.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Most of the rules are good aside from the dumbass shootout rule. What the fuck is wrong with having a tie? Jeez, Louise! I also dislike the new 'trapezoid' where goalies can't handle the puck. Bah... let them handle it!

If they were going to let goalies handle the puck freely, they absolutely HAD to become free game in terms of getting checked. And there was no way the NHLPA would let that happen, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that Brodeur will get to handle the puck in the trapezoid. Wouldn't surprise me if goalies soon can't handle the puck behind the goal line at all (soon = 06-07), and it would be a welcome change for me.

[Galaxy]

Will we see changes in the style and type of players teams will play and use?

Will their be less of a physical game, and more of an European-style game that foceses on speedsters and puckhandling more then physical play?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Will their be less of a physical game, and more of an European-style game that foceses on speedsters and puckhandling more then physical play?

For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

If they were going to let goalies handle the puck freely, they absolutely HAD to become free game in terms of getting checked. And there was no way the NHLPA would let that happen, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that Brodeur will get to handle the puck in the trapezoid. Wouldn't surprise me if goalies soon can't handle the puck behind the goal line at all (soon = 06-07), and it would be a welcome change for me.

I still don't see what was wrong with the old rule with goalies. And I doubt they'll prohibit the goalies from handing behind the net entirely any point in the near future.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I still don't see what was wrong with the old rule with goalies. And I doubt they'll prohibit the goalies from handing behind the net entirely any point in the near future.

You don't see what was wrong with it? That they were given immunity when having control of the puck, while all 10 other players were fair game to be checked?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

Exactly. People rarely seem to get this point. They always bring up the Olympics and how great that hockey is. They focus on the wider ice surface as being the reason. It's not. The reason is (1) it's the best players in the game on a handful of teams, so the talent and skill levels are off the charts and (2) it's the Olympics: they matter. A regular season NHL game with the wider ice-surface would not be all that different than a regular NHL game with the ice as it is now. I watched some games in Europe. While the games were less physical, they weren't necessarily more fluid/exciting, etc. I don't want a less physical NHL. I like the hitting and checking, but the clutching, grabbing and such should go.

It will be interesting to see if this gets accomplished. They tried before and there were like 12 power-plays per team per game. That wasn't much better.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

For whatever it's worth, while elite-level international tourneys feature a lot of skill and speed, your average European league features even more clutch-and-grab garbage than the NHL.

BINGO. Many also seem to forget that the dreaded trap origniated in Europe, because of the large ice surfaces.

[Karim]

The only rule I dislike is limiting the goalie's ability to handle the puck. A goalie that can stickhandle is not only an asset defensively but offensively, being able to headman the puck when the other team makes a line change. It's removing skill from the game.

I guess teams playing New Jersey, Dallas and the Islanders will be the primary benficiaries. I guess it must have been working in the AHL or it wouldn't have been introduced. I'll have to see it for myself.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

You don't see what was wrong with it? That they were given immunity when having control of the puck, while all 10 other players were fair game to be checked?

And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

Originally Posted by Karim

I guess teams playing New Jersey, Dallas and the Islanders will be the primary benficiaries.

Beneficiary?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

Beneficiary?

I don't mind the dump & chase all that much.

Beneficiaries, yes. Broduer (NJ), Turco (Dal), and DePietro (NYI) are all goalies with very good stickhandling skills.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by HB

Beneficiaries, yes. Broduer (NJ), Turco (Dal), and DePietro (NYI) are all goalies with very good stickhandling skills.

Ah.. I wasn't aware of Turco's and DePietro's stickhandling. I just know their shot stopping.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And...?

There is a usually a price, when the goalie goes out of the net, he leaves the goal unguarded. A wrong pass, and it could be an incredibly easy goal.

Furthermore the old rule minimized the viability of playing a dump and chase style of hockey (a good thing, IMO).

Beneficiary?

My team is one that benefits from free stickhandling (Islanders) and I'm totally for the new rule.

The dump-and-chase style is an exciting offensive style if it is able to be executed. With goalies getting immunity, it wasn't viable. See, I would agree with you that there was a price to pay of leaving the net unguarded, however goalies rarely made terrible passes because they are under NO time pressure.

I'd be cool with letting goalie play the puck, as long as they were fair game to be checked. But to me, I don't think you should be able to have it both ways (no checking AND play the puck whenever).

[Solecismic]

Instead of shootouts, I think they should challenge each other to a Pillsbury Bake-Off to settle tied games.

Because that has about as much to do with hockey as a shootout.

I'll never consider soccer a sport worthy of any attention, because their grand prize - supposedly the biggest tournament in all of sports - is settled with a shootout. Call me when Brandy Chastain goes without the sports bra.

[JeffR]

Nah, they just need to incorporate something else into the shootout so the finesse teams don't have too much of an advantage: if it's tied after 3 shots, each team sends its goon out and they fight. First man down or cut loses. Now that's old-time hockey.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

My team is one that benefits from free stickhandling (Islanders) and I'm totally for the new rule.

The dump-and-chase style is an exciting offensive style if it is able to be executed. With goalies getting immunity, it wasn't viable. See, I would agree with you that there was a price to pay of leaving the net unguarded, however goalies rarely made terrible passes because they are under NO time pressure.

I'd be cool with letting goalie play the puck, as long as they were fair game to be checked. But to me, I don't think you should be able to have it both ways (no checking AND play the puck whenever).

Eh.. I've ALWAYS hated dump and chase and thought it a product of an untalented team (ie, kind of like a trap for the offense - for teams that have a plan, it can be very nice, but a lot of teams just dump it because they can't bring it up otherwise). With tag up offsides and elimination of two line passes, I think it's a mistake to limit goalie stickhandling.

[ice4277]

One thing I am not very happy with is the new schedule format. Playing divisional rivals 8 times? C'mon, thats a few too many. Its especially ridiculous that over an 82-game season, teams will not even play 2/3 of the other conference. I hate baseball's unbalanced schedule and I am no fan of this one either.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Instead of shootouts, I think they should challenge each other to a Pillsbury Bake-Off to settle tied games.

Because that has about as much to do with hockey as a shootout.

I'll never consider soccer a sport worthy of any attention, because their grand prize - supposedly the biggest tournament in all of sports - is settled with a shootout. Call me when Brandy Chastain goes without the sports bra.

Now that's just silly. Though I would like to see teams have to invest salary cap space on a baking specialist. Perhaps they would replace the "enforcer."

Given that shootouts wont be used in the playoffs, I tolerate them.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by ice4277

One thing I am not very happy with is the new schedule format. Playing divisional rivals 8 times? C'mon, thats a few too many. Its especially ridiculous that over an 82-game season, teams will not even play 2/3 of the other conference. I hate baseball's unbalanced schedule and I am no fan of this one either.

I agree... I'm willing to give it a shot this one year, however, since it is an Olympic season (schedule is compressed). I would much rather it be 6 games verse division rivals, and play the other conference more.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

I agree... I'm willing to give it a shot this one year, however, since it is an Olympic season (schedule is compressed). I would much rather it be 6 games verse division rivals, and play the other conference more.

I am torn on this. I like the idea of building up divisional rivalries. Familiarity breeds contempt, so it could make for some great home-and-home series. Then again, this willl mean that the Wings play Nashville EIGHT times a season and could years without ever playing Toronto. That hurts. Then again Wings/Tampa, Wings/Panthers, and the like never did much for me.