OT - State of the NHL

[Blade]

Since Hockey is near and dear to my heart, I am wondering how people feel about the state of the NHL. More specifically, the financial state of it.

Born and raised in Edmonton, I am a die-hard Oilers fan. But, that being said, it has been very frustrating watching them play, as our financial situation prevents us from getting a solid star player, and if we somehow manage to get that player, we are prevented from keeping him for any length of time.

All Oiler fans are waiting for D-Day...in 2004, when the collective bargaining agreement is up. This is the day that will determine the fate of all small market teams. If the financial situation that the league is currently facing is not fixed, the small market teams will die and be relocated.

Personally, I think a salary cap needs to be instituted. The NFL has proven that it works. Although players are often forced to move on from year to year, it is not a far cry to think that any team cannot win the championship in a given year. (Granted, it will take a number of years for certain teams, like the Bengals, but it is not conceivable that they will never again win a championship.)

I am curious to hear anyone else's thoughts...

[lynchjm24]

Well not to get started on salary caps again, but the NBA has a salary cap and they have a three time defending champion and would have had a 8 time defending champ had one player not 'retired'.

This is the problem with the NHL. The regular season is horrendous. It's too long and by the time the playoff start, it's April/May and noone wants to watch hockey anymore. I grew up going to 25-30 NHL games a year. They couldn't pay me to sit and watch regular season hockey on television. I thought for years people were crazy to talk about how bad the NHL was, because I loved it. Now I know. It's hideous. It's even worse with the onreal ticket prices, the empty arenas and the southern migration of the franchises. It always seemed odd going to NHL playoff games in April and it was sunny and warm outside, I'm sure it's strange year round in Miami, or Phoenix or Tampa or whereever else there are teams.

The migration of players from around the world hurts the game in my opinion. I know they are skilled, however I can't tell one from another - the names don't mean a thing to me.

I went to 3 playoff games last year (NYI/TOR) and I thought I was into hockey again, but the product this year is horrific. When you are losing in the ratings war to the PBA, that tells me everything I need to know. Because there is no rating growth, and probably never will be, the networks ignore the NHL even more then before. When ESPN and ESPN2 get around to putting games on around their NBA/NCAA packages it's always some combination of Detroit/Colorado/Dallas/New York anyway.

The NHL is in all sorts of trouble, think 2 bankrupt teams is a lot? Wait until 2004 if they can't get this labor issue resolved quickly. There are going to be plenty of teams with large debt loads that are going to want to give into the players quickly to keep the cash rolling in. Because of this, I don't think the owners will 'win' - they will end up with a pretty similar agreement and some teams are just going to have to be allowed to fold.

Tampa Bay Lightning? We barely knew you.

[mckerney]

Doesn't seem too bad here in Minnesota.

Of course, that may be affected by having a team that has sold out every game in it's history in what is perhaps the greatest arena in all of hockey.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm as big a hockey fan as you'll see, but I find myself hoping for a long strike/lockout in 2004/5. I just think the game is a mess right now, and I don't see anyone in power who has the vision to do anything about it.

The major problem isn't even financial. You'll always have some franchises that are stronger than others. To be honest, since most hockey revenue comes from things like tickets/concession/souvenir sales and local TV contracts, it doesn't really bother me if a team like Toronto or Colorado has more money to spend. It's their fans' money, so why should it go to support a team that can't even sell out it's building?

The real problem is the quality of the product: it sucks right now. I can absolutely understand why someone who tuned into their first hockey game today would never watch again. The games are low-scoring, low-intensity, and the plan of most teams seems to be to allow as few goals as possible, even if that means losing 2-1 instead of winning 6-4.

Part of that is the issue of talent. There's just not enough right now. The league expanded too fast, and there aren't enough NHL-calibre players to fill the rosters. And yes, salaries at the high-end are out of control. There is no reason for Paul Kariya to make $10M. Kariya's a great player, but he's never won anything, doesn't sell tickets, and is currently floating for a team nobody cares about in a league nobody watches. How is he worth double what Rich Gannon is?

I think the only answer is an extended work stoppage, leading to the death of at least six teams. That would mean 150 or so bad players going back to the minors. Then, hopefully, the owners would need to bring back an exciting style of play to get their fans back in the seats. Maybe stop hiring the "defensive genius" coaches and bring in someone with some imagination. Don't fire a guy because his team gave up three goals.

It's a ray of hope, but I'm not optimistic.

[Marmel]

jim and I feel the exact same way. Maybe we both are still bitter that the Whalers left town.

I doubt hockey has any kind of interest outside of the cities that have a team. It is just not a good sport for television.

[ice4277]

I agree with just about everything Maple Leafs said. Even here in 'Hockeytown' people have seemed uninterested, bored with the regular season. As much I have have enjoyed the Wings' relative dominance over the League the last few years, hockey as we know it will slowly wither and die unless some key steps are taken:

1.) As Leafs said, cut some teams out of the mix. The talent pool in the NHL is way too diluted; try and name me more than the very top echelon of players on any team; good luck. The NHL needs to take a long, hard, look at what franchises are not getting it done (I would favor using a combination of revenue, television ratings, fan attendance, and general success on the ice over the last decade or so) and the teams that aren't cutting the mustard need to go. More talent on fewer teams would lead to a higher standard of play. At the moment, it is being dumbed down to its lowest common denominator.

2.) The NHL needs to have a reality check. For the most part, it is never going to succeed in the deep south. People there will only care when their team is doing good, and even then its not likely to last long. Realize where your true fan base is and do your best not to alienate them anymore than you have in the last decade. Also, stop charging so damn much to go see a hockey game. You aren't going to get any new fans by pricing them out before they even get a chance to see a game in person. You aren't going to win anybody over if they can't even go see a game themselves.

3.) Call the rules the way they are meant to be called. Call the obstruction, hooking, and so on the way the rulebook says to, even in the playoffs. You might hear some bitching about this for a season or so, but once a team is shorthanded10 times in a playoff game, they will get the clue pretty quickly. Crack down on the players hard-core for one season, and you won't have many problems in successive seasons.

4.) Player salaries are way out of control. The league does not make enough money to justify that high of prices, and all it is doing in the end is keeping the fans it wants to attract out of the picture (see number 2).

As a Wings fan, its been nice to see them win a bunch of Cups the last few years. But at the same time I have lost almost all interest in watching the regular season because of how the league has developed. Hopefully they will fix it and make it a much more enjoyable experience for everyone. However, I doubt it will happen. Too much greed on both sides.

[sachmo71]

A hard cap would be a godsend for the sport, plus revenue sharing. I know it will never happen, but that's the course of action I'm supporting right now. It makes me sick to see teams dumping good players so that the same 6 or 7 rich teams can try to outgun each other for the cup. I would also love to see strict enforcement of rules designed to open up the game, and a real crackdown on obstruction. For any of these things to even have the remotest possibility of happening, Bettman has to go. He makes everything personal, and that just won't cut it. In 2004, pride will have to be swallowed on both sides, or hockey is in serious trouble in the US.

[oykib]

I'm not a fan of Salary caps. These guys need to learn restraint. Yeah, the Rangers'll pay everybody any salary under the sun. But that's not a justification for some other team to do it.

The Devils do just fine with a fraction of the resources.

I just don't see how any Hockey player makes $10 million a season. The revenue doesn't support it.

As to the watered down aspect of the league: mathematically that concept doesn't fly. The league has expanded fractionally in the last ten or fifteen years, but the pool of talent has increased exponentially.

When I was a kid, just about every player came from Canada, which had a population around 20 million at the time. There were a few areas in the U.S. that produced players, too. You got the occasional European player. These days you can get players from everywhere.

I think the quality of play has much more to do with poor management and poor enforcement of the rules. You hear the same not-well-thought-out argument about baseball, football, and basketball. It doesn't fly here either.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by sachmo71
It makes me sick to see teams dumping good players so that the same 6 or 7 rich teams can try to outgun each other for the cup.

Me too. But the problem is that those six or seven teams have all the money because those are the only six or seven markets that could care less about hockey any more.

I live in Ottawa, and while I'm not a Senators fan I love having an NHL team in this city. But if I was going to be honest, this team probably should fold. There just isn't the market here to sustain an NHL team. If the league goes to a heavy revenue-sharing plan, successful teams will have to subsidize teams like Ottawa that can't make it on their own. I'd rather see the league let the weak teams die and move one from there.

Of course, that could put us back to the Original Six...

[DeToxRox]

Hockey is the greatest game on earth, and it's current situation saddens me.

I honestly don't see a salary cap being implemented in the next CBA. A luxury tax however will.

A luxury tax will help some teams, but unfortunatley, teams like the Rangers, Colorado, Detroit (my favorite, but still) will be able to still get FA's for high prices.

For a better look at the business of the NHL and some reasons why the NHL is in its current state, read "Power Plays" by Gil Stein. It's like 4 or 5 years old, but it's an interesting read. It sheads some light on why there are some small market teams that were brought in from expansion, like Ottawa and TB.

Anways, thats all from me.

[DeToxRox]

Actually, I just read Maple Leafs post, and here is why Ottawa got a team, according to Gil Stein, then NHL President.

Before the new planned expansion, the asking price was like 15 million dollars for a team, up front. Then the NBA expanded, and Minnesota and Orlando paid 32 million. The board decided it was better off then the NBA, so they upped the price to 50 million bucks. 9 groups came in to represent 8 cities. They were..

Hamilton, ON
Ottawa, ON
Miami, FL
Tampa Bay, FL
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Houston, TX
BAH.. The final city escapes me right now.

Anyways, Hamilton was going to get one of the franchises, but they would not pay the 50 million dollars. They assumed leaving the meeting they'd get the team anyways. Ottawa came in next, and had a great presentation. They didn't mention the 50 million as beig a problem. All the other teams had a problem with it, until Tampa Bay came in. They too did not have a problem with the 50 mil. So it was decided they'd get the teams, even though they were two cities they didn't think could be able to get them.

And I'm done

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle
Actually, I just read Maple Leafs post, and here is why Ottawa got a team, according to Gil Stein, then NHL President.

Yep, that's basically the story as I remember hearing it from a few sources. Apparently the Ottawa bid was shocked to win. They did end up paying the $50M, but that lead to the long-term debt that is still crippling the franchise.

Incidentally, unlike some of the US teams, Ottawa isn't a bad market because of the hockey fans. There is a decent core of hockey fans here... they're not as knowledgable as the fans in Toronto or Montreal, but they're not bad. The problem is that this is a small city, too small to support a team, unfortunately.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by oykib
As to the watered down aspect of the league: mathematically that concept doesn't fly. The league has expanded fractionally in the last ten or fifteen years, but the pool of talent has increased exponentially.

Fractionally? The league has gone from 21 teams to 30 in just over ten years. That's almost 50% more teams.

Meanwhile, the talent pool hasn't grown since the initial flood of Europeans. The flow of players from Canada remains constant. The flow of American players may actually be dropping (after a brief bump in the early 90s when the game was more popular). There are still plenty of Europeans coming in, but no more than there were in the mid-90s. A handful of countries that didn't produce players before are now starting to (Switzerland, for example), but not enough to make any sort of real impact.

Basically, Europeans have been coming into the league freely since about 1992 or 1993. Since then, the league has gone from 24 to 30 teams (a 25% boost), without any new source of players. It's not hard to see how that's going to affect the game.

[bbor]

I have stopped trying to figure out what strikes/lockouts will do to leagues.

I was hoping it would kill baseball...nope...no such luck...it did'nt even fix the baseball problem.

I see the same results here.An agreement will be made to keep the season going but it will not be a fix to the situation....only a bandaid.

I don't claim to know what will fix the problem....but i DO know i don't wanna miss any hockey while they try to figure it out.

[DeToxRox]

Basically the problem was the expansion fee.

If the league didn't increase the fee 35 million to what they had originally planned, then Ottawa and TB wouldn't have gotten team, and bigger markets would've.

The bigger markets didn't want to make the sacrfice, the smaller ones did, and now we have problems.

[DeToxRox]

oh and here is my view on the actual NHL Game, hehe

First off, the Obstruction that would've be called all year long has vanished.

To get people involved, they do need to drop the red line, but I don't see it happening.

The actual game itself lacks somewhat. Too many teams, not enough players, very similar to baseball.

Now this may just be me, but the best thing to happen to the NHL was the all star game. Dany Heatley's display is making him more and more the household name, and a guy the leauge can market. Add him and his teammate Ilya Kovalchuck, Marion Gaborik, Jarome Iginla (Turning it on, FINALLY), Rick Nash, Henrik Zetterburg, Simon Gagne, etc, you have some young stars who can draw people in. The league needs to run with his however.

Also, young kids are playing a lot more now, like it was in the old days. Nash, Bouwmeester, these kids are 18 but playing a lot. I think this is good for the leauge, so long as they play well.

Anyways, thats all from my end.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned diving as a league problem. I like the new league intitiative of fining the divers. Even better, they should make a highlight reel of the worst dives and play them on the scoreboard before every game.

[rkmsuf]

Diving is a ref problem...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
Diving is a ref problem...

Yes, but also a player problem. Get some pride. The NHL is a step away from the theatrics of soccer.

I saw an excellent point made once about diving in soccer that also applies to hockey. Basically, the natural human reaction when you're unexpectedly knocked down is to lower your hands to break your fall. If you're diving, the instinct is to raise your arms to draw attention to yourself. So the next time you see a guy go down suspiciously, watch his arms. If they go up, it's a dive. If they drop, it's legit.

[Blade]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I saw an excellent point made once about diving in soccer that also applies to hockey. Basically, the natural human reaction when you're unexpectedly knocked down is to lower your hands to break your fall. If you're diving, the instinct is to raise your arms to draw attention to yourself. So the next time you see a guy go down suspiciously, watch his arms. If they go up, it's a dive. If they drop, it's legit.

That is a very good point...the refs need to keep that in mind, because a lot of players get away with some pretty silly dives...ruining the game...

[rkmsuf]

It's the ref's job to identify and fix this. It's the players job to exploit every opportunity to get an advantage...get some perspective...

[DeToxRox]

Well, they do have video tapes of guys diving and a list of all the players on each team who dive. I guess the refs don't take that into consideration though, because it is a problem.

[sachmo71]

Where the hell is Cards?

[rexalllsc]

As a hockey vet. (played AAA growing up), I must say that it's hard for ME to watch as well. The sport needs to make some changes to get it back to what originally attracted me and others to the sport...the skill. There will never be another Gretzky, Lemieux, or even a Savard due to the style that's played today. Frankly, it's boring.

Take out that red-line for starters...see where we can go from there.

[grdawg]

I am a big hockey fan and I can agree with alot that has been written here. I do however think that hockey, unlike baseball, will fix their problems with the next CBA, even if it means a long lockout/strike and teams folding or moving. I guess baseball could afford to put a bandaid on the problem, but I don't think hockey can.

As for the actual games, I have noticed alot more bad calls this year, in past years I always thought that the NHL was the best of the big 4 with regard to correct officating, that's still the case, but alot more bad or blown calls this year. And I agree, where is the obstruction calls now?

I don't know if its just the games I watch (I am a Ranger fan so watch most of them and then the national games on ESPN or ESPN2) but seems to me that fighting is down, I think fighting is a key part of the game and it definetly serves a purpose and don't want to see it gone. It also gets the fans excited at the games.

The all star game was amazing, the NHL couldn't have asked for a better game and for it to go into a shoot out was great, I was rooting for no goals in OT. The fans were going nuts when they found out. I think the NHL should bring the shootout in for next season, I know all the purist will protest, but 4 on 4 in OT is just as radical a change. I hate watching a great game end in a tie, if not the shootout, then make OT 10 minutes. I also think you should not get a point for an OT loss, I would say 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 points for a OT win, and 1 point for a shootout win. I agree with someone else saying get rid of the red line, let the talented passes make the long outlet passes, it would increase scoring and make the game more exciting.

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Where the hell is Cards?

Well, since you asked:

1-get rid of the redline

2-go to the bigger ice sheet

3-eliminate touch icing

I prefer the college game, I think it's faster and much more offensively minded.

As far as the economic problems, I think it would really be sad if we lost anymore Canadian teams. Maybe some are correct when they say hockey will never appeal to the masses. Saying that, tonight I'm going to a HS Sectional final that will draw about 10,000 total(it's a DH, 2 sections being decided) so hockey will always be popular here. I think hockey is going to have a tough time in warm weather cities, kids just don't play it there, so it's hard for it to become popular. Ticket prices are a problem because, if you can't get people in the gate to see just what a great game it is, they aren't going to watch it on tv.

I know that is a mass of potpourri of thoughts there, I guess what I'm saying is, I love hockey, and living where I live, if the NHL shuts down for a year, I have other choices for hockey viewing and will enjoy that.

[Anrhydeddu]

Speaking of the college game, local Colorado College has been ranked #1 for most of the month.

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Speaking of the college game, local Colorado College has been ranked #1 for most of the month.

CC is a very good team, I got to seem them in person when they played the Gophers. Sejna is going to be a good pro, and Preussing is a local kid that is putting up great numbers for a D-man.

The trouble CC is going to have is, they are either going to have to make it to the Frozen 4 by playing Michigan in Michigan or, Minnesota on Minnesota's home ice.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Cards4ever
2-go to the bigger ice sheet

But you can't. It's not physically possible in most buildings. Even if you could convince the owners to take out a few hundred seats, you'd have to also raise the ice surface to avoid having the first row be a few feet higher than the ice.

The NHL had its chance to go to a bigger ice surface a few years ago when all the new buildings were going up. They didn't do it, so the opportunity is probably lost.

To be honest, I don't know if it would help. I'm told that the international game has as much interference as North America, largely because the unskilled guys have to clutch and grab even more to compensate for the added room.

I think people see how great the game is during the Olympics and think it has to do with international rules, when it reality it's more a product of the talent involved. When all the players on the ice have some skill, hockey is a great game. When half of them are just warm bodies killing time while the two or three stars take a rest... well, then hockey kind of sucks.

[Cards4ever]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
But you can't. It's not physically possible in most buildings. Even if you could convince the owners to take out a few hundred seats, you'd have to also raise the ice surface to avoid having the first row be a few feet higher than the ice.

The NHL had its chance to go to a bigger ice surface a few years ago when all the new buildings were going up. They didn't do it, so the opportunity is probably lost.

To be honest, I don't know if it would help. I'm told that the international game has as much interference as North America, largely because the unskilled guys have to clutch and grab even more to compensate for the added room.

I think people see how great the game is during the Olympics and think it has to do with international rules, when it reality it's more a product of the talent involved. When all the players on the ice have some skill, hockey is a great game. When half of them are just warm bodies killing time while the two or three stars take a rest... well, then hockey kind of sucks.

I understand that the buildings are unable to go to the bigger sheet for a few different reasons, but if they could, I think they should. As I said, I watch a lot of college hockey and it works for them. I don't think the NHL wants to try for a few reasons, the number one being that they are afraid that they will lose too much physical play.

If you don't try it, you don't know, do you?

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Marmel
jim and I feel the exact same way. Maybe we both are still bitter that the Whalers left town.

I still fight with the people on the Whaler mailing list about this stuff, but as someone who has spent 28 years in Greater Hartford - this is not a major league sports town.

If the Whale had stayed, they would just struggle along, from 8th to 11th every season, playing to 75% capacity.

I never thought I'd even dream of saying this, but I don't even really miss them that much - although I wish a thousand deaths to Bettman.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Fractionally? The league has gone from 21 teams to 30 in just over ten years. That's almost 50% more teams.

Meanwhile, the talent pool hasn't grown since the initial flood of Europeans. The flow of players from Canada remains constant. The flow of American players may actually be dropping (after a brief bump in the early 90s when the game was more popular). There are still plenty of Europeans coming in, but no more than there were in the mid-90s. A handful of countries that didn't produce players before are now starting to (Switzerland, for example), but not enough to make any sort of real impact.

Basically, Europeans have been coming into the league freely since about 1992 or 1993. Since then, the league has gone from 24 to 30 teams (a 25% boost), without any new source of players. It's not hard to see how that's going to affect the game.

Last time I checked 50% was a fraction. Btw, 9 of 21 isn't really half. It's closer to 40% than 50%.

But you can't argue that the pool of talent was drwn from about 25-30 million some years ago and now is over 100 million. That's exponetial growth. The execs just need to do a better job of identifying talent and marketing hockey to young athletes.

The real problem with hockey is that the sport is too expensive to play. There is too much special equipment and the playing surface is even hard to come by. So, unless I live in a frigid environment near a natural body of water I'm not going to be able to play hockey much growing up. Not unless I shell out some bucks for it.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Yes, but also a player problem. Get some pride. The NHL is a step away from the theatrics of soccer.

Acting happens in every sport. There's flopping in basketball, players in football who exagerate to try and get pass interference or a personal foul, baseball player jumping around to change the umps opinion of the strike zone like Lenny Dykstra did. Stuff like that really shouldn't be a big deal.

A problem is dumbass refs that make it seem like they can't make the right call even in ideal situations. And fining or penalizing players for making it hard on the refs? Pathetic.

[Honolulu_Blue]

After last night's 7-2 drubbing of the Maple Leafs by Your 2002 Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings, the state of the NHL is looking pretty, damn good if you ask me!

But on a more serious note, I agree, the league is in trouble. I haven't watched more than a few periods of hockey this year. Being in Brussels really isn't condusive to such things. You start talking about hockey and they look at you, furrow their brow and ask "Ice hockey?" It's sad.

I still enjoy watching hockey. It's not what it once was, I certainly agree, but I still enjoy it. The regular season is long and sort of dull from time to time, but the play-offs are still the play-offs. Nothing finer. At my peak we used to have two TV's going in one room, flipping from ESPN to ESPN 2, to the local broadcast, to CBC watching as much hockey as possible in one evening. It was glorious.

Rule changes:

I think the NHL game could certainly be improved with some rule changes that have already been mentioned, mainly enforcing the obstruction penalties. They tried this earlier in the year and though the have since stopped enforcing it, it didn't sound like it was working all that well. There were a kajillion penalties a game (Granted this will increase scoring, but it really breaks up the flow of the game) and the rules were being enforced inconsistently. It sounded like the game was actually worse. Granted, the idea was to go through these growing pains, the players would adapt, and we would have less obstruction and fewer penalties and a more wide-open game. I guess they lost patience for that.

The red-line. I think it's worth a shot to try this in pre-season. Granted, pre-season and regular season are very different, but it's worth experimenting with. There are a lot of complaints that this would just force teams to keep d-men back and, in fact, hurt the flow of the game. It's possible.

Expanding the ice surface. I agree with Maple Leafs, expanding the ice surface would be nearly impossible to do in many arenas not designed for it. It would cost a ton of money both in sunk costs and attendance (loss of seats). Also, I am not sure how much improved it would be. Worked in the Olympics, yes, when you had all of the best players in the world on a handful of teams.

I think shoot-outs, in the regular season, aren't a bad idea after the 5 minute OT. I had to come around to this. I usually hate shoot-outs. It's absolutely no way to end a play-offs or championship, but in the regular season... Why? Could give some nice highlights (exposure) and show off the talents of the best players and goaltenders. I think it's worth it.

All that being said, I am not sure that if all of our rule changes were put in place and worked to perfection and we had what we, "the hockey fans", felt was the best product the NHL could offer it would make the game of hockey any more popular in the US. It's sad, but true. I think it's a great sport. The best sport. But the vast majority of people in the US just don't get it or don't like it (for whatever reason) and I don't know if they'd be drawn to it even if the product was at its peak. It's a bit defeatist, I know, and I am sure there would be a small increase, but I just don't know how significant. Hockey is not part of the American psyche like football, baseball, basketball, and, heck, even golf, bowling, car racing, and bass fishing are.

Money:

Something needs to be done. The Kovalev trade nearly sickened me. There have been a number of salary dumps (Jagr, Hasek, etc.) in the last few years, but in all of them, up to the Kovalev deal, you could somewhat justify in a hockey sense. Somewhat. But the Kovalev deal killed me. That and the threat of bankruptcy are clear signs that something needs to be done.

I think the NFL salary cap works well. However, I think one reason for that is that the contracts aren't guaranteed (I have to think about this one more). I think the basketball salary cap sucks. Deals in basketball are all about trading contracts to clear up space and such. I really hate how it works.

A luxury tax wont stop the big guns. It's a band-aid for a bullet wound. Rangers, Wings, Dallas, Philly, Toronto, Colorado will still spend, even if they have to pay the tax and there will still be a good gap between the have's and the have not's. A hard salary cap the way to go? I have no idea. Player's salaries are very much out of whack. There is not enough revenue in the league to support $9 million dollar checking centers. There just isn't.

The problems are severe. I think there will be a strike in 2004 and it could be lengthy. That would suck immensely, but it may be necessary.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think there will be a strike in 2004 and it could be lengthy. That would suck immensely, but it may be necessary.

Technically it will be a lockout.

I haven't mentioned the worst rule change in sports since I've been following them.

The NHL overtime 'loss'. What a joke. Yeah we are 31-29-11-7. Who the hell can make heads or tails out of that?