The Official NHL 2012-13 Thread

[Kiran187]

I miss the Sens. Shit.

I feel your pain. I had high hopes for the Flames this year. It's not like they were going to win the Cup or anything but I was really interested to see the new direction the team was taking.

[Kiran187]

Also, i was looking forward to the hockey pool again

[jredd109]

Fuck both sides. Owners are idiots because they are bitching about things like super long contracts when they are the ones doing the deals in the first place.

Fuck the players for not just taking the salaries they earn. They are employees, not partners. In a real partnership, if they shared revenues they would also share expenses and they obviously don't do that so they need to fall back with this revenue-sharing bullshit.

I just want hockey back. Shit has me so and that it's ridiculous.

i have no hate for the players. you can't fault them for making what they can in a career that can end on any given night. the owners are the ones approving these contracts so for them to want to roll back salaries 25% across the board is ridiculous. how many of us would just lay down and accept a 25% reduction in salary for doing the same job.

the owners can go fuck themselves. give out the contracts then whine about not making enough money. here's a thought. if you own a business that isn't as profitable as you like, then sell that shit. also, in how many businesses are employees expected to help with business expenses? split the revenue sharing 50% and move on to the next contentious issue.

bettman is a real problem here. we all know this already, but he is a figurehead, and force for the interest of the owners and not much else. he has 0 interest in playing a season until the owners' interests are in place for the cba. and this smug, arrogant fuck has the audacity to come out and say it's paining him to have to resort to a lockout. this is his 3rd or 4th during his tenure. this is exactly his m.o. Gang up with the guys with more money to win the war of attrition against the guys who have less money.

he's also made several poor to awful decisions in his tenure that he is too stubborn to admit were complete failures. the fact is, there are a few teams in the league in cities where hockey will NEVER be profitable, and a few more where hockey only works if the team is successful. contract a couple teams, move a couple to canada, where it's pretty much a guarantee they'll be profitable (See Winnipeg) and roll with a 24-26 team league. stop wasting money on the dead weight cities.

[Kiran187]

Bettman is definitely the worst. Dude sides with the owners 100% of the time instead of doing what's best for the game overall regardless of sides. By not having a season at all, he is helping to kill all the momentum that the NHL has been building since the last lockout. NHL will never be big as the other 3 big sports and it doesn't have to be to be successful, but they have been doing some great things over the past couple years to increase exposure and revenue and they are just going to throw it all away.

The owners do need to stop bitching about long-term contracts though. If all the owners got together and said that they weren't going to sign anybody longer than 5 years regardless of talent, stature or position, this problem would be solved. The thing is that some owners oppose longterm deals but teams with money or inferior management are willing to take risks on long term deals and it's these owners that end up screwing over the rest of the owners because all the owners want to remain competitive.

I agree with contracting the dead weight. If certain cities aren't fuckin with NHL, then pack it up and move along. There are easily at least 2-3 cities where an NHL franchise would work given the opportunity.

[Positive A]

Solid points in the last 2 posts.

On contraction: who gets the boot? Phoenix? They had a great playoff push and their barn was rockin and sold out. They've a little momentum and the Suns could be complete shit and the yotes could steal a lot of fans.

Dallas? Florida? Tampa? Carolina? Toronto?

Do they put a team in Seattle?

[jredd109]

teams that gotta go:

coyotes - great team, nobody cares. put them in a canadian city and they would rip shit up, again, winnipeg is a perfect example (and a nice little fuck you to bettman at the same time).

blue jackets - absolutely useless franchise. who would want them?

need to pull their socks up:

isles - pretty solid history but that was 30 years ago. seem to be building up again, but going slowly.

stars - attendance is good when they are playing well, also seem to be on the upswing again.

panthers - i dunno, had a great year last year out of the blue. need to stay in the league so there is a place for luongo to tan during the season, but would they really be missed?

lightning?? - attendance figures are pretty good though. i think they draw better than the rays do...

wild - trying to become relevant again. their offseason is probably why the owners are locking out the players. lost their team once already, would they really care if they lost them again. apparently college hockey is a bigger draw there than the NHL.

EDIT: predators - have had a nice little run there for the last couple years. but almost lost 2 of their best 3 players in the off-season. does anybody besides mike fisher actually want to be there? pekka rinne probably doesn't anymore either. will they be supported when everyone bails and they go to shit?

I think seattle wants a team. they just approved a new stadium i think. Would probably develop an instant vancouver rivalry. I wouldn't hate on a team there at all, but they would have to do well win or lose. seattle fans tend to be somewhat fickle (ie. mariners) i wouldn't move a team there until quebec city and hamilton get teams, but as admiral butthead has shown he figures he can make hockey work in the U.S. while dismissing cities in canada where hockey will work and be profitable. the more i think about him the more i absolutely loathe him and what he's done to the nhl.

[Kiran187]

coyotes - They need to go. My boss lives in Arizona during the winter and he said NOBODY cares about the Coyotes. They regularly give away tickets and still can't draw fans other than when Canadian teams or Original 6 are in town because that's when all the Canadian snowbirds who come out. The other problem is that the team is in Glendale as opposed to Scottsdale. There is more transportation options to Scottsdale and almost none to Glendale other than a couple shuttle buses which means nobody wants to go to a game and drink because the ways to get to/from the game are really limited.

blue jackets - absolutely useless franchise. who would want them? Agreed 100%

need to pull their socks up:

isles - I think they could get it together again if they got a management group that didn't put them in the shitter every year. I heard a rumor that they were considering moving the franchise to Brooklyn to play in the arena where the Nets play. That might work. Even if they stay in Long Island, I think there is enough interest in hockey on Long Island to support a team but the management gotta put together a team that people want to watch and that can actually win.

stars - I think the support for the Stars is actually reasonable given the market. I think if they start winning again it will go a long way.

panthers - I'm not sure about them....they had a nice draw with the playoffs but I don't know if it's enough to remain relevant in the long term. They just don't really have anybody that is marketable.

lightning?? - Out of the Florida teams, I think TB has the best chance of surviving. They have veterans that can still get it done and a future superstar in Steven Stamkos. Yzerman as a GM is solid too. If they can make the playoffs I think they will be fine.

wild - Minnesota is probably one of the best natural hockey markets in the United States as far as people who actually watch/understand/play the game. As an outsider looking in, I think that the reason that nobody cares about the Wild is that for years they have always either missed the playoffs or gone out early and they played very boring hockey. I know that every time they come to Calgary, getting tickets is ridiculously easy because nobody wants to watch them because they are so uninteresting. With the addition of Zach Parise and Ryan Suter, they have a chance to play more entertaining hockey as well as develop stars that are from the area (Parise from Minny, Suter from Wisconsin next door). As long as the management is able to develop some sort of supporting cast they could be great.

Cities that could support an NHL team: Hamilton, 2nd franchise in Toronto, Seattle, Quebec City, possibly Saskatoon.

[Positive A]

Thats how fucking brutal CBus is. I forgot to add them to my short list.

Minnesota is cool. That franchise is fine.

I think Saskatchewan should get a franchise BEFORE Quebec City. Sask is one of the wealthier provinces and theres big business there. Corporate boxes wouldnt be a problem. Attendance wise, theyd be fine. Dont the Riders do well? And arent they buidling a new stadium? I think sask desreves it. That said, it would be dope to have those Nordique shirts back.

Side note: picked up NHL 13 today. Tight.

[Kiran187]

Fan support for the Riders is incredible. I grew up in Saskatoon so I have seen it first hand. People have no problems driving to Regina for games and that's a 2 hour drive each way. Plus the Riders account for 55% of all merchandise sales in the entire CFL which is huge. They would have to do some upgrades to Credit Union Centre in Saskatoon but it could be done as long as they could get the corporate support behind it.

I need to try NHL 13...I have heard nothing but good things so far.

[Random Sample]

[Homer Simpson]

an NHL lockout means more attention and money to Gopher hockey. i'm cool with that,they're gonna steamroll this year.

[jredd109]

oilers owner is shopping his team around in a bid to push edmonton city council to approve arena funding. kinda stupid and juvenile tactics, there's no place he could move them that would be as profitable as edmonton. he was in seattle yesterday.

on the other hand, just approve the damn arena already.

in other useless hockey related news, my 1 1/2 year old son thinks the letter 'k' is hockey. 'j' is jeep.

what the fuck else are we going to talk about...

we could have a lockout pool. i vote that the lockout lasts the entire season.

[alpha]

I grew up playing hockey. for close to 20 years NHL has been my main sport. After two lockouts. numerous disappoints by my main team, fuck NHL.

in other news read this fun article about if the NHL moved to a relegation system ala EPL and La Liga,etc..
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2 ... tion-rules

When hockey returned from the only season lost to labor strife in the history of major North American professional sports, fans were told that the dormant winter of 2004-05 would be worth it because they would be getting a “New NHL,” as if instead of a lockout, hockey had spent a year in a cocoon, waiting to emerge as a beautiful butterfly.

Ahead of the shootout, ahead of rule changes designed to generate more offense, and ahead of the announcement that NHL players would participate in the 2006 Turin and 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the NHL trumpted a “Groundbreaking Owner-Player Partnership” as the first change to bring hockey forward.

The partnership has worked so well, the NHL is on the brink of another lockout and can’t even agree with the NHLPA on who halted CBA negotiations last week.

How about a real new NHL this time?

It is clear that even with the implementation of a salary cap coming out of the last lockout, several teams simply cannot compete financially with the league’s heavyweights. So, why not cut the dead weight?

Contraction? No. Not only would shuttering franchises be a public relations disaster for the NHL, it would be needlessly cruel to the people who work and root for those teams. Besides, the NHL’s longstanding problem is that the poobahs of the sport shy away from big ideas.

So, here’s a big idea—one that would change not only the NHL, but the North American sports landscape: The NHL should start a second league, with promotion and relegation as seen in global soccer.

In order to form the NHL2, eight teams would need to be initially relegated. This could be done on a financial basis, to ensure that revenue juggernauts like the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens stay in the NHL. Or, it could be done by virtue of performance on the ice in one more season under the current format. The last-place teams in each of the six existing divisions would be relegated, along with two additional teams, one from each conference—these teams would be determined by a relegation playoff between the two non-last place teams with the lowest point totals in the regular season.

That would leave a 22-team NHL with an expanded 84-game schedule—two home games and two away games against every other team in the league. Say goodbye to conferences, and to concerns about realignment sparked by nonsense like Winnipeg playing in the Southeast Division. The top 16 teams in the regular season still would make the Stanley Cup playoffs, and while there might be more travel, it would be the most equitable system for determining a championship of any sport on this continent.

The 22nd-place team in the NHL would be relegated to NHL2 for the following season, along with the loser of a playoff between the 20 and 21st-place teams. This would create a frantic ending to the season in cities that otherwise would be forgetting about hockey by March.

Similarly, there would be more late-season excitement in the cities of NHL2, racing for promotion to the top league. The NHL2 champion would automatically move up to the NHL, with a playoff between second and third place to determine the other promoted team.


Flames fans—and hockey fans in general—deserve more. (AP Photo)
Players in NHL2 still would be full members of the NHLPA, so both the union and the owners should like the next part of the plan. What starts as an eight-team league gradually grows over the next decade, starting with a burst of four expansion teams in the first year, and two more additions every other year until reaching the same 22-team format with an 84-game schedule as the NHL. The union gets more jobs, the owners get 14 rounds of expansion fees, and fans in Kansas City, Quebec, Seattle, and southern Ontario get NHL hockey—well, NHL2 to start, but NHL hockey once they earn it on the ice. And if there’s ever going to be a way to revive the Hartford Whalers, this is it.

Obviously, any relegated teams would face a major drop in revenues, and players would not be happy about competing at a lower level. To address the first concern, as well as the problems that might be encountered by NHL2 teams moving up, teams changing leagues would receive significant revenue-sharing—two years of parachute payments for a relegated team, one ladder payment for a promoted team. For players stuck on relegated teams, an opt-out clause would be added to existing contracts with a negotiable service-time threshold. Teams and players would have the option to put such a clause in future contracts.

Complementary to this opt-out system for relegated players would be a loan system whereby an NHL team could send a player to NHL2 for a full season—say, a draft pick who is too good for juniors, but not yet advanced enough for the NHL. Teams would maintain AHL affiliations (and there would be new AHL affiliates for NHL2 teams, presumably), but these season-long loans would enhance prospect development while continuing to provide that room for the best players in the world to play in the best league in the world.

While potentially harboring NHL draft picks, NHL2 teams still would need their own draftees, and they would have them, with a common draft for the two leagues. Freshly relegated teams would get to pick first, followed by the bottom of NHL2 on up to the Stanley Cup champions. Trades would be allowed between the two leagues, though players eligible for opt-out clauses would have no-trade protection to NHL2.

With the format of the new NHL, revenue sharing, and contract rules all set, what remains is the main point dividing the league and union in their current negotiations: splitting those pesky hockey-related revenues. It would seem to be an even harder task to do so across two leagues, but this is an opportunity for more forward thinking.

One of the problems that has led to the current impasse between the NHL and NHLPA is that league revenues have gone up so fast, low-budget teams have been forced to outspend their means in order to reach the salary floor. Under the current CBA, the 2012-13 floor would be $54.2 million, which is more than seven teams spent last season. In a system with relegation, there would be no floor—the motivation for spending money would be to stay in the NHL.

With only a cap in place, there still would need to be assurance that players would receive their promised share. Each year, a leaguewide target dollar figure would be set, and any windfall on player salaries would be put into an NHLPA health and retirement fund, helping to guarantee that players are taken care of long after they leave the ice.

For NHL2, there would be a salary floor, as well as a lower cap than in the NHL to compensate for the lower revenues that teams in the league would bring in. Players on NHL-only contracts would still receive full salaries, but their cap hits would be retrofitted to NHL2 salary standards.

The exact percentages used to calculate the NHL cap and NHL2 cap and floor is impossible to say without a detailed look at the financial figures that the NHL and NHLPA have spent the summer arguing about. That said, cutting the NHL to 22 teams—especially if it’s done on a straight financial basis, rather than conducting the first relegation by on-ice performance—would presumably mean that NHL owners get their desired increase in percentage of hockey-related revenues, while the players avoid rollbacks on existing contracts.

While the power teams of the NHL would be responsible for propping up their NHL2 brethren, the new league would be attractive for a no-rights fee TV deal like the NHL had when it started with NBC—a national NHL2 game of the week would provide exposure, while the promotion playoff would be a one-of-a-kind event for North American viewers. If the NHL could add that at no cost to its existing deal with NBC, and provide more NHL2 coverage on its own network, it would benefit everyone involved.

This new New NHL has about as much chance of happening as Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr vacationing together next summer. Instead, when this labor negotiation is finally settled, assuming they ever resume negotiating, it will be the same old New NHL, with all the feel-good talk from 2005 that brought us to 2012. But maybe they’ll paint “Thank You Fans!” on the ice again, so everything will be OK.

[Positive A]

Thread is sad.

I'm all about Quebec Junior League this season. I'm going to go to a ton of games. Halifax has the best player in Junior hockey, Nathan Mckinnon. He would have been the #1 pick in the draft. IF he was eligible. CSB.

I'm still all

[Kiran187]

oilers owner is shopping his team around in a bid to push edmonton city council to approve arena funding. kinda stupid and juvenile tactics, there's no place he could move them that would be as profitable as edmonton. he was in seattle yesterday.

on the other hand, just approve the damn arena already.

in other useless hockey related news, my 1 1/2 year old son thinks the letter 'k' is hockey. 'j' is jeep.

what the fuck else are we going to talk about...

we could have a lockout pool. i vote that the lockout lasts the entire season.

Katz is an idiot if he moves the team but he shouldn't expect Alberta taxpayers or the city of Edmonton to pay for his arena either. I wouldn't even pay for a new arena for the Flames yet alone shell out for the Oilers.

[jredd109]

yeah, katz doesn't want to pay rent on a building, yet he wants the taxpayers to pay for half the building or whatever? build that shit yourself if you want to own it.

[an-also]

I'm not even tuning in to any lockout news. Shit is too gay. (read depressing)

[Positive A]

I'm not even tuning in to any lockout news. Shit is too gay. (read depressing)

Same.

I know they have another meeting on Friday...but that will result in nothing.

[Matthew]

just came in here for the lols

a couple guys from the caps were playing in my beer league until the ahl season started

and i support league expansion, not contraction. here is why:

Add teams in Quebec and Seattle or Kansas City. Or even 1 team, solely for pushing realignment.

There is a ~$400million expansion fee (per team) paid to the league. The TV contract is more valuable to CBC/TSN/??? and NBC/NBC Sports + Local Coverage with more cities in major markets being represented. The PA would be fine with more NHL player positions being created. More parity in the league. Only adding 1 team would also help clear up the PA disagreement with a realignment proposal.

Phoenix is really the only problem market in the current NHL. But there is a strong ownership group and fanbase after last season. The key to profits is simply making the playoffs. So even Phoenix has a shot at turning around its' business side with continued post-season efforts.

There is interest within many cities to host NHL teams. No city truly wants to lose their team. Expansion positively benefits the League, Teams, and players in the short and medium-long term. Not contracting the league maintains fan loyalty, develops new markets, supports parity, and supports growth. You can always re-locate a team at a later point. The generated revenue of expansion would positively benefit the league, in whole.

[Random Sample]

The league doesn't need more shitty teams.

[jredd109]

Sorry matt, i think you're off-base with expansion. The league is already thin. And there is more than just phoenix in trouble. I would argue columbus is in way bigger trouble than phoenix. They are god awful, with not much light at the end of the tunnel. If they are still around in 5 years i'll be very surprised.

They seem to be talking more than last time, but i still think the season will be lost.

[Random Sample]

In other news, I think I might go up to Erie to check out this Connor McDavid kid play. Sid said that he reminded him of himself at that age. I am jonesing for some god damn hockey.

[Positive A]

In other news, I think I might go up to Erie to check out this Connor McDavid kid play. Sid said that he reminded him of himself at that age. I am jonesing for some god damn hockey.

Halifax is owning the Q.

MacKinnon and this younger kid Drouin are tearing shit up. They beat St John 11-2 on Saturday.

[Matthew]

Sorry matt, i think you're off-base with expansion. The league is already thin. And there is more than just phoenix in trouble. I would argue columbus is in way bigger trouble than phoenix. They are god awful, with not much light at the end of the tunnel. If they are still around in 5 years i'll be very surprised.

They seem to be talking more than last time, but i still think the season will be lost.

The league is not thin on talent. There is a cyclical process of teams rising and falling. A strong hockey ops department produces better player development, better scouting, better coaching, which will attract better players which will result in more wins and more money. Two of the best teams in the next 5 years will be the Oilers and the Islanders. They got good picks and managed development well.

The Blue Jackets will also be very good defensively (if their prospects stay on track) in the coming years too. Last year the BJs signed an agreement to stay in Columbus for 20 years.

Most teams need to make the playoffs to make money. So add more teams total and add a wildcard playoff series or something.

Expansion makes more sense than contraction. And I am saying this as someone who worked in the league.

[jredd109]

Serious question, were you bettman's assistant or something?

[Matthew]

No, but I firmly believe relocating a team does much more damage than expanding. Atlanta excluded. So many established franchises (Pens, Blackhawks, etc) were doing very not-well a few years ago. It mostly took good draft picks and improved hockey ops to turn it around both on and off the ice. Sure, those franchises have been around for a while, but this is starting to happen in places like Nashville, too. Bottom line is most teams need to consistently make the playoffs to be successful. The owners realize this, which is why they want to pay less while increasing their odds at the playoffs by owning players for longer terms.


The only current team I agree with moving is Phoenix. Move them to Seattle or KC so there will be a strong team immediately. Expand another team to QC where they can put up with a shitty product for a few years. This allows for the proposed realignment, which generates more money for 1) TV and 2) regional rivalries.

[jredd109]

wouldn't having less teams, and an increased talent pool to choose from if a couple teams are contracted make it easier to make the playoffs?

all teams cycle through strong and lean times, but in order to get those good draft picks you either have to suck for awhile, or trade some established guys for those picks. if a city wont support a team through the lean years then the owner should sell that shit, move them, or fork out more cash for better players. why should the fans (especially in cities where teams are supported) have to deal with this every 5-8 years cause half the league is in shitty markets who only watch when the team is a winner?

and you honestly think that columbus is a viable hockey market in the short or long term? that team is all kids of fucked up and has no business being in the league. sure they have some young players that may help turn them around, but realistically, when is the timeline for them getting back into the playoffs? 5 years, 8 years? they already have shitty attendance, you think people will care after another 5-10 losing seasons? please, they are done already, they just don't know it yet.

[Matthew]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

[jredd109]

you think you're so damn smart, mr poopypants!

[Random Sample]

Apparently there is a chance that the Islanders are moving to Brooklyn.

http://islanders.nhl.com/club/news.htm? ... L|NYI|home