EHM The Blue Line

Primis wrote:Since teams have been able to waive and buy out players whether the players want to be or not (aka go back on THEIR commitment) I don't agree with this. Both sides have found ways to break contracts.

Exercising an option in a negotiated collective bargaining agreement is not breaking a contract.
Personally I wish players could be bought out like this every year (the bought out players still receive millions and can continue their careers)

nino33 wrote:Personally I wish players could be bought out like this every year (the bought out players still receive millions and can continue their careers)

I don't know if I would like this though. This year was special because the cap will drop a little bit but after that, it would be too easy for the GM to change their bad decisions from the past. If they're making the mistakes of signing overrated players then they should get stuck with them and suffer the consequences.

Imagine what it would be like if they were like the NFL? No guaranteed contracts. They can be cut at any time. Of course, most NFL contracts are front loaded and have huge signing bonuses to make up for that.

philou21 wrote: it would be too easy for the GM to change their bad decisions from the past. If they're making the mistakes of signing overrated players then they should get stuck with them and suffer the consequences.

Exactly! Why should the fans pay for it? Why should a new GM pay for the mistakes of the previous? But mostly I wrote what I did just because I think it would make the game better IMO...what is called parity by some I call mediocrity, and I don't like video game style player movement and I'm tired of constant financial talk (I could care less about the Cap anymore really, and if the NHL won't reduce the teams than talent redistribution essentially would...that's just what I'd prefer)

And I just essentially have no sympathy for the players in anything.
I have no malice in any way, but I just "don't care" at all anymore about the off-the-ice stuff, and for me the modern game is "run by the players" far to much (I think they're fortunate to be blessed with the talents they have, rather than feeling their entitled to the level of power/money/control they have...and for me they long ago started making more than enough money to compensate for the challenges they face)

I'm no fan of the owners! But I just don't care anymore about the business side of hockey at all

I don't even enjoy going to games anymore...the lights and "extra entertainment" and loud music and cheerleaders and scoreboard directions and commercial breaks and......I remember going to NHL games and talking with the other fans around me about hockey between whistles/periods, and I preferred that


I admit I have thought about playing FHM with modern rosters and reduced NHL teams/salaries HaHa

nino33 wrote:Exactly! Why should the fans pay for it? Why should a new GM pay for the mistakes of the previous? But mostly I wrote what I did just because I think it would make the game better IMO...

Didn'T saw it that way though, you're right at some point. Maybe new GMs could have the right to buy out two players at their first year? It's true though that teams who are trapped with average players with big contracts can't put new rosters that could make the team better and more interesting to watch.

And about the cheerleaders thing, I thought I was the only one thinking like that haha Montreal doesn't have some and it should stay like that. People in MTL are hockey fans and they don't need to put cheerleaders to gain the attention of people. I always thought it was just typical from the US to put cheerleaders in arenas for the show and trying to draw people at the games. With football and basketball I think it's alright but for hockey not at all.

nino33 wrote:

philou21 wrote: it would be too easy for the GM to change their bad decisions from the past. If they're making the mistakes of signing overrated players then they should get stuck with them and suffer the consequences.

Exactly! Why should the fans pay for it? Why should a new GM pay for the mistakes of the previous?

Because if a GM does not like a team's situation, he shouldn't take that job? Nobody's putting a gun to their heads, making them take that job and be in that situation.

nino33 wrote:I'm no fan of the owners! But I just don't care anymore about the business side of hockey at all

Me too. It's the lock-out that really takes the biscuit for me. The first one I experienced wasn't all that much fun but the second one has really left a bad taste in my mouth, especially as it was so soon after the previous one. It feels a bit like we'll get one each time the CBA expires.

Primis wrote: Some day we're going to look back at Jagr's KHL stint, and Kovalchuk's, and some of these other guys, and we're all going agree "Wow, they really blew it".

Jagr went to KHL after his NHL contract had expired. That's huge difference between him and Kovalchuk. Maybe it was not the right step for him but it was absolutely legal and fair.

McQwak wrote:

Primis wrote: Some day we're going to look back at Jagr's KHL stint, and Kovalchuk's, and some of these other guys, and we're all going agree "Wow, they really blew it".

Jagr went to KHL after his NHL contract had expired. That's huge difference between him and Kovalchuk. Maybe it was not the right step for him but it was absolutely legal and fair.

It also was him losing years he could gave still been very productive at the NHL level, and I bet he wishes he had them back now. Because he's nowhere near the same player.

Primis wrote:

McQwak wrote:

Primis wrote: Some day we're going to look back at Jagr's KHL stint, and Kovalchuk's, and some of these other guys, and we're all going agree "Wow, they really blew it".

Jagr went to KHL after his NHL contract had expired. That's huge difference between him and Kovalchuk. Maybe it was not the right step for him but it was absolutely legal and fair.

It also was him losing years he could gave still been very productive at the NHL level, and I bet he wishes he had them back now. Because he's nowhere near the same player.

I don't think North Americans ever even think about playing overseas as they grow up...ever.
But a European/Russian player would obviously feel very different...I can't see Jagr feeling he blew it, or wishing he had spent more time in North America
I would think many European/Russians wish they could stay in their own country (or at least much closer to "home") for their career, and not "have to" go to NA

nino33 wrote:I don't think North Americans ever even think about playing overseas as they grow up...ever.
But a European/Russian player would obviously feel very different...I can't see Jagr feeling he blew it, or wishing he had spent more time in North America
I would think many European/Russians wish they could stay in their own country (or at least much closer to "home") for their career, and not "have to" go to NA

If Jagr'd been playing in CZE I'd maybe think differently. But Russia isn't Czech Republic.

Quite frankly, why do you think Jagr came bacK to the NHL if he was happy to play in Europe? Simple: the grass wasn't greener in the KHL. If it was, he wouldn't be bouncing from PHI to DAL to BOS to who-knows-where now, he'd still be there, probably making a lot more money.

Primis wrote:If Jagr'd been playing in CZE I'd maybe think differently. But Russia isn't Czech Republic.

But it's a lot closer to home!

Primis wrote:Quite frankly, why do you think Jagr came bacK to the NHL if he was happy to play in Europe? Simple: the grass wasn't greener in the KHL. If it was, he wouldn't be bouncing from PHI to DAL to BOS to who-knows-where now, he'd still be there, probably making a lot more money.

That's your opinion
People make decisions for lots of reasons
I can understand someone from Europe/Russian wanting to play at home or closer to home being a significant influence (that's my opinion)

I don't think all Europeans/Russians think "the NHL must always be the most important thing" (and even among the many that do, I don't think they always do so throughout their entire career)

Right now NHL can't win KHL when it comes to "money"... based on the salaries. Ilya will be the best paid hockey player in the world when he joins SKA. "I" think Jagr probably went to KHL because he got a very good salary there, and he didn't have to "fight" anyone to become a firstliner there either...

I don't think he could join the Czech league, because they don't have that "high" rep and pretty low salaries there... that's almost like "quitting" hockey in your senior years, if he'd do that.

ANYWAY, I think it's good for the "hockey" that there's another league that is "challenging" the NHL. But if there's two equally good leagues in the future I'd be disapointed... Becuase I wan't the "best" players in one league. Kovalchuk is the first major grab now by the KHL. Well Radulov (best salary in the KHL) is good but it seems to me that he's too selfish to play in the NHL.

jhcjobpb wrote:Right now NHL can't win KHL when it comes to "money"... based on the salaries

My understanding is this only applies to a Russian player, and only one per team (otherwise the KHL Cap was 36.5 million last year, the NHL 70.2 million)

jhcjobpb wrote:and he didn't have to "fight" anyone to become a firstliner there either

I think things like this are a factor too for many Europeans/Russians (plus things like fewer games to play, less hitting/physical play/defense, etc)...and I think these things factor in for some of the North Americans playing overseas too!

jhcjobpb wrote:I think it's good for the "hockey" that there's another league that is "challenging" the NHL.

Just my opinion, but I don't think the talent pool is enough to support 30 top teams worldwide (but then I don't accept the NHL game as great...I think it's mediocre/boring because there's to many teams); and the KHL reminds me a lot of the WHA

NHL released 2013-14 schedule, and division names.

Metro, Atlantic, Central, Pacific.

The Eastern conference names are laughable. The "Atlantic" includes Detroit and only 2 that are actually on the Atlantic. 0 teams from last year's Atlantic are in the new one.

The new "Metropolitan" Division includes the NYC teams, Philly, Washington.... and Columbus and Carolina, those raging metropolitan areas.

Here's the full realignment:

Eastern Conference
Atlantic Division
1. Boston
2. Buffalo
3. Detroit
4. Florida
5. Montreal
6. Ottawa
7. Tampa Bay
8. Toronto

Metropolitan Division
1. Carolina
2. Columbus
3. New Jersey
4. New York Islanders
5. New York Rangers
6. Philadelphia
7. Pittsburgh
8. Washington

Western Conference
Central Division
1. Chicago
2. Colorado
3. Dallas
4. Minnesota
5. Nashville
6. St. Louis
7. Winnipeg

Pacific Division
1. Anaheim
2. Calgary
3. Edmonton
4. Los Angeles
5. Phoenix
6. San Jose
7. Vancouver

Finally Glen Metropolit is getting the honour he deserves

Doomski wrote:Finally Glen Metropolit is getting the honour he deserves

Good one!

If these new division names aren't going to be geographically accurate, why couldn't they have just gone back to the old school division names? Those were so much better.

I second you Bruins.

bruins72 wrote:If these new division names aren't going to be geographically accurate, why couldn't they have just gone back to the old school division names? Those were so much better.

Because the NHL hates anything that fans might actually like and want.

The grouping of teams in the West seems a lot better than the East. Why are Tampa and Florida in the same division as Toronto? Columbus is in the "Metropolitan" division ? I don't get it!

timmy_t wrote:The grouping of teams in the West seems a lot better than the East. Why are Tampa and Florida in the same division as Toronto? Columbus is in the "Metropolitan" division ? I don't get it!

I guess they didn't had a choice to put Columbus there since it isn't as near the atlantic as MTL, OTT or TOR.

Primis wrote:

bruins72 wrote:If these new division names aren't going to be geographically accurate, why couldn't they have just gone back to the old school division names? Those were so much better.

Because the NHL hates anything that fans might actually like and want.

And to make it worse, they took several months to come up with these names...

Doomski wrote:Finally Glen Metropolit is getting the honour he deserves

Hehe brilliant!! I'd like a Pronger Division too (Sean, that is; not Chris). Perhaps also a Jason Doig Division and a Biznasty Division. There, that took me all of 20 seconds to think of and it's better than the rubbish the NHL has come up with!

archibalduk wrote:

Primis wrote:

bruins72 wrote:If these new division names aren't going to be geographically accurate, why couldn't they have just gone back to the old school division names? Those were so much better.

Because the NHL hates anything that fans might actually like and want.

And to make it worse, they took several months to come up with these names...

Doomski wrote:Finally Glen Metropolit is getting the honour he deserves

Hehe brilliant!! I'd like a Pronger Division too (Sean, that is; not Chris). Perhaps also a Jason Doig Division and a Biznasty Division. There, that took me all of 20 seconds to think of and it's better than the rubbish the NHL has come up with!

I 100% agree with you!