There’s no lack of talent nowdays. European players increased the level, in fact. But it becomed a goalies game since Patrick Roy learnt the butterfly style to the world….

This whole article is summed up by the first sentence of the second paragraph. “Of course, this too is probably a pipe dream. The players won’t agree to contraction because they don’t want to lose their jobs”

Just in case you forgot what you wrote, let me put it in simple terms. THE NHLPA WILL NOT SETTLE FOR ANY LOSS OF JOBS.

The NHL is coming close to a long shut down in two years voer some sort of salary cap, if you are talking about eliminating jobs, the Players Association will never go for that. You could have filled the other four paragraphs with an Iserali-Palestinian peace plan which probably would have an easier chance of happening.

The problem with the NHL is that as much as revenues are increasing, salaries are climbing even faster. There is depth, its just that depth costs money.

You want to fix the NHL, here are some suggestions:

1) Move the NHL draft age up to 21. The NBA is now finally learning that at 18 kids are not ready the handle the riggors of being a professional althlete. As it stands, how many people drafted this past June will be playing in the nHL next season. I keep hearing people rave about whatever Florida’s top pick whatever his name is. The truth is defense is the toughest postion to play. Yes even tougher than goal. It take about 3 or 4 years to really play the position.

2) Bring about a hard salary cap. To be sucessful the NHL would have to combine the elements of the NBA and NFL cap. From the NFL, a hard cap, no player exceptions a hrad figure and that’s it. Also a reveune sharing program with the players assocation.

From the NBA, guranteed contracts. You sign someone for 5 years, then its a five year contract, no going back and asking that it be reworked to fit in under the cap.

Now before all these small market Canadian teams get to happy, the cap would probably be something in the $40 to $50 dollar range in US Currency. Their would be no Canadian discount plan.

Additionally Rookies would probably be capped with four year contracts and then its free agency for them.

This is probably more than some small markets would want to spend, on the flip side most of the big markets would lock in most of the good players causing some good players to have reduced salaries.

Is it a perfect plan, no, however to fix the problems its going to cause all sides to lose something for the game to win.

The reason that goal scoring is down is not the lack of talent but because of the unbelievable goalies of today . Big equipment aside, they are bigger, more agile, more flexible, and more athletic then ever before. The goaltending of the eighties was just atrocious (that is why people witnessed scores such as 12-9, 9-7). Practically every team nowadays have a goalie or two that is above average.

Another reason why goals are down in todays NHL is that there is such a fine line between making the playoffs and missing the playoffs. To make the playoffs today teams must be a few games over .500. In the eigthies teams could make the playoffs even if they had a record of .350. IE, the Minnesota North Stars made the playoffs in 1984-85 with a record of 25-43-12. Back in the eighties teams could aford to play firewagon hockey because they were almost guaranteed a playoff spot (16 of 21 teams made the playoffs or 76%). Today only 16 of 30 teams make the playoffs or 53%.

All the reasons above make todays game lower in goals but not on talent.

2. Cutting back on the number of players carried on rosters would make it more difficult for teams to develop young players. Young players, especially defensemen, must be given time to develop before given a lot of ice time.

3. Look at the leafs in the playoffs. Even with their depth, they struggled through the playoffs with injuries. How much worse would it have been had they not had the depth they have now?

4. It’s best to leave rosters as is. If you really want to improve things, lets talk about wider rinks. There are many highly skilled youngsters available that aren’t picked because they are small by NHL standards and teams fear that they can’t make on the small ice surface of the NHL. Expand the ice and bring them on.

I meant to imply that certain top-heavy teams (Detroit, Colo., etc) might become too much for any other team to handle. While I realize that, in this plan, every team would have a better than average chance of landing quite a few top players, a team like the Wings would, with fewer Payroll concerns be able to lure MORE/BIGGER names to the team with MORE/BIGGER moneys.

1)Limiting the amount of players dressed by as much as 6 (I think is what you proposed) Would tire everyone out a bit much. The end result of 28 tired players is the same as 36 not-so-skilled players. Plus, you’d have the backlash from the media, players assoc., and fan base (who may not want to see their favorite fourth-liner cut from the roster because he can’t deke). Not to mention the playoffs.

2)Admittedly, I am a Wings fan. I don’t think I would enjoy watching the wings if they weren’t forced into keeping role players in their line-up. If they only had to pay 18 men, what are the chances of any of those not being the cream of the free-agent crop.

3)Younguns. What happens to the young guys when you only have to dress 14 guys? How do they crack the lineup? How do they get precious experience on the ice (in the NHL-the minors aren’t a telltale sign of talent) while GM’s and coaches are pressured to play the money guys?

I guess that’s all I have to say.

interesting post.

Coldwar