The NHL 2004-2005 Season

[Wild Winger]

After continuous talks and proposals that have gone nowhere, I read "The Hockey News" today and I saw that the 2004-05 NHL season was not to be expected. Before the 3-1 victory on Monday by the Americans over the Canadians. U.S. player Bryan Smolinski asked one of the union members "Are we going to play this season" and the union member shook his head and said "It looks doubtful"

So, what is your opinions? Do u think the NHL is in trouble?

[Ez Street]

Man this is starting to really piss me off. I have tickets to my first ever NHL game. It's an exhibition game at Kemper Arena featuring the Predators and Panthers. I was really looking forward to it. Now, because of all these greedy people, i will have to miss that game....and possibly the season. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!

BTW, both sides are the bad guys. They both let it get this way!

[Wild Winger]

Man this is starting to really piss me off. I have tickets to my first ever NHL game. It's an exhibition game at Kemper Arena featuring the Predators and Panthers. I was really looking forward to it. Now, because of all these greedy people, i will have to miss that game....and possibly the season. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!

BTW, both sides are the bad guys. They both let it get this way!

I remember last year when the Preds and Thrashers came to Richmond for an exhibition game. It was pretty good. A lot faster than the minor league hockey we have.

[Phil]

Is the NHL in trouble? Yes, big time.

Is the lockout necessary? I think so.

Am I cheering for the owners? I feel weird for saying so, but yes. I am supporting Gary Bettman.

Now I need a cleansing shower...

[Shmee]

Is the NHL in trouble? Yes, big time.

Is the lockout necessary? I think so.

Am I cheering for the owners? I feel weird for saying so, but yes. I am supporting Gary Bettman.

Join the club, SyPhi. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, there is no plausible way for owners to field consistently competitive teams without putting either themselves or their fans into financial debt. Note that I said that owners want to field consistently successful teams, because everyone who disagrees with my argument always brings up Anaheim, and Calgary. Eat it.

As players' salaries continue to rise with no roof to keep them in check, owners are forced to pay higher salaries. And yes, owners ARE forced to pay these his salaries. If the owners made a unified agreement amongst themselves to keep player salaries low without figuring it into the CBA, the players' union would most likely take them to court for purposely holding down wages.

This all leads to a feeling of complacency among NHL players who realize that as long as they are guaranteed to earn $7 million this season, they need not risk their health or what little stardom they have by playing their hardest and risking injury. There were no 40 goal scorers last season, and no 100 point scorers. Owners are pay players millions more than ever before to produce less than ever before. It's not cost effective.

Player greed drives ticket and merchandise prices up. Ticket prices have risen consistently over the past ten years, largely due to the fact that owners have to compensate for their increased spending. In some smaller markets (see Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford) this caused a drop in attendence, which put owners deeper in debt. The only solution was to move teams out of Canadian markets where owners were losing money and into warmer, less traditional markets where many teams are now struggling to draw, again losing money.

The NHL needs a hard salary cap, plain and simple. There is simply no way that a league, in such a funk that its latest television deal doesn't even guarantee money, can continue to survive in a flooded US sports market. I'm in the minority that feel that an extended lockout could actually strengthen the NHL, because eventually players will realize that they need whatever money they can get. Most NHL players enter the league straight out of high school. Few of the Canadian players attend colleges or universities, and the majority of the league is Canadian. Many players have nothing else to fall back on besides hockey, and eventually they'll realize that even with a hard cap, the NHL will provide the highest pay, most fame, and ultimately, most job security.

Don't feel bad, Sy... you're right.

[Sterling84]

Agreed and agreed.

Now, I don't think the owners are any saints either. If they don't do their part to lower tickets drastically (Sabres) and fill empty seats (Blackhawks) then this may all be for naught.

But there needs to be a cap. Without a doubt. I for one, don't think we'll miss any games. I think it's muchado about nothing.....pointless posturing. I love hockey like no other sport, but this nation wouldn't bat their eyes twice w/out the NHL and everyone involved knows it. Arena football got higher ratings.......the PB-friggin-A got better ratings!!

There is no money......there is no 30 billion TV contract (or whatever) like the NFL has. The players have nothing to bargain with.......they must realize they play in a second tier sport (economically, not inherently) and be content to make only millions, not tens of millions. Shoot, sign me up for a cap.........I'll play.

Plus they should implement a point by point system to follow the NFLs lead and run this league as a successful business. Contract some teams, shorten the season, perhaps even consider only playing games on two or three nights a week....drastic stuff to make the dollars and cents part solvent.

Think about it.......why is the NFL a juggernaut?? Because it's marketed well and it rules, but mostly, because it's appointment television. Like the Sopranos or Friends....you know instantly when its on, where its on. No other sport has that. Life is busy, but any guy can (and will )park his butt on the couch for 18 Sundays cause it's easy to plan for.

I say, fewer teams.......as few as 48-60 games per season, only played on Tues, Fri, and Sat nights (perhaps add Sundays after the NFL season ends) and then get people watching.

Plus, don't underestimate how valuable fantasy football has been for the NFL....making even give or take MNF games a must watch to finalize the weeks fantasy games. Find a way to market a weekly matchup based fantasy hockey season to give people more reason to watch.

But I digress. YOu guys are right. The first step is a hard cap. The NFL has a TV contract that pays for (by itself) all of the base salaries.....and since that is capped...the teams know going in they are covered for that.......bonuses and cap penalties not-withstanding of course. Without a cap....the NHL teams have who knows how much to spend and no guarantee of where its coming from other than tickets and concessions........just doesnt work. Cap , cap , CAP please.

[Puckguy14]

You can thank Goodenow and Bettman on this. With what? 3 meetings this summer? They should've had preliminary discussions LAST summer. They should've worked on this all of last season instead, 3 meetings have produced nothing. Amazing that the owners had a "secret" stash of $300 million that's been saved since the 1999-2000 season! They knew this would happen 4 ****ing years ago!

I was reading on NBC Sports.com (brutal site) that now the owners and players are mad because of the lack of negotiations with Bettman and Goodenow. I don't blame them! This is an absolute nightmare, and I expected a lockout but not with this little of trying to work things out. Neither one of these two dumb@$$e$ really know how much this could ruin the league. Yeah they have the millions to sit out, but what about the casual and the diehard fans? What about the risk that the Stanley Cup no longer being the trophy for the NHL. (Remember that story?)

Work this $#!+ out NOW! Or else, forget about having some real pro hockey anytime soon. For the NLL, this might be their blessing in disguise.

[Suigi]

I agree with the idea of a salary cap, except that it'd make what the sport is based on obsolete: dynasties.

Even in the non-capped NHL, how many teams have participated in the Cup finals over the past decade? Let's see...

1993 - Canadiens over Kings

1994 - Rangers over Canucks

1995 - Devils over Red Wings

1996 - Avalanche over Panthers

1997 - Red Wings over Flyers

1998 - Red Wings over Capitals

1999 - Stars over Sabres

2000 - Devils over Stars

2001 - Avalanche over Devils

2002 - Red Wings over Hurricanes

2003 - Devils over Mighty Ducks

2004 - Lightning over Flames

That's 16 different teams in the Cup finals over 10 years! The closest thing to a dynasty the NHL has right now is the Devils, and even then, they bombed out in the first round last year.

If the salary cap is in place, there will not be any clear-cut team to beat. No hotly anticipated matches against the Cup favourite. No dynasties.

Or at least, there won't be to my understanding.

But that's pretty flawed as is.

We need to bring back the age of the dynasties, like the Maple Leafs in the early 60s, the Canadiens in the late 50s and late 70s, the Islanders in the early 80s, and the Oilers in the late 80s.

I say, three cheers for the Unfair Advantage.

And if Gary Bettman wants a salary cap, why not make it a league salary cap, instead of a team one? This way, if the total league salary exceeds a certain percentage of league revenues, the players need to pay back the difference before the next season.

[wheateater]

As Theo Fleury once said, the only people who will lose in the event of a work stoppage are THE FANS. We (at least in Canada) are all gonna be searching thru TV Guide on Saturday evenings from October to April, looking for something to watch. Yeah, I'll be on the couch watching re-runs of "Dynasty" on Deja View, or some crap like that.

Bottom line, both sides need to realize that a stoppage would cripple this league worse than it is right now. That being said, if a stoppage will work things out to create a more competitive and parity-filled league, I'm all for it. I just live in fear of what I'll be forced to take up in the long winter evenings to fill the void of my beloved Kings and the NHL...

[wheateater]

I agree with the idea of a salary cap, except that it'd make what the sport is based on obsolete: dynasties.

Even in the non-capped NHL, how many teams have participated in the Cup finals over the past decade? Let's see...

1993 - Canadiens over Kings

1994 - Rangers over Canucks

1995 - Devils over Red Wings

1996 - Avalanche over Panthers

1997 - Red Wings over Flyers

1998 - Red Wings over Capitals

1999 - Stars over Sabres

2000 - Devils over Stars

2001 - Avalanche over Devils

2002 - Red Wings over Hurricanes

2003 - Devils over Mighty Ducks

2004 - Lightning over Flames

That's 16 different teams in the Cup finals over 10 years! The closest thing to a dynasty the NHL has right now is the Devils, and even then, they bombed out in the first round last year.

If the salary cap is in place, there will not be any clear-cut team to beat. No hotly anticipated matches against the Cup favourite. No dynasties.

Or at least, there won't be to my understanding.

But that's pretty flawed as is.

We need to bring back the age of the dynasties, like the Maple Leafs in the early 60s, the Canadiens in the late 50s and late 70s, the Islanders in the early 80s, and the Oilers in the late 80s.

I say, three cheers for the Unfair Advantage.

And if Gary Bettman wants a salary cap, why not make it a league salary cap, instead of a team one? This way, if the total league salary exceeds a certain percentage of league revenues, the players need to pay back the difference before the next season.

Yeah, but unless your team is that dynasty, you likely HATE dynasties because they rob your team of any slim chance it might have had.

Before the Lightning won this year, 4 teams won the Cup over the last 9 years. Unless you're a fan of New Jersey, Colorado, Detroit or Dallas, those 9 years were a very painful experience. I am so sick of knowing eevry damn year which four teams are likely to be the best in the NHL. It's that way with baseball, as well, and I hate it. Would I be talking this way if the Kings were one of these teams? Not likely. But I don't have the luxury of doing that because the Kings have never HAD the chance to be one of those teams. I believe some kind of cap (and a new owner) would help them finally be a true competitor.

Screw the dynasty!

[DEAD!]

We (at least in Canada) are all gonna be searching thru TV Guide on Saturday evenings from October to April, looking for something to watch. Yeah, I'll be on the couch watching re-runs of "Dynasty" on Deja View, or some crap like that.

Too bad it's not 1994.

[Saintsfan]

Personally I think sports need dynasties, everyone wants to know who the great teams are, and I am not sure that without dynasties you can ever really know that. This isn't to say that parity isn't good in some ways, but its not great for a sport IMO if you dcan't point to a few teams and say they are the truly great teams.

Oh and Betman and the players unions- sort it, and sort it now. Hockey can't afford a strike, certainly not a long strike.

[Shmee]

Too bad it's not 1994.

And here I was thinking I was the only one who wanted the Ranger to be back how they were ten years ago...

On the bright side, ten years is nothing for us Ranger fans. Lats time we won it, it's had been 54 years. ::Shudders::

[phillyfan36]

Personally I think sports need dynasties, everyone wants to know who the great teams are, and I am not sure that without dynasties you can ever really know that. This isn't to say that parity isn't good in some ways, but its not great for a sport IMO if you dcan't point to a few teams and say they are the truly great teams.

Oh and Betman and the players unions- sort it, and sort it now. Hockey can't afford a strike, certainly not a long strike.

sports DON'T need dynasties and the nfl proves it - the patriots arent a real dynasty - in the past decade theyve been there 3 times, but still - the niners were there every other year in the 80s

the nfl has MAYBE 5 times that are sure bets this year - patriots, eagles, colts, and ravens are the only 4 i think are. there is so much parity, yet which sports is sweeping our nation - FOOTBALL

E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles!

[Saintsfan]

Personally I think sports need dynasties, everyone wants to know who the great teams are, and I am not sure that without dynasties you can ever really know that. This isn't to say that parity isn't good in some ways, but its not great for a sport IMO if you dcan't point to a few teams and say they are the truly great teams.

Oh and Betman and the players unions- sort it, and sort it now. Hockey can't afford a strike, certainly not a long strike.

sports DON'T need dynasties and the nfl proves it - the patriots arent a real dynasty - in the past decade theyve been there 3 times, but still - the niners were there every other year in the 80s

the nfl has MAYBE 5 times that are sure bets this year - patriots, eagles, colts, and ravens are the only 4 i think are. there is so much parity, yet which sports is sweeping our nation - FOOTBALL

E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles!

from a here and now standpoint maybe you are right. But I think you need great teams for histories sake and I think its difficult in the NFL to see who those teams are right now. The patriots are as close as anything to it, and they show the importance of great coaching and great big game players in an era of parity. The big games should be about watching great teams going at it, and with parity the superbopwl seems from this side of the atlantic at least to have become less of a spectacle, with less excitement surrounding the build up. (Despite some much more exciting games)

I actually support a salary cap, if only because it forces teams to run themselves well. You can't just go and spend lavish sums of money on every player you can find. It gives all teams a chance but they need to be well managed and have a good mix of players.

[jkrdevil]

The NHL can not afford a lockout. The last lockout hurt the league tremendously, after coming off a great playoffs that put Hockey on the front page of the sports section the NHL had a lockout and it cost them fan interest, the reason why hockey isn't as succesful now is because of the 95 lockout. Now let's look at baseball it is now just recovering from the 94 strike, anything simular would kill hockey because it soesn't have the fanbase baseball did. Both the owners and the players know this and that is why if there is a lockout I don't think it will be that long maybe a few weeks into camp. Yes, the NHL needs a hard cap, but I can deal with a soft cap if it means there is a season. I also think a doft cap could work, look at this offseason and the free agent signings that haven't been big, that shows the owners can control there spendin.A soft cap can be good now, with the nhl going for a hard cap in the next cba.

As for Dynatsies, I think thay can be good for a sport. Becuase you either love them or you hate them. Everyone watches to see them win or lose, becuase of that I think the Yankees have been good for baseball. The NFL is not succesfull because of parody, the NFL is succesfull because it markets well (hint, hint NHL: It's about marketing so don't have your announcers who represent the league tear down the league). The NFL is succesfull because every game is once a week and thus every game is like an event, and since there are few games all the games mean something so you get people to watch every game. Parody has nothing to do with the NFL's success.

[dwertman]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=96389

Judging from the comments in this article,Mr Daly isnt too pleased with his union counterparts....This could get ugly

[uncle_wiggily]

Here is what I want to see... a league wide salary cap, although I use that loosely. By this I mean, every player makes exactly the same in base salary, with the exception of rookies. Now for those players who obviously better than others, leave it up to the team's discretion to offer incentives, ie. if they score 30 goals they get $1 million in bonus. This way the players get rewarded after the fact for playing well, but they do not get rewarded for playing badly as they do now. And none of this signing bonus :censored:; I have never, nor will I ever, understand signing bonuses!

[wheateater]

I should've mentioned this before in my other two rants, but there is a huge difference between the dynasties of old (1950s-1980s) and these new-fangled dynsaties some of you want to see. It can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

The old dynasties reigned before the advent of free agency, meaning most of the players stayed with one team throughout its run (think Henri Richard, Larry Robinson, Mark Messier, etc.). That rarely happens nowadays. Steve Yzerman is one huge exception to the rule. People may have liked to see the dynasties of "the Maple Leafs in the early 60s, the Canadiens in the late 50s and late 70s, the Islanders in the early 80s, and the Oilers in the late 80s" revisited, but it's not the same.

It's a different game today and the 4 most recent "dynasties" all have one thing in common: bigger-than-average spending on the UFA market. True, they do keep a small contigent of high-priced key players (i.e. Yzerman, Brodeur and Stevens in NJ, Sakic and Forsberg in COL, Modano in DAL), but these teams also have the ability to go out and get whomever they want (maybe not NJ, but Brodeur could win with Kalamazoo playing in front of him). That theory does nothing beneficial for the game's 26 other teams. Nor does it always work (see NY Rangers, Toronto). But the NHL needs to find a pattern similar to that of the NFL, where every team has a legitimate shot at opening day, and where 2/3rds of the teams aren't just playing for a good draft pick in the summer.

[jkrdevil]

I should've mentioned this before in my other two rants, but there is a huge difference between the dynasties of old (1950s-1980s) and these new-fangled dynsaties some of you want to see. It can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

The old dynasties reigned before the advent of free agency, meaning most of the players stayed with one team throughout its run (think Henri Richard, Larry Robinson, Mark Messier, etc.). That rarely happens nowadays. Steve Yzerman is one huge exception to the rule. People may have liked to see the dynasties of "the Maple Leafs in the early 60s, the Canadiens in the late 50s and late 70s, the Islanders in the early 80s, and the Oilers in the late 80s" revisited, but it's not the same.

It's a different game today and the 4 most recent "dynasties" all have one thing in common: bigger-than-average spending on the UFA market. True, they do keep a small contigent of high-priced key players (i.e. Yzerman, Brodeur and Stevens in NJ, Sakic and Forsberg in COL, Modano in DAL), but these teams also have the ability to go out and get whomever they want (maybe not NJ, but Brodeur could win with Kalamazoo playing in front of him). That theory does nothing beneficial for the game's 26 other teams. Nor does it always work (see NY Rangers, Toronto). But the NHL needs to find a pattern similar to that of the NFL, where every team has a legitimate shot at opening day, and where 2/3rds of the teams aren't just playing for a good draft pick in the summer.

Well the league has good parody now as 16 teams makes the playoffs, so 2/3 of the league aren't playing for a draft pick.

And I know you touched on it a bit but the Devils aren't one of those sign the big free agent teams. Most of the Devils players come out of their minor league system. The only big key player not from their system is Stevens who they got as compensation from the blues for signing Shanahan. The reason why the Devils have been so good for so long is that they have the best front office as far as scouting and player evaluations in the league. Despite being in the bottom of the draft every year the get the players they need so when a player leaves there is someone in the minors ready to replace them. They do spend the money to keep their great players. A big reason why the Devils draft so well is that they scout the College ranks a lot more than the other teams, a lot of their top draft picks come from American Colleges (Martin, Parise, Hale).