It's Damn Real!
The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Those of us/you still following the NHL through this labor dispute know that as dirty a word as it is, contraction could very well be the single most viable option to getting the game back on the ice. It's not likely to happen, but let's say it becomes a reality, for the sake of discussion.
Who do you cut your losses with (as in what teams get contracted), how do you treat the players under contract to those franchises, and how do you re-draft the lines to determine NHL conferences/divisions?
My plan would look like this:
Who to contract:
It's no secret I'm not at all a proponent of contraction. Not one bit. I hate the idea of putting this many people out of work for the "sake of the game", because the game can survive and profit, as they've proven, despite carrying so much "dead weight". I'm much more in favor of relocation, but for the purposes of this thread, assuming I absolutely had to contract, I'd pull out two clubs:
There are a slew of clubs who'd you could make an argument in favor of contracting in addition to the above, but I think there's reason to save them as well:
St. Louis, who finally seem to have a team in place that will lead to long-term success — something they need to convince fans to keep coming out.
The New York Islanders, who's move to Brooklyn should effectively reenergize a franchise on the brink of collapse. The new ownership situation should payoff in potential advertising/sponsorship support, which in turn, coupled with a rise in ticket sales, should give Wang & co. a means to spend a little more on the on-ice product. Win-win.
The Florida Panthers, who despite a tumultuous history again seem to have a Hockey Ops/front office in place with Dale Tallon at the helm that will once again give them an identity — something they haven't have since their inception when players like Bure, Vanbiesbrouck, Rob Niedermayer and Scott Mellanby were there to sell tickets.
There are others as well, but this post is gonna be long enough as it is. You get the point.
Alignment:
In terms of alignment, with just two teams leaving, I'd like to go with four divisions of 7 teams each — Adams, Norris, Patrick and Smythe, where two of each also make up the Eastern (Patrick, Adams) and Western Conferences (Norris, Smythe).
Eastern Conference:
Western Conference:
With 14 teams in each Conference, the top 7 seeds get playoff spots, and the 8th and final spot could be something of a wild card, or you could just go with the top-8 as has already been in place for years.
Remaining players:
As far as I'm concerned, with both Columbus and Phoenix dissolving, there won't be enough interest in all of their players to warrant a full on draft, but I don't think declaring them all free agents would be fair to those players either (considering they have valid contracts with the NHL already) so I'd probably begrudgingly agree to a dispersal draft where an exception can be made to not count the salary/contract of all drafted players for a few years to allow clubs who manage to luck out with the bigger ticket players to get their cap in order having added big-money players who they may not have otherwise been able to afford, cap-wise.
--
Thoughts?
Who do you cut your losses with (as in what teams get contracted), how do you treat the players under contract to those franchises, and how do you re-draft the lines to determine NHL conferences/divisions?
My plan would look like this:
Who to contract:
It's no secret I'm not at all a proponent of contraction. Not one bit. I hate the idea of putting this many people out of work for the "sake of the game", because the game can survive and profit, as they've proven, despite carrying so much "dead weight". I'm much more in favor of relocation, but for the purposes of this thread, assuming I absolutely had to contract, I'd pull out two clubs:
1. Phoenix first and foremost, because if ever there was a face for contraction, it's the Yotes, who bleed money like no other. The franchise has been struggling for stable ownership since it's inception, and the fact it's owned and operated by the league should be all the reason you need to support the process, Greg Jamison deal be damned.
2. Columbus would be the other — a team who is a testament to the fact that college hockey success does not equate NHL success, especially when you can't convince your fans, even over the course of a decade, that you're capable of building success. The loss of Nash is going to hit whatever support is left in Ohio hard, and it might just be hard enough to justify contraction.
2. Columbus would be the other — a team who is a testament to the fact that college hockey success does not equate NHL success, especially when you can't convince your fans, even over the course of a decade, that you're capable of building success. The loss of Nash is going to hit whatever support is left in Ohio hard, and it might just be hard enough to justify contraction.
There are a slew of clubs who'd you could make an argument in favor of contracting in addition to the above, but I think there's reason to save them as well:
St. Louis, who finally seem to have a team in place that will lead to long-term success — something they need to convince fans to keep coming out.
The New York Islanders, who's move to Brooklyn should effectively reenergize a franchise on the brink of collapse. The new ownership situation should payoff in potential advertising/sponsorship support, which in turn, coupled with a rise in ticket sales, should give Wang & co. a means to spend a little more on the on-ice product. Win-win.
The Florida Panthers, who despite a tumultuous history again seem to have a Hockey Ops/front office in place with Dale Tallon at the helm that will once again give them an identity — something they haven't have since their inception when players like Bure, Vanbiesbrouck, Rob Niedermayer and Scott Mellanby were there to sell tickets.
There are others as well, but this post is gonna be long enough as it is. You get the point.
Alignment:
In terms of alignment, with just two teams leaving, I'd like to go with four divisions of 7 teams each — Adams, Norris, Patrick and Smythe, where two of each also make up the Eastern (Patrick, Adams) and Western Conferences (Norris, Smythe).
Eastern Conference:
The Patrick Division: New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Washington Capitals, Boston Bruins, Carolina Hurricanes
The Adams Division: Montréal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Toronto Maple Leafs, Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Penguins, Tampa Bay Lightning, Florida Panthers
The Adams Division: Montréal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Toronto Maple Leafs, Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Penguins, Tampa Bay Lightning, Florida Panthers
Western Conference:
The Norris Division: Detroit Red Wings, Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, Nashville Predators, Dallas Stars, Minnesota Wild, Winnipeg Jetes
The Smythe Division: Colorado Avalanche, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Vancouver Canucks, San José Sharks, Anaheim Ducks, Los Angeles Kings
The Smythe Division: Colorado Avalanche, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Vancouver Canucks, San José Sharks, Anaheim Ducks, Los Angeles Kings
With 14 teams in each Conference, the top 7 seeds get playoff spots, and the 8th and final spot could be something of a wild card, or you could just go with the top-8 as has already been in place for years.
Remaining players:
As far as I'm concerned, with both Columbus and Phoenix dissolving, there won't be enough interest in all of their players to warrant a full on draft, but I don't think declaring them all free agents would be fair to those players either (considering they have valid contracts with the NHL already) so I'd probably begrudgingly agree to a dispersal draft where an exception can be made to not count the salary/contract of all drafted players for a few years to allow clubs who manage to luck out with the bigger ticket players to get their cap in order having added big-money players who they may not have otherwise been able to afford, cap-wise.
--
Thoughts?