Photo

How would you fix the NHL?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#61 FlavaDave10

FlavaDave10

    Dave

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • LocationBalmer

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:50 PM

Without fighting, there'd be a lot more cheap shots. I'd be willing to bet that cheap shots injure players a lot more frequently than fights. It's just magnified when players get injured in fights because of all the trolls who think fighting is evil and should be banned. The instigator/agitator rules have really cut down on the overly aggressive fighting. 

 

 

Agreed. They will re-work the rule for agitator this offseason too. Much more severe penalty for engaging an unwilling opponent. I'm guessing something like a separate major (so double major if the opponent is unwilling) so that the other team gets a 5 min. power play, along with a multi-game suspension.

 

The Holtby incident might get something added about goalies specifically like no one is to enter the opponent's crease, so if someone goes INTO his crease to get him, it's a major suspension. If the goalie comes out to meet the guy, then they are willingly joining the fight.

 

If not something, there is nothing to stop a thug from fighting a goalie that is putting up a shutout, and taking him out of the game, or at least shaking him up. Can you imagine how the playoffs the last few years against the NYR and Lundquist could have been?

 

Yeah, the agitator rule needs to be re-written. I think that they should just add something that says that any game misconduct is automatically up for supplemental discipline. 


"We're not going to be f***ing suck this year" - Alex Ovechkin

 

@BaltimoreDavey


#62 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:10 PM

ESPNChanges in air at GM meetings?

 

There's a growing movement to make changes to overtime in order to avoid the high number of shootouts that result. According to Red Wings GM Ken Holland, more games are ending in shootouts rather than in overtime, which isn't necessarily something GMs want.

One minor change suggested was switching ends for overtime, a tweak that got a favorable response from many of the GMs asked.

Another is expanding overtime to end games before a shootout. The notion of playing 3-on-3 for a session if the game doesn't end after 4-on-4 continues to be debated, although there are growing concerns about it.

 

A review of goalie interference might be part of an expanded replay package that could also include everything from a coach's challenge to the expansion of what the situation room in Toronto can call. But even that comes with complications.


@levineps

#63 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,568 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 10 March 2014 - 06:40 PM

If you have a strong shoot out team, they are perfectly content to go to the shoot out. It's easy to put defensive personnel out on the ice for 5 minutes to help get the game to OT for your shoot out personnel to shine and win the game. The only way to really fix that would be to somehow award more points (or a half a point addt'l?) for an OT win vs. a Shoot Out win... like for instance Regulation and OT wins are 2 points... a SO win is 1.5. 



#64 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:06 PM

If you have a strong shoot out team, they are perfectly content to go to the shoot out. It's easy to put defensive personnel out on the ice for 5 minutes to help get the game to OT for your shoot out personnel to shine and win the game. The only way to really fix that would be to somehow award more points (or a half a point addt'l?) for an OT win vs. a Shoot Out win... like for instance Regulation and OT wins are 2 points... a SO win is 1.5. 

10 mins too long?


@levineps

#65 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 31 May 2014 - 02:59 PM

SportsPress NorthwestTHIEL: BALLMER IS DONE HERE, BUT ARENA PROJECT ISN’T

 

Which brings us to the NHL, and a potential partnership.

 

A source in in city government said that Hansen has talked with the parties interested in making hockey the first tenant, and he is open to the idea. But at least two things must happen: The prospective team owners must be willing to be equity partners in the building, and they have to be as willing as Hansen to assume the risk that the public debt (up to $120 million for a one-team scenario) is protected by an unusual, if not unprecedented, requirement in pro sports leases: A virtual lien in on the value of the franchise.

 

Hansen’s passion for basketball and Seattle made him willing to offer the franchise as collateral. He doesn’t feel the same way about hockey, nor is it likely that the NHL will feel the same way he does about Seattle. Nevertheless, a deal is not out of the question.

It comes down to how much the NHL believes in Seattle and the Hansen proposal: Will they match Hansen’s risk acceptance, and join him as an equity partner in the building?


That’s why Commissioner Gary Bettman and an NHL entourage, including potential franchise owners, flew to Seattle May 6 to meet with Mayor Ed Murray and county executive Dow Constantine. The NHL needs to get specifics in order to have an informed discussion about potential expansion to Seattle before the league’s annual meetings in June.

Even if the NHL decides Seattle is worth it, there is another consideration. Hansen would have to receive some indication from the NBA that having hockey first would not create an impediment to an NBA expansion team. The NBA is used to being the older brother in markets shared with the NHL, and will need assurance that there will be enough ticket sales, sponsors and advertisers in Seattle to support two winter teams.


@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=