Not to brag or anything, but it looks like my way of handling the new economic landscape of the NHL has gained a little traction. A per-team cap in the $22M to $36M range. This tells me two things. One, the players really want to get a deal done. Two, the accounting discussions they’ve have recently have opened their eyes a little bit. If you remember, the discussions in February stalled after the owners offered $42.5M, and the players would only go down to $49M. What’s changed? Maybe the players are starting to realize that the very future of the league is in jeopardy, and the new numbers released by the owners confirm the Leavitt report as more than a PR document. There’s still a ways to go- more negotiations on arbitration and free agency, perhaps the players decided to go further on the cap in order to get more in those areas.

There’s a story that the “Big 4” commissioners (Tagliabue, Stern, Selig, and Bettman) are meeting Congress to discuss steroids. Considering pre-lockout hockey ratings in the US were south of NASCAR, arena football, and bowling, this makes me further question our federal leadership. Although I’m not sure taking the “cream” and the “clear” could really spruce up the crotch chop.

Latest news from the NHL talks? Nothing is happening. Glad to see the owners and players are committed to getting a deal done. If anyone needs me, I’ll be watching curling on “The Ocho”.

Ok, I’m too lazy to come up with 10 rule changes or improvements, so I figure 5 (ok, 6) should be enough. Here they are:

1. Actually enforce obstruction. Maybe the obstruction rules need tweaking, maybe they don’t. What they definitely need is the refs to enforce them as they are written. If someone is skating after a loose puck and a defensemen changes his skating line to make contact with that person, it’s obstruction. I don’t care if they fall down or not. We need to stop the clutch-and-grab style away from the puck. If the refs won’t enforce it, get new refs. I’m really fed up with this stuff.

2. Smaller goalie equipment. Buccigross wants bigger nets, and I want control over the equipment. Very strict guidelines on everything a goalie wears: leg pads, blocker, catch glove, chest protector, jersey, helmet, everything. If that means very tall or big goalies can’t fit into the equipment, too bad. Small guys don’t have a reasonable shot of making it in the NBA or NHL, what’s the difference? And don’t tell me bigger pads mean more safety. Patrick Roy wearing a 58 jersey don’t help squat in terms of safety, but it does stop pucks from going under his arms.

3. Eliminate red line offsides (two line passes). This change makes the Olympic game more interesting, and the European game faster. Let the fast guys skate.

4. Move the net back to where it was pre-Gretzky. He was a master behind the net, and I think this is at least partially why they moved it out. Well, time to move it back. More room in front = more goals scored.

5. Reinstate touch-up offsides. I’m not sure why the league ever agreed to a rule that would increase the number of stoppages of play.

6. Goalies can play the puck wherever they want, but if they’re out of the crease, you can hit them like any other player. I want to see Brodeur’s skill at clearing the zone, or Lalime’s lack of it. But having an invisible force field around you when you’re wearing 3X the amount of pads as everyone else makes no sense.

Ok, so I’m grasping at straws, but there’s been a spate of recent coverage in Hockey News (the best sports publication out there) and John Buccigross’s column on espn.com about “sprucing up the game”. Here’s Mr. Buccigross’ list (without all the commentary):
1. Bigger nets
2. No skater interference
3. Penalty deterrents (like serving the entire two, disqualification for too many penalties)
4. Adopt all AHL rule changes this season (wide blue lines, tag up offside, crease behind the net, net closer to the boards)
5. Paint helmets interesting colors and designs
6. Mandatory ref and player microphones
7. No music before faceoffs
8. Take out the red line
9. Play-in games for the playoffs

The tenth suggestion was more of a joke than anything, so I didn’t include it. Numbers 5, 6, and 7 don’t really have anything to do with the game itself, so I can’t say I really care. People don’t go to football games to watch the halftime show, unless you’re planning on booing Ashlee Simpson. Fixing what happens when play isn’t going on is a distant second to fixing the game on the ice. Exhibit A: the XFL. You can have clever nicknames on the back of your jersey (“He Hate Me”), Matrix-like camera tricks, and the hottest women in the world as cheerleaders, but having a second-rate sport will kill you. And in the past 5-10 years, hockey has been a second rate sport.

I’ll post my suggested rule changes in the next few days.

Bring on the scabs. I’m not real sure of all the pitfalls of fielding (icing?) replacement players, but I say let’s go. I’m a hockey fan, first and foremost. I want to see top-level play. If the only people that will provide it are minor league, college, and international players, then I say “where’s the season ticket form?” I’m not willing to pay the same prices, but I’ll pay more than I’m paying now (i.e. nothing).

Ok, so now I’ve decimated the owner’s position and said the players need to yield to keep the sport healthy, what the heck is supposed to happen? It involves the dreaded s-word: “Salary Cap”. If you give the owners everything they want, you end up with the NFL but far less rich and popular. Owners make lots of money every year, players have absolutely zero job security, and only the best players make anything even remotely approaching what the owners are making.

So what kind of salary cap are we talking about? I would advocate a soft salary cap, which means that each team can only spend a certain amount on player salaries, with some exceptions. The NBA has a soft cap, and some of their exceptions make a lot of sense. For instance, teams can go over the cap if they resign their own free agents. I would also advocate another feature of the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), having maximum and minimum salaries that are indexed by the number of years in the league. Bonuses (signing and otherwise) would be prorated over the life of the contract, as the NFL does.

So what about linkage? Well, you would use revenue and expense history to set the inital salary cap, but the cap each year would not be hard linked to expenses- perhaps it could go up by a certain percentage each year unless revenues dropped or something like that. I’m sure this will be a sticky negotiation point, but if there is no definite linkage (hard and fast relationship between league revenues and player payroll) I think the players will deal.

So why no linkage? For one, it’s too easy to hide revenue. When teams are owned by companies that broadcast games or otherwise provide team revenue, through accounting tricks you can make the team (or parent company) almost as rich or as poor as you want. Cablevision has the exclusive local contract the Rangers, and they own the Rangers. Cablevision could pay the Rangers far under market rate for the TV rights, making the Rangers look very troubled financially. Then Cablevision is doing great because they just paid a buck and a half for the TV rights and got millions in advertising revenue that never shows up in the Rangers’ books. I’m sure there are millions of variations on this scheme. The Flyers are owned by Comcast, the biggest cable provider in the country. The Ducks are owned by Disney, who owns ABC and ESPN. Up till now, the owners have not provided all the financial information the players’ union has requested. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

Are players going to make the same salaries under the new system as they did? No, but they don’t expect to anyway- otherwise they would not have proposed a 24% pay cut right off the bat. But with some tweaking of the structure, free agent rules, and salary arbitration, they won’t be struggling to put food on the table (unlike Latrell Sprewell).

Well, I couldn’t stay away, haha. It’s been almost a year since I’ve last posted, and a lot has happened in the hockey world in that time. Some of it surprising, most of it not. My Sharks lost in the playoffs to Calgary, who ended up losing to Tampa Bay in the finals. Vincent Damphousse, Mike Ricci, and Todd Harvey are gone to other teams. There have been no NHL games this season, so I can’t say I’ve been too derelict in my duties. Ok, ok, I’ve been derelict.

Might as well take this opportunity to weight in on the lockout, it seems like everyone else has. I’m going to be in the minority and take the players’ side, at least partially. Players only spend 3-4 years in the league on average, and they are the ones putting their bodies in harm’s way. If anybody should make a disproportionate amount of money, it should be the players. That being said, it’s not the same as agreeing that the system prior to the lockout was working. There do need to be changes made in the financial structure of the league in order for hockey to survive.

For one, there needs to be heavy revenue sharing. Football has it, and it works. Football also has a gigantic TV contact where the NHL does not, but I have confidence that the NHL business minds can come up with something that will level the playing field a bit. To have one team financially able to spend 3, 4, 5 times as much money as other teams is a problem. It ends up producing exactly what we have- some teams spending so much on free agents that the othet teams have to overspend to compete at all.

But, having a hard connection between revenues and payroll is the same as saying they want a mandated profit margin. Sorry folks, that’s not how a business works in a free market. You do well, market well, sell well, put out a good product and manage expenses, you make money. You don’t do well, you have runaway expenses, you lose money. Pay Bobby Holik $100 million dollars (or whatever it was). Sorry, you lose money. Have fun dumping that contract.

More later.

The most satisfying thing about the Sharks win yesterday was their discipline and focus after they were up 4-1. Iginla tried to get Brad Stuart to fight… no thanks. Gave up a 5-3 goal with Korulyuk in the box for some phantom penalty… no breakdown, no complaint. Simon has managed to get himself a mark on his back; whenever he does anything, he gets called for it. Any while I can appreciate the argument that certain players shouldn’t be singled out, he has only himself to blame. Trying to pound Mike Rathje (total NHL fighting majors: 0) after Korulyuk’s empty-netter in game 3 was just stupid. He knows (and everyone else knows too) that Scott Thornton is more than happy to oblige- they almost went at the end of game 4, and I’d bet big money they’re dropping in game 6.

Keys for the Sharks in Game 6:

– Keep Iginla frustruated

– Jump Stuart up in the play

– Take a goalie interference penalty

– Otherwise, stay out the box

Supposedly the Tampa Bay Lightning have a new season-ticket drive: get season tickets, and get free beer at the games, every game. Sounds great to me. Inevitably, there are vehement protests. I say if you can get a decent buzz from the watered-down MGD they sell at games, more power to ya. Future promotions include rave night where everyone gets free E, and Marion Barry night in Washington where everyone gets free crack. Good thing Marion Barry jokes never get old.