T.Low

Thank you. The line is built more like the 4rth line of '02 with Larionov, Robitaille, and Holmer, although grittier becuase of Cleary. If Modano did sacrifice his body every night, his season would last about 12 games, if that. Dude's not built that way (not even when he was younger), and thats not why he's here. He's in charge of getting that 3rd line to light the lamp, and have some defensive responsibility while he's out there. His name is Modano, not Modandelkador.

Expound on this...like who at what $ for how long? Enquiring minds want to know. I'm fine with Holland's moves, but your's may be better...what's your idea?

Hurdler's favorite move is to leap over the goalie.

My first reaction after I read the OP link was "I don't care what this dude thinks, especially if this is all he has for reasons why. I want to see a poll from NHL players, they are the one's who really know" Thank you very much, a1.

I don't know what is more ridiculous; the goal celebration or the "soccer" arguement.

Because there's something really classic about playing on a frozen pond in Florida.

The Silvertips are an hour south of me, the Vancouver Giants almsot an hour north. I'll go see him play in Everett, fo sure.

Agreed. Usually I'm traveling home to Bellingham from Detroit on New Years Day, (had to tape Det vs Chi) but not this year. I'll probably go for a mountain bike ride (3hrs) or an enduro ride (6-8hrs). I'll probably tape the game so I can watch it some time when I'm on the ellyptical trainer. I'm certainly not going to schedule my day around it. I'll be way more interested in the Pitt vs Wash match up than any of the other matchups mentoned on this thread. While I am a diehard Wings fan, I am a casual NHL fan at best. I have much better things to do than watch Pheonix vs Dallas, or Vancouver vs Colorado. And I know my dad would rather watch a bowl game between Pottersville and Iron Mountain than either of those matchups. I am an example of one big demographic the NHL wants to pull in with the WC: the casual fan that they hope is doing family time and could be enticed to watch if the match up is appealing enough. My inlaws are big sports fans but not hockey fans except for the fact that my wife was playing on one of my beer league teams with me; they are fans of that. They don't know hockey, don't know Nick Lidstrom, Stevie Y, Drew Doughty, or Zdeno Chara, and wouldn't pick up a remote control during a football game commercial to check on a game that any of those guys are in. But they know Sidney Crosby, even though he plays for a team 3,000 miles from them. They know he never wanted to be in that picture again, and wasn't. They know he is the youngest captain to win the Stanley Cup. They know he scored the Gold Medal winning goal agianst the US. And they actually know that he is getting the better of Alex Ovechkin in their rivalry for control over the NHL. They know that they are watching somebody special when they are watching Crosby vs Ovie (not saying any of this is accurate, just saying what they know[/i beacause ESPN says so). Most important, they want to feel like they know that they are watching something special. Thats the key to television. They like to read about stars and watch stars. They want heroes and villians. They like to read about what a good humanitarian Angelina Jolie is, what a bad guy Mel Gibson is, they like to watch Dancing with the Stars. They like to argue about Kobie and LeBron. The don't even know that Minnesota's team is named the Wild. They are another big demographic the NHL is targeting with this game. They'll check it out for sure. Heck, they'll watch Crosby and Ovechkin and then I'll have to fein more interest than I actually have when they are excited to tell me all about it. It's not about the sellout crowd of 70,000; it's about the tv ratings and you need a draw for that. s***, I can't even think of one Minnesota player off the top of my head, I'm not watching them, my car needs washing.

Good stuff, HockeyMom. Great way to spend the summer, that's for sure. My problem is, eventually, the oil light goes on... http://s232.photobucket.com/albums/ee258/wannahuckmastinky/Gas%20Gas/?action=view&current=MVI_2071.mp4

You mean the star of "Advanced Puck Ragging: How to Outhustle Your Opponents and Kill Penalties"? I hope we sign him to a 17yr deal.

Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try. I don't want to argue semantics, : It's not semantics. Business entity and industry are two very different things, especially in this circumstance. which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. Players are assets. They are the capital goods of the sports franchise. The stars are infact the rarest of entities, they are competitive monopolies: FOr example there are many forwards in the league, but there is only one Pavel Datsyuk and people will pay to see Pavel Datsyuk. He puts people in the stands. That equates to revenue. How can you say that the salary cap does not interfere with revenue. How can you say that the league telling the business owners how much they can spend on their capital goods, how much of their revenue than can reinvest into their business, does not interfere with a owner's right to reap the fruits of his labor. And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective, No, you can't say that the salary cap has an adverse effect on the product, but no impact on earning power. There is direct relationship between product and earning power. The saying is "build a better mouse trap", not build a subpar mouse trap. that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL. Yeah, thats the company line when it comes to franchises alright. Actually, that is pure rhetoric and sales pitch, with absolutely no data to back it up what so ever WHEN IT COMES TO A 30 TEAM NHL. And furthermore, conventional wisdom says the leauge is too big and would be better off if it downsized. You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition. I've adressed exactly zero rules pertaining to the actual game play. I've not said or implied anything that would logically lead anyone to a conclusion that i think all rules are socialist. A game without rules is not a gmae at all. I've simply adressed the fact that it's a socialist principle for a central bureaucratic agency (Gary Bettman and the NHL) to undermine the rights of individuals (Mike Illitch) to allocate their own wealth and place this power into the hands of bureaucrats. The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league. I too enjoy competition, and the parity in the league makes for some exciting hockey. That doesn't change the fact that it's a socialist system and Illitch is getting f***ed. It pisses me off that Illitch has to carry the mail for Carolina, Atlanta, and Pheonix, as well as his own Detroit Red Wings.

Nice to see you agree with the first part, but the Republicans have been very bit as Keynesian and darn near as socialist as the Democrats for a while now.

Now your saying two different things. You want to consider the NHL a business entity, whose primary focus is to make money, but consider the franchises to be game entities whose primary focus building the most competetive team. You can't have it both ways. No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading? If we consider just the sporting apect, then an arbitrary limitation on the resources that can be devoted to player salaries is no different than any of the other arbitrary rules governing competition. Now you are duplicitous. By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries. If you consider just the business aspect, then you could to an extent consider it socialist. But if the primary motivation for the operation of a franchise is to make money as a business, there is strong evidence suggesting that the salary cap in those best interests. No hockey team could make any money without opponents to play against nor a championship to play for, so membership in a league is vital to the success of any franchise. Furthermore, whatever is in the best interests of the league to which the franchise belongs is also in the best interests of the franchise. Evidence suggests that parity is a benefit to the league, and that the salary cap promotes parity. Ergo, the salary cap appears to be beneficial to the franchises in the NHL, from a business perspective. Current revenue trends support that conclusion. While 'being in your best interests' does not mean that it isn't socialist, you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. It's similar in many ways to any other franchise-based business. There's a million different burger joints out there, but if you want to own a McDonald's (and all the associated benefits that come with the franchise) you have to abide by their rules. There's a lot of hockey leagues out there, but if you want to be in the NHL, you have to abide by their rules. In regards to the legality of the contract, it is true that the contract as written is most likely within the rules as stated. But we are only assuming there is no unwritten agreement and only assuming that both parties entered the deal in good faith that all the terms would be fulfilled as written. If either of those assumptions is false, then one or both of the parties is guilty of violating the terms of the CBA. Furthermore, the section of the CBA I quoted earlier seems a clear attempt to preserve the integrity of the CBA against exactly these types of violations of the 'spirit'. We are basically a judgement call from an abritrator away from NJ and/or Kovy being guilty of circumvention even without proof of any violations, as the CBA at least had the forsight to try and protect itself from these types of loopholes.

Why? And why does there have to be a line drawn?

Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations. Hockey is a game. The NHL is infact a $3billion industry. also that increased parity in the league, I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams. The only reason the Wings would have an advantage is because of the hard work the Illitch family has put in over the last 20 plus years of owning the business. They built it, they should reap the fruits of their labor. you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not. It's common knowledge that the contract follows the letter of the law; that is the entire premise behind the term "loophole".It's perfectly legal according to the letter of the law even if is not in agreement with the spirit of the law. Thats why so much time is spent on the language of a contract and/or a government bill. Further more, the draft is socialist too. It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first. The only fair way to determin a draft order is to have a totally random lottery. But i know thats to heavy for most of you sheeple to even fathom.

Take the current situation of Mike Modano as a real world example of what "could have been" that you are saying should not be allowed to happen. A GM would have looked like a genius to have signed Modano to a 17 yr deal at age 25 that is front loaded for when he's in his prime and he's worth a lot of money, and pays him $1.2 for the last 3 years of his contract for when he's worth a lot less until he's 42. There is a bell curve to a players worth; why shouldn't his contract reflect that. Yzerman, Lidstrom, Federov, Larionov, Drake, Shanahan, and Hasek are all other possible examples. Knowing what we know now, they all could have been signed to 17 yr deals, front loaded with paying a little less per year toward the end or whatever. Some would have worked out better than others, but the point is that it is a very viable contract, why make it illegal? As for your Crosby scenario, yeah it seems stupid to you and I, but thats no reason to make it illegal. If Mario wants to do that, it's his frikin team, let him do that. It blows me away that you guys all think that if you don't like something, or think it's not right, or not sensible, it should be illegal.

Exactly. So let the free market work itself out. Let the GMs decide for themselves.

There is nothing enforcably wrong with what Lamo did. Like J.T. says, he totally followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law. And until the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same, a GM would be irresponsible to not do the same because the bold GMs will and the conservative GMs will be left behind. http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html

I agree a hundred percent. But so what if it's unreasonble. That's the owner's problem...let him try it. Why not? After all, he is following the letter of the law. And again I agree; "Where is the line drawn?". I thought 7 years was risky for Zetterberg on a lot of different levels. But I don't want rules in place saying Holland can't do that if he wants to. So if 7 is infact reasonable, how about 8 yrs? Yes? Well then 9 years?

Exactly.

Yet, you cry for more regulation, not less. You want to close even more aspects of the market, not open them. Who are you to tell NJ how to spend their money? What's it to you if they sign him until he's 34, 44, or 54? (In retrospect, Illitch could have saved quite a bit of money with a long term Chelios deal and put that money somewhere else!) If that's a risk NJ is willing to take, then who are you to ask for more impedance on their sovereignty as a business entity? NJ has had a great franchise for many years, and cannot reap the fruits of their own labor, the rewards they deserve for their hard work. Instead, they have to give their hard earned money to ill concieved, unorganized franchises in rediculous southern markets, and are only allowed to spend what a governning body has centrally planned they can spend. Yet, this doesn't satisfy you. You want to impose more rules on business owners and how they can go about acguiring their assests. Central planning and overegulation. I repeat; Spoken like a true Socialist.

Spoken like a true socialist.

I'm reading that with a funky little bass line to it (ala MJ's "This Is It")

I don't neccessariy think it's hot air...it's just that a done deal aint a done deal until the deal is done, and this deal aint done.

Ha! Was one of my favorite places to ride in the Lower Penn. Oh, and incase you can't tell by my avatar, since my bike is black with red and white, I usually wear a Wings practice jersey when trail riding my GasGas (which is a lot!).