Buppy

Washington only has 7 more points than San Jose currently. And the rest of the top seeds have fewer points. In fact, with the exception of the 1 and 15 spots, every Western team has more points than its Eastern counterpart. The West as a whole has 71 more points than the East. And that's even with 13 fewer OTLs. The West has dominated the East this year.

Matters in a general sense, sure, and all other things being equal of course you'd want 'matching' shots. In our particular case though, I would suggest that Lidstrom playing on his 'off' hand >>>>>>>>> Williams. I think a Lidstrom-Kronwall pair could be very close if not equal to Nick and Rafi, and Ericsson-Rafi quite likely better than Kronwall-Willy. Ericsson has accuracy issues, but that shot is wicked. I won't hold my breath, but that's what I'd like to see. And though it's hard to judge due to all the other injuries, I don't think we really missed Willy's point presense while he was out.

Voted for Pav out of Wing loyalty, but I liked Thomas's the best. Semin's was very nice too. Luongo got lucky and Nash's was just dumb. Hossa's was cool, but not great. Especially since Henrik is the one that really made the play.

They can still clinch if Calgary loses in regulation.

At the time he was in the midst of a second straight 20 goal season, and he's a very versatile player. I don't think it's really a bad deal. He's been fighting injuries all year, and certainly effected by all the other injuries, just like the rest of the team. That said, I wouldn't hate it if we could move him to bring in a legit top 6 winger. I'd rather move him than Flip, but either way we don't need 2 (or 3 if Hudler comes back) tweeners making near $3 mil a year.

Cleary's deal came before the Cup.

1. Lidstrom 2. Yzerman 3. Fedorov 4. Shannahan 5. Osgood 6. Datsyuk 7. Zetterberg 8. Chelios 9. Draper 10. Holmstrom

That is, in essence, what 'cap relief' means. It's a term to differentiate it from 'cap space'. And Cap Geek does factor LTIR, Bonuses, and pretty much everything else. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's damn close. HockeyBuzz does not factor anything really. They don't even pro-rate for trades. (Or at least, not pro-rating for Poni and Leopold in Pitt.)

How you got all that from the quoted post is beyond me. You need to relax.

Capgeek (http://capgeek.com/tracker/index.php) is a much better cap resource. Bonuses are a little confusing. They count in full when determining cap hit. Example, Jonathon Toews contract for 3 yrs paid salaries of $850k all three years, and bonuses of @1.75m, 1.95m, and 2.15m. Cap hit is $2.8 million. But the bonus cushion can allow teams to go over the cap by the amount of potential bonuses. In Toews' case, $2.15m this year. (Also, Kane has $2.85m in potential bonuses this year.) This is so teams aren't penalized in cases where they don't end up paying the full bonus. And as said, if, at the end of the year, bonuses paid put a team over the cap, that overage is counted against that team's cap next season. Chicago is projected to be about 4.7 million over cap, but that's only if Toews and Kane earn all of their bonuses. I don't think it's even possible, so it will be less than that. I'm not sure how LTIR works with bonuses. Capgeek isn't showing Campbell on LTIR, but I think they can do that retroactively to save them a little extra.

I don't really like the 3rd (4th?) line, or Williams at all really. Not that he's been terrible or anything, just not noticable. I'd like to see Ericsson given a chance on the 2nd PP. I doubt he could be any less effective than Willy has been. And as much as everyone hates the idea, I think it's time to split the Helm line. Try Helm between Cleary and Willy, and let Draper center Miller and Eaves. Abdelkader certainly wasn't any better than Draper while he was here, no idea why you think he would better now. Unless someone gets hurt, he can wait until next year.

Yes, the three division winners get the top 3 seeds. No problem with it really, even though the third seed usually seems to end up with fewer points than the 4th. (Back in 99 or 2000, the Wings were the 4th seed, despite having the 2nd best record in the entire league, lol) I don't think it makes much difference though, so I don't see any problem with rewarding teams for winning their division.

First of all, I don't really buy the premise that travel during the regular season is that much of a hassle. Playoffs maybe, but re-alignment doesn't solve that anyway. Only moving more teams out West would really help. Secondly, your proposal makes travel worse for just about everyone. Most of all the SW teams. Basically trading games against the closest teams for games against the furthest. Alignment isn't the problem. The problem (if it really is a problem) is that the East is so much more densely packed. Not much to be done about that, considering that the majority of good hockey markets are in the NE. If they were to re-align. A North/South split would make the most sense. Divisions would still be regional, but the travel burden would be more evenly distributed East to West.

Hank TV

Flukey rebound, but great awareness and reaction to turn it into a goal. Good patience on the empty net as well. The goal against Pittsburgh was much better though. Might be the first time I've seen him really pull a move to specifically create a shot for himself. Earlier this year even, he'd have turned into the boards and looked for someone to pass to. That said, of course Flip won't ever be at Pav's level. I still think he'd be a better center, but this is now two short stints playing wing where he's looked fantastic. Maybe he needs to be out of his comfort zone in order to play with instinct and stop over-thinking. Still not convinced he's really what we need for a top 6 winger though.

While I agree to a point, and I am not really a rabid Bettman critic myself, you should realize that this type of criticism, like that aimed at a President, is typically directed at the administration as a whole, through its most visible agent. However, I think you are greatly understating his responsibilities. While of course he doesn't make decisions all on his own, and some things are surely beyond his control, I'd say he's more than the figurehead you paint him as. In most organization, the governing board will provide generalized direction, and the CEO/COO determines how best to meet the established goals. Something like 'increase market share', 'lower operating overhead', 'improve brand image'. The NHL board, being comprised of individuals who may often be competing with each other, may take a more specific interest at times, but ultimately I'd bet it's still a matter of the board deciding the 'what' and Bettman determining the 'how'. Also, I'd imagine the relationship isn't nearly as one-sided as you suggest. Bettman likely has a great deal of input into the decisions made by the board, advisory at the very least. Furthermore, you give license for Bettman to pass the buck on to his superiors, but deny the same to his subordinates like Campbell. Bettman, Campbell, the BoG, and anyone else with authority has to share culpability for the horrendous performance of the disciplinary committee. As I said, I'm not visciously anti-Bettman, but I don't think he's great either. My biggest problems with the Bettman regime (is that phrasing better?): Two work stoppages, and rumors/fears that we could see another when the current CBA expires. We need better negotiators at the very least. The commissioner's office is the only involved party without a personal interest in the negotiations. The best interests of the NHL should always be the priority. The lion's share of the burden then falls on Bettman and his crew to ensure that both the owners and the NHLPA keep their priorities where they belong. Could either work stoppage have been avoided? More to the point, could Bettman have done more to prevent them? Of course, we can't say for sure, but I believe so. Officiating. Bettman's office has for years tacitly condoned the terrible officiating by his refusal to demand improvement. I don't think I've ever seen anything more than 'well, they have a very difficult job' from him. Usually, it's 'we think they do a fantastic job'. He either doesn't know how bad it is, or he doesn't care. Either way it won't lead to any improvement. Marketing/TV/League management. I could care less about Visa commercials. I really don't care about Crosby and Ovechkin showing up in just about every NHL commercial either. (The Pens OT goal being the featured 'playoff moment' rather than the customary Cup winner was irksome, but still not that terrible, IMO). What I hate is that a TV network has the authority to determine scheduling, to the detriment of the integrity of the Championship series. And that Bettman had no problem with it. I hate that it seems nothing is being done to address failing franchises like Columbus, Atlanta, the Islanders, Nashville, etc. It's almost as though the 'plan' is eventual bankruptcy, with the side hope that those teams will be awful enough long enough to grab a bunch of marketable stars. Bettman, when asked, barely ackowledges that 1/3 (or more) of the league is struggling financially. Instead he talks about record ratings and revenues as if that really means anything. None of those things, of course, are the sole purview of Bettman. But it is a sign to me that the league is being mismanaged. Change is needed, and change should start at the top.

About the only thing that worries me now, ironically enough, is that we have 5 games against the bottom 3 teams in the West (and 4 of them at home). Far too many 'trap' games for my liking. Then we have the Preds and Flyers (both fighting for playoff spots themselves) on the road, and both the 2nd night of back to back for us. Looks easy on paper, but I hate our schedule. Probably because if we miss now, it would have to go down as an epic collapse. That said, I think we'll beat Nashville twice, leapfrog them and either the Avs or Kings, and end up in the 6 spot against Vancouver.

We're 3-1 against Vancouver this year. 3-0-1 against San Jose 2-0-2 against Phoenix 2-2-1 against Chicago Also worthy of note: 16-8-5 vs Western playoff teams 11-10-5 vs Western non-playoff teams 6-2-2 vs Eastern playoff teams 3-3-1 vs Eastern non-playoff teams Only Western team we haven't beaten this season? Edmonton

Not a typo, you were mistaken. See my addition to my last post.

In 2001, Colorado won the PT with 118 pts. NJ was the top seed in the East with 111. You used their records from 2000. That year, NJ (103 pts, 4th seed) had home ice over Dallas (102 pts, 2 seed)

Recalculated points using a few different methods. Pts = Current system 3 Pt (OT) = 3 points for a regulation or OT win, 2 for SO win, 1 for SO loss, 0 for loss in regulation or OT 3 Pt (SO) = 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for OT or SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss 2 Pt = Just straight win/loss record. Win is a win, a loss is a loss. Tie = No shootouts. 2 points for a win (regulation or OT), 0 for loss, 1 point for a tie. Games that went to shootouts considered ties. I also show what the seedings would be under the different scoring systems. (Wasn't all that careful with tiebreakers, so maybe not perfect...) Worth noting: Wings would not be in the playoffs under any of the alternate systems. Boston would drop out in 3 of 4 alternates New Jersey would lead the Atlantic in all East doesn't change at all besides those two Seeding in the West changes quite a bit

* Patrick Marleau ($6.000m) / Pavel Datsyuk ($6.700m) / Henrik Zetterberg ($6.083m) Johan Franzen ($3.955m) / Valtteri Filppula ($3.000m) / * Ilya Kovalchuk ($6.700m) * Patrick Eaves ($0.750m) / * Darren Helm ($1.000m) / * Dave Clarkson ($1.500m) Kris Draper ($1.583m) / * Justin Abdelkader ($0.850m) / * Drew Miller ($0.650m) * Mattias Ritola ($0.500m) DEFENSEMEN * Nicklas Lidstrom ($4.500m) / * Anton Volchenkov ($3.000m) Niklas Kronwall ($3.000m) / * Anton Babchuk ($1.500m) * Zbynek Michalek ($1.500m) / Jonathan Ericsson ($0.900m) Jakub Kindl ($0.883m) GOALTENDERS Jimmy Howard ($0.717m) / Chris Osgood ($1.417m) CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS ROSTER: 22; PAYROLL: $56.688m; CAP ROOM: $0.112m BONUSES: $0.000m Seriously though, I'd like to see us make a play for either Kovie or Marleau. If we couldn't work something out (and probably couldn't), Hudler coming back would be my next choice.

It wouldn't surprise me either. Which is exactly why I say that the comparitively minor penalty for instigating is not a factor in situations like this. If someone at the time felt it was appropriate to go after Cooke, they would have, just like Bert going after Moore despite the instigator rule. No one was thinking "gee, Cooke really deserves a beating, but I just can't take a penalty...". If that was true, there'd be no chance of someone going after Cooke in the future. At best, you might suggest that the lack of a suspension would increase the likelihood of Cooke being targetted, but that is an argument for improving league discipline. Nothing to do with the instigator. And I'll say one last time that removing the instigator will not force people to stand up and take whatever punishment they deserve. Bertuzzi was clearly ignoring the instigator rule, in that instance the rule might as well not have existed. Moore still just ignored him. Ergo, removing the instigator would not help anything. All it would do is open the door for tough guys to target anyone they want in any of the many post-whistle scrums in every game. I'm sure I won't change your opinion, so I'll just say one final thing. At least you're admitting your blood thirst, it's a step in the right direction.

And I suggest that removing the instigator would create additional problems that would nullify any potential benefit. There's a reason civilized nations outlaw vigilante justice; It doesn't work. Your point on the penalties illustrates to some degree my point. Though instead of dirty plays, think hooks, trips, and holds and such. A player gets beat, they will often hook or hold to prevent a scoring opportunity. The penalty is thought to be less severe than allowing the scoring chance. They may even not get called. The benefit outweighs the risk. You're saying basically that the benefit of starting a fight after a dirty hit does not outweigh the risk of an instigator penalty. You're saying you would rather allow a potentially preventable injury to a teammate than spend 12 extra minutes in the penalty box. Conclusion: The benefit of starting a fight can not be very high. As for ignoring someone...it's not that hard. First, there's no guarantee any enforcer will be on the ice, nor in the immediate viscinity. Even if they do catch you, it's not that hard to turtle up and protect yourself from injury. In that case, it is the aggressor rule, not the instigator, that protects the one getting beat. And there is no chance in hell the aggressor rule will ever be removed. The league will never, ever allow unmitigated beatings of defenseless players, 'deserved' or not. The legal repercussions would be far too severe. You're making a lot of assumptions. Admittedly, I don't remember alot of specifics from the 80s, but there were certainly cheap shots back then. The game wasn't as fast, nor the players as big. I think that is more to o blame for the lack of respect. Players just aren't as aware as they should be of what kind of damage they can do. Even now, cheap shots like this Cooke hit aren't exactly common. Tough, consistent discipline from league authority would be enough to raise awareness, without any potential drawbacks. As for future retaliation against Cooke, this is where I see these arguments lose all logic. You're actually suggesting that the fairly minor punishment for instigating prevented the Bruins from responding, but you wouldn't be surprised to see them do so in the future, in a game likely under heavy scrutiny, after likely being warned, wherein the penalties will likely be far more severe. .... I swear, it's like all you instigator opponents were raised by hippies. Like you have this idea that violence is wrong, so you need to justify your desire to see more of it by trying to argue that it's a necessary evil. As though players are in mortal peril every time they step on the ice, and they must be allowed to fight for their lives. Football is every bit as physical and violent as hockey, with just as much opportunity for cheap shots and dirty play, yet it has thrived for more than 100 years without fighting. I would say, if anything, players in the NFL have a greater degree of respect for both the rules and their fellow players than players in the NHL display, despite the lesser ability to 'police' themselves. Fighting is obviously not necessary. But it's OK to like it, and want to see more of it. It's not barbaric. Two willing participants competing. Nothing wrong with it. Stop acting like we need it and just embrace it as an entertaining aspect of the game.

I would say that the other changes you suggest, beyond the insitgator, would be enough. (Well, I'd also mandate proper chin straps on helmets, and probably look for improvements to visors. Hard pads need some analysis. The pads themselves aren't a problem, but they probably contribute indirectly to more reckless play.) Now on to the instigator rule. Serious question for you. Do you really believe that the chance (not even a guarantee) of getting a minor penalty is keeping enforcers from preventing cheap shots? First of all, the instigator rule does not prevent violent retaliation; it only assesses a penalty for it. Now think about it logically. You have a 'cheap-shotter', under current rules, if he delivers a cheap shot (like the Cooke hit), he faces the possible consequences of: Penalty in game (minor, major, misconduct, ejection...up to the discretion of the refs), League Discipline (suspension, fines), Retaliation from the opposing team. So cheap-shotter must either ignore or at least not be thinking about any of those consequences before taking a cheap shot. You have an enforcer, under current rules, he may (probably even) get a minor penalty for retaliating and a misconduct. Frequent offenders (or in certain circumstances) may face more serious discipline. To NOT retaliate, he must consider the value of his 'enforcement' to be less than what would be lost by taking the penalty. This alone suggests that the 'deterrence factor' of enforcers can not be very high (at least in the minds of the enforcers themselves). Furthermore, removing the instigator rule would NOT allow an enforcer to force someone into a fight. All Cheap-shotter has to do is ignore the enforcer. How many enforcers are going to chase someone down from behind and risk a Bertuzzi-Moore incident. (Oddly enough, people often cite that case when arguing against the instigator rule. As if removing the instigator would make it impossible to turn your back and skate away from someone.) The league would never allow someone to just pummel another player who wasn't defending themselves. There would be legal ramifications. So at best it allows maybe one or two shots that maybe (not even guarantee) doesn't result in a penalty on the 'instigator'. Consequently, it would also allow the same for bullies to do the same to star players / non-fighters (even if such a thing would be rare [as an aside, I'd suggest you look into the old Flyers borad street bullies]) Also note that the NHL has had at least some version of the instigator rule since the Original 6 days. And really, most of the criticism of the instigator rule would more properly be directed at the Agressor rule, which is the one that penalizes players for fighting unwilling or defenseless opponents. So you trade increased risk (even if only slightly) to star players for an increase in the likelihood of one potential consequence (the value of which has already been determined to be less than a minor penalty) for the cheap-shotter. You seem to have this romanticized, WWE-esque notion of enforcers as some kind of super hero, before whom the forces of evil cower in fear. Or rather, they would be, if not hamstrung by the instigator rule. As though they have the ability to protect others from harm, but are too honorable to break the rules in order to do so. As if having a just cause would instill them with some righteous power to conquer their enemies. Like said enemies would, if the instigator were removed, be unbreakably bound by some code to accept their due punishment. The truth is, players can't police themselves. Like I said before, all that does is allow the toughest guy around to make the rules, even if that guy happens to be one of the 'bad-guys'. Discipline has to come from authority. Authority can not come from violence. It's too inconsistent.