So two years the league was in such bad shape that it was shutdown with the lockout, but now let's add 4 teams? The ineptitude is mind-boggling, either Bettman was dropped on his head as I child or someone should drop him on it now.
I'll disagree with you since the tie has a long history in hockey, but I'll certainly agree with eliminating the 3 point system. You can see teams all season long hanging on, floating around until the end of regulation just to get one point. No points for losing teams.
You didn't mention how you'd end a regular season game. No tie, no shootout....what does that leave you with?
Ties have a long history in the NHL, but it was changed for a reason. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't look forward to watching a 3 hour game just to see it end in a tie. Also going back to the old tie system, will cause the same issues as a 3 point game, it would allow teams to just hang on for that 1 point.
As far as how to end a regular season game goes, you play till someone wins. But with the 3 point game gone it would force teams to work harder so they don't have to play in OT.
The only other option I see would be to, first get rid of the loser point and then play a full 20 minute period before having a shootout.
Remember after the '13 playoffs, and even though we had just dropped a 3-1 series lead against the hawks, thinking "well at least next year we can improve by not having Cleary on the team"....
Does Cleary not realize that he is making everybody hate him? He could have retired after that season and been remember as a warrior and contributor for his time with the Wings.
Now the only thing main thing people are are going to remember about him is this f***in debacle two years in a row.
He'll be remembered as the guy who made the wings worse because he was too selfish to just hang them up.
He better hope like hell that this isn't the year they miss the playoffs because he will be the scapegoat for a LONG time (as well as Holland, he hasn't thought about his impending legacy as the guy who f***ed up the great Red Wings either)
I don't hate Cleary as much as I hate Holland for making me hate a player I used to really like.
This is actually very sad because instead of being hated vehemently, Cleary should be celebrated for the hard-nosed player he used to be. But with this latest move Holland has turned him into a persona non grata.
so is holland himself admitting that the cleary signing is a bad one?
He wasn't particularly loyal to Schneider who he let leave. Or Draper/ Maltby/ or Ozzy who all wanted to keep playing but were forced into retirement because Holland didn't want them back. I'm sure there have been others but I neither want to remember nor research it.
I believe in loyalty and in rewarding players for past accomplishments, but here is what I don't get. Last off-season the Wings offered Cleary a new deal (a pretty fair one to boot) but he decided he was worth more and the team moved on.
He was the one that was ready too leave, I'm going to say that again- he wanted to leave. The team didn't push him out or forced him to retire like they did with Draper and Ozzy. Loyalty should go both ways, why is the team being so loyal to a player that refused to sign a fair deal in the beginning and only took a discount late because the Wings had no cap space.
They aren't ridiculous you want two of the best players in the game, gotta pay and it's not their fault that longterm contracts are no longer allowed.
Put yourself in Toews shoes, he would have gotten maximum and left money on the table so I don't know what some are expecting. To me 1.5 million per year is a huge discount, one I wouldn't have given.
As for Keith: great defenseman yes but overall Weber and I would argue even Suter are better, because they are playing a more complete overall game.
I think there's some misunderstanding, it's a great deal for both of them. It's not a great deal for the team or the league.
The first lockout happened because the league and owners wanted spending limits after that the cap started climbing and the players were getting more money so there was another lockout. Which once again cut salaries and imposed spending limits- and now ones again the cap is spiraling out of control and so are the salaries. So my point is market value or not what exactly was the point of the lockouts? The owners essentially took money from players with existing contracts and are now giving that money out in new contracts. There should either be a hard cap, no cap, or get rid of the team cap and just cap the length and salary of each contract. But the owners want to be able to do what they want and have restrictions, it's a flawed system that's leading the league into another lockout.
The Owners/League never learn, do they? I guess they can just continue to give out ridiculous contracts, while raising the cap, and in a few years ***** and moan until another lockout occurs- pulling their ass out of the fire once again. This has occurred 3 times on Bettman's watch and it's destined to happen again if this continues. There should either be no spending limits or strict ones, the system they have now is a complete joke.