Jeez... so many "is Crosby done" whiners. We've had 8 goals this season so far, with 3 being unassisted.

So... in 5 goals with assists, Crosby has 0 points. And he is not one of the 3 with an unassisted.


Am I crazy, or are the lot of you (frank)ing insane to be having this debate so quickly?

Five game pointless streak... tied for the longest in his career. Do you know how many NHL players would KILL to have 5 games without a point being the longest in their careers? Relax people.

Jeez... so many "is Crosby done" whiners. We've had 8 goals this season so far, with 3 being unassisted.

So... in 5 goals with assists, Crosby has 0 points. And he is not one of the 3 with an unassisted.


Am I crazy, or are the lot of you (frank)ing insane to be having this debate so quickly?

Five game pointless streak... tied for the longest in his career. Do you know how many NHL players would KILL to have 5 games without a point being the longest in their careers? Relax people.
- Guile

Just a lot of very, very impatient people. Crosby looks either disinterested, or burnt out, or something right now, but it can't last. He'll bounce back. Wether it be with Kessel, or with a line shuffle and Hornqvist, he'll bounce back.

I'm sure NHL refs could make the changes required. The league just doesn't want them to. That's the issue. As for the reasons why; I'm guessing a combination of maintaining league parity, the old school hockey stupidity mindset, and concussion concerns are the reason the league allows it.
- jfkst1

Its for the money!

Think of it as growing the game by promoting parity w/ the on-ice product and influencing the style of play and officiating. Skill can be marginalized by effort and ‘garbage hockey’ and subsequently, winning probabilities altered. Parity is also promoted by the ‘loser point’. Three point games simply distribute point totals across more teams. Why? To make the game ‘appear’ more competitive than it would be through skill alone. Somewhere, someone in the NHL FO probably has a revenue model that proves this point. Parity leads to less predictable outcomes (e.g. expected win percentage closer to 50/50) and has been shown to increase game attendance and league revenues.

Since 1993, NHL revenues have grown 10X under Bettman…

http://www.wsj.com/articl...ns-hockey-goal-1422047716

Its for the money!

Think of it as growing the game by promoting parity w/ the on-ice product and influencing the style of play and officiating. Skill can be marginalized by effort and ‘garbage hockey’ and subsequently, winning probabilities altered. Parity is also promoted by the ‘loser point’. Three point games simply distribute point totals across more teams. Why? To make the game ‘appear’ more competitive than it would be through skill alone. Somewhere, someone in the NHL FO probably has a revenue model that proves this point. Parity leads to less predictable outcomes (e.g. expected win percentage closer to 50/50) and has been shown to increase game attendance and league revenues.

Since 1993, NHL revenues have grown 10X under Bettman…

http://www.wsj.com/articl...ns-hockey-goal-1422047716
- out_of_market

Spot on.

Nicklas Backstrom (full)
Jason Chimera (limited; details unknown)
Matt Niskanen (limited; details unknown)
Alex Ovechkin (limited; can list up to 10 teams he will not accept a trade to)

From http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html
- PensFan1103

a NTC is not a NMC.

Too long on some of these posts...


Let's get back to f farnham amd f scuds posts plz

Respect your opinion, but for a guy that's bored of his livelihood he sure did spend a lot of his 'off' time on the ice. If he was bored he wouldn't be training most days of the offseason which is something I believe is the problem with his start. He needs to get away from hockey for a period to reboot & start again.

Also those saying that he needs a lesser line mate, he didn't do to badly in the world champs with high end line mates??
- Aussiepenguin

You may have inadvertently supported my point about being bored.

Too much of something can make it too routine...take the fun out of it.

You may have inadvertently supported my point about being bored.

Too much of something can make it too routine...take the fun out of it.
- icedog97

If he is bored then he wouldn't necessarily train all summer on the ice. It maybe just od'ing on hockey. I agree 100% with your 2nd sentence.

I would think the NHL creating some 46 or so more jobs will supersede any NMC/NTCs. Not sure how it worked with the last expansions and NMCs/NTCs though.
- Blackstrom2

How can you 'supersede' a legally binding contract? Weren't all 'old' contracts honoured when the new CBA was established? What's stopping a player going great I'm worth twice as much now than when I signed I'll go play for another team to get paid more if someone just says well (frank) it let's clear all the clauses in contracts because it suits us?

Now I have no idea about what the NHL can & will do but a contract is a contract unless in the current contract a player signs there is a clause that states any new CBA or expansion process will negate any existing clauses of any type.

How can you 'supersede' a legally binding contract? Weren't all 'old' contracts honoured when the new CBA was established? What's stopping a player going great I'm worth twice as much now than when I signed I'll go play for another team to get paid more if someone just says well (frank) it let's clear all the clauses in contracts because it suits us?

Now I have no idea about what the NHL can & will do but a contract is a contract unless in the current contract a player signs there is a clause that states any new CBA or expansion process will negate any existing clauses of any type.
- Aussiepenguin

When it comes to expansion drafts I'm not sure it can be that cut and dry because there's already a grey area where the league is stepping in and essentially forcing contract terminations between an employer and their employee. Just because the employee is guaranteed the exact same contract else where doesn't change the fact that moving teams within the length of time that the contract is in effect for isn't what either party agreed to when the contract was signed. You are most likely right, though.

How can you 'supersede' a legally binding contract? Weren't all 'old' contracts honoured when the new CBA was established? What's stopping a player going great I'm worth twice as much now than when I signed I'll go play for another team to get paid more if someone just says well (frank) it let's clear all the clauses in contracts because it suits us?

Now I have no idea about what the NHL can & will do but a contract is a contract unless in the current contract a player signs there is a clause that states any new CBA or expansion process will negate any existing clauses of any type.
- Aussiepenguin

What does anything you have to say apply to contracts with NMCs and how they are effected by a potential expansion draft? The wording in the CBA does not mention expansion draft and says a no-movement clause "may" prevent a player from relocating, but again, does not mention expansion drafts specifically.

As for me stating all this because it "suits" my team, that is a false statement. The Capitals have no NMCs.

edt; and for what it's worth, outside the sports world, legally binding contracts can be amended without the consent of both parties in certain situations.

Its for the money!

Think of it as growing the game by promoting parity w/ the on-ice product and influencing the style of play and officiating. Skill can be marginalized by effort and ‘garbage hockey’ and subsequently, winning probabilities altered. Parity is also promoted by the ‘loser point’. Three point games simply distribute point totals across more teams. Why? To make the game ‘appear’ more competitive than it would be through skill alone. Somewhere, someone in the NHL FO probably has a revenue model that proves this point. Parity leads to less predictable outcomes (e.g. expected win percentage closer to 50/50) and has been shown to increase game attendance and league revenues.

Since 1993, NHL revenues have grown 10X under Bettman…

http://www.wsj.com/articl...ns-hockey-goal-1422047716
- out_of_market

Short term or long term do you think?

It's obviously going to be a billionaire (or group), that starts the franchise & hands over the $. Then what?

I read on here that the Blues lost 60m last year or something like that. The Yotes, Florida & others that lose money, (just guessing about those teams losing $ but I'm sure someone has the figures ), are throwing it away like its rubbish. Now that's a structural weakness for the NHL model to support. How much can the NHL afford to lose before the growth becomes cancerous? Yes if the Blues turn up in Pittsburgh CEC will be full & money made, same in Montreal & Toronto etc etc, so a team losing money makes money. How long can the losses be sustained - the Blues are a good side. If 2 teams that aren't good & are losing money play is there any profit?

So move onto expansion. How many additional teams can the competition support? Are more games played or the number the same just the rotation different? If it's the same number of games then how can more money be made? If it's more how will that go down with the players already having a long season? Where are the players coming from & how will that affect those competitions? Will they then lose money that the NHL have to support/compensate? Will the new teams have the financial support from fans purchasing the teamware etc?

I have no studies or information about any of what I just wrote & I could very well be full of poop. But expansion doesn't always mean more money in a business. Expansion can be used to 'grow' the game, 'sell' if to people who may never have seen it before. Here in Australia those that know what the NHL actually is are few, those that know what ice hockey is, know mostly it's a brutal game that's basically boxing on skates. If Vegas gets a team I'm presuming it will have a touristic flavour to go with the image of the city? Will that team have to entertain to draw a crowd? If so boxing may be back on the agenda. How many tourists would appreciate the skill of the elite player? Would they prefer skill or fights on skates for entertainment? Quebec wants a team? How big is their support base? Do they already support teams in the NHL? If so why waste their existing support & give them their own when they already participate in the NHL economy?

To the last point of your comment. The 'loser' point does keep the weaker teams in the hunt, but like Corsi that will eventually even out & have the strong teams winning enough to eliminate the not so good (goal scorers over shooters). The fact that basically any team that makes the playoffs can win Stanley makes the spectacle greater. The loser points should be called the embarrassment points because they are there to avoid teams having very low total points & hence being embarrassed.

Close competition usually is a sign of strong competition. The draft is supposed to even up the difference in talent & disperse the success. The NHL is failing in that respect due to some organisations ineptitude. The NHL in my opinion should have some type of input into organisations that cannot keep themselves clothed, fed & washed. It's the NHL's game, they should be allowed to intervene & fix where they need to so their 'business model' stays on track & is successful.

(frank) I've written a novel - sorry! Read it or not it doesn't matter I don't give a poop!

When it comes to expansion drafts I'm not sure it can be that cut and dry because there's already a grey area where the league is stepping in and essentially forcing contract terminations between an employer and their employee. Just because the employee is guaranteed the exact same contract else where doesn't change the fact that moving teams within the length of time that the contract is in effect for isn't what either party agreed to when the contract was signed. You are most likely right, though.
- Victoro311

Eh, I look at it as more like trading the contract than terminating and re-signing a new one with a new team.

What does anything you have to say apply to contracts with NMCs and how they are effected by a potential expansion draft? The wording in the CBA does not mention expansion draft and says a no-movement clause "may" prevent a player from relocating, but again, does not mention expansion drafts specifically.

As for me stating all this because it "suits" my team, that is a false statement. The Capitals have no NMCs.

edt; and for what it's worth, outside the sports world, legally binding contracts can be amended without the consent of both parties in certain situations.
- Blackstrom2

Aren't you saying you want a player that has a NMC be submitted as a player that can be chosen in the event of an expansion draft? That's my understanding - if it's not I've misunderstood your comment.

Legally binding contracts are usually that unless both parties see a reason to agree & change it. Unless there are conditions in a contract, a contract is just that.

Short term or long term do you think?

It's obviously going to be a billionaire (or group), that starts the franchise & hands over the $. Then what?

I read on here that the Blues lost 60m last year or something like that. The Yotes, Florida & others that lose money, (just guessing about those teams losing $ but I'm sure someone has the figures ), are throwing it away like its rubbish. Now that's a structural weakness for the NHL model to support. How much can the NHL afford to lose before the growth becomes cancerous? Yes if the Blues turn up in Pittsburgh CEC will be full & money made, same in Montreal & Toronto etc etc, so a team losing money makes money. How long can the losses be sustained - the Blues are a good side. If 2 teams that aren't good & are losing money play is there any profit?

So move onto expansion. How many additional teams can the competition support? Are more games played or the number the same just the rotation different? If it's the same number of games then how can more money be made? If it's more how will that go down with the players already having a long season? Where are the players coming from & how will that affect those competitions? Will they then lose money that the NHL have to support/compensate? Will the new teams have the financial support from fans purchasing the teamware etc?

I have no studies or information about any of what I just wrote & I could very well be full of poop. But expansion doesn't always mean more money in a business. Expansion can be used to 'grow' the game, 'sell' if to people who may never have seen it before. Here in Australia those that know what the NHL actually is are few, those that know what ice hockey is, know mostly it's a brutal game that's basically boxing on skates. If Vegas gets a team I'm presuming it will have a touristic flavour to go with the image of the city? Will that team have to entertain to draw a crowd? If so boxing may be back on the agenda. How many tourists would appreciate the skill of the elite player? Would they prefer skill or fights on skates for entertainment? Quebec wants a team? How big is their support base? Do they already support teams in the NHL? If so why waste their existing support & give them their own when they already participate in the NHL economy?

To the last point of your comment. The 'loser' point does keep the weaker teams in the hunt, but like Corsi that will eventually even out & have the strong teams winning enough to eliminate the not so good (goal scorers over shooters). The fact that basically any team that makes the playoffs can win Stanley makes the spectacle greater. The loser points should be called the embarrassment points because they are there to avoid teams having very low total points & hence being embarrassed.

Close competition usually is a sign of strong competition. The draft is supposed to even up the difference in talent & disperse the success. The NHL is failing in that respect due to some organisations ineptitude. The NHL in my opinion should have some type of input into organisations that cannot keep themselves clothed, fed & washed. It's the NHL's game, they should be allowed to intervene & fix where they need to so their 'business model' stays on track & is successful.

(frank) I've written a novel - sorry! Read it or not it doesn't matter I don't give a poop!
- Aussiepenguin

He was talking about bad reffing, not expansion.

Eh, I look at it as more like trading the contract than terminating and re-signing a new one with a new team.
- Blackstrom2

It's not trading though. The team that's losing players aren't getting compensated and many of the players they are losing they'd rather keep. There will be the odd Scuderi here and there that the team will be happy to get rid of, but a lot of the times these are transactions that teams would rather not do. In saying that players with NMCs should not be eligible for exposure we're creating a double standard where we say it's ok to be unfair to franchises but not ok to be unfair to individual players.

He was talking about bad reffing, not expansion.
- Victoro311

(frank) refs - they have agendas!


Edit: I really should go back to work!

Aren't you saying you want a player that has a NMC be submitted as a player that can be chosen in the event of an expansion draft? That's my understanding - if it's not I've misunderstood your comment.

Legally binding contracts are usually that unless both parties see a reason to agree & change it. Unless there are conditions in a contract, a contract is just that.
- Aussiepenguin

I don't really care either way. All I was saying was that the language in the CBA isn't clear. Your point about it supposedly breaking a contract is a secondary issue if the language in the CBA is vague enough for court intervention to force contracts with NMCs to be allowed to be exposed. Players with NMCs can't be traded, waived and picked up, or sent down without their consent. Expansion draft does not really fall into any of those categories.

It's not trading though. The team that's losing players aren't getting compensated and many of the players they are losing they'd rather keep. There will be the odd Scuderi here and there that the team will be happy to get rid of, but a lot of the times these are transactions that teams would rather not do. In saying that players with NMCs should not be eligible for exposure we're creating a double standard where we say it's ok to be unfair to franchises but not ok to be unfair to individual players.
- Victoro311

It's not trading, but it's certainly not terminating a contract and re-signing the same one.

It's not trading, but it's certainly not terminating a contract and re-signing the same one.
- Blackstrom2

You're certainly right. Just trying to say there's grey areas when it comes to expansion drafts. I'm not sure we can just assume the rules apply.

I don't really care either way. All I was saying was that the language in the CBA isn't clear. Your point about it supposedly breaking a contract is a secondary issue if the language in the CBA is vague enough for court intervention to force contracts with NMCs to be allowed to be exposed. Players with NMCs can't be traded, waived and picked up, or sent down without their consent. Expansion draft does not really fall into any of those categories.
- Blackstrom2

How can players with NMC be moved?

Also vague contracts are created for those purposes, to be manipulated if required. I haven't ever seen a player contract so I can't comment but I've seen 1 of 2 other contracts & the 'jargon' is extremely confusing at times to the average Joe. They are also negotiated by 2 different sides trying to get what's best for them. So I doubt the 'grey' area would be great or both sides would be in dispute & nothing achieved.

It's not trading, but it's certainly not terminating a contract and re-signing the same one.
- Blackstrom2

Don't have any legal training of Us contract laws, but the language used to me makes it sound very unlikely players with NMC will be included without their consent:
11.8(c)
"A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement."

Don't have any legal training of Us contract laws, but the language used to me makes it sound very unlikely players with NMC will be included without their consent:
11.8(c)
"A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement."
- jfkst1

Sounds like zero mention of an expansion draft... LOOPHOLE!

Sounds like zero mention of an expansion draft... LOOPHOLE!
- Guile

The CBA doesn't specifically mention expansion. From what I've read, MLS had an expansion draft recently and even players with NTC were required to be protected. I just can't see what concession could be made to the NHLPA that would convince them to allow NMC contracts to be eligible for the expansion draft.

The CBA doesn't specifically mention expansion. From what I've read, MLS had an expansion draft recently and even players with NTC were required to be protected. I just can't see what concession could be made to the NHLPA that would convince them to allow NMC contracts to be eligible for the expansion draft.
- jfkst1

I agree. A NHL contract is binding, & if there is no mention of the 'expansion' in any clause then that contract is binding as are the conditions within it which is nmc. No move means 'no move' unless the player accepts the conditions & waives his rights.

That's how my non legal contractual mind works.