Why is widening the surface to international size, 200x100, absurd and what is CapEx and OpEx? .........Simply said, and at a big cost to OWNERS, is most every single problem the sport faces inside the boards is instantly fixed by adding the 15 feet of width to the surface.

I've had seasons in the 3rd level 1st row for awhile now. That is how my mind absorbs NHL action, from the 3rd level. When Huet was still digging pucks out of the net for the Hawks I got 7th row seats at Columbus for a Hawk road game.

I don't have words to explain the absolute shock at the incredible speed and size of these people that I saw at ice level that I had no possible way of understanding in the 3rd level.

And to go further there was no way for me to understand just how little time a player had to move a puck before there was an opponent on him. There was simply NO ice or time for as player to operate........To further this I saw Canada v Sweden in the 2010 WJC live from the 9th row and thought that was the fastest hockey game I'd ever seen. Hindsight shows me the two, NHL-greatest juniors on earth, are barely comparable.

That game changed how I see the sport and I've been around playing and watching since 1970. ....... Widen the rink and see just how talented these people really are and how most of the on ice problems disappear.
- Mr Ricochet

The highest priced non-suite seats are closest to the glass. Over a c-note per seat, times hundreds of seats per game and per team. Now add in millions per arena to retrofit, including concrete work and refrigeration system extension.

Finally, how will the AHL and other ML/junior arenas adjust? Gonna make a jump from '85 wide to 100' wide as players move to the NHL? Years ago, the under-200' long requirement had to be corrected while moving into a new place. The Stadium was only 185' long for instance. No retrofit in that instance.

"It always can be distilled to this: The NHL is a lowest common-denominator league that uses its power to sanction successful teams that try to win. "What league punishes teams for trying to give their fans the best product possible? The answer is, the NHL."

What a business model these fools have put together.
- bogiedoc

Gabriele Marcotti, an English-speaking Italian soccer commentator, recently published an article about the big guns winning the Champions League every year in Europe.

http://www.espnfc.us/blog...s-shows-no-sign-of-ending

Interesting ideas toward the end about no one really caring all that much. Sure, it's fun to have your own club team that has almost a 0% chance of winning the league title or qualifying for the Champions League, but people still watch the Big Boys and root against them.

What's wrong with that in the NHL? It's a niche sport and always will be, since having a frozen-over pond to skate on is only possible in certain geographical locations. Sure, Phoenix-raised Auston Matthews is going to be the #1 pick, but he's the exception that proves the rule.

Gabriele Marcotti, an English-speaking Italian soccer commentator, recently published an article about the big guns winning the Champions League every year in Europe.

http://www.espnfc.us/blog...s-shows-no-sign-of-ending

Interesting ideas toward the end about no one really caring all that much. Sure, it's fun to have your own club team that has almost a 0% chance of winning the league title or qualifying for the Champions League, but people still watch the Big Boys and root against them.

What's wrong with that in the NHL? It's a niche sport and always will be, since having a frozen-over pond to skate on is only possible in certain geographical locations. Sure, Phoenix-raised Auston Matthews is going to be the #1 pick, but he's the exception that proves the rule.
- DMChi2010

MLB is fine. Revenue sharing can be improved in that takers should put monies into the on field product.

Recently, smaller market teams made strides. PGH is solid, TB was in a WS, KC just won the WS. And the evil empire has struggled. Going back to '97 and '01, the Marlins won the WS, the second after a complete teardown. Still though, more like the NFL, MLB has a lot more TV money.

Thanks for the link.........

It always can be distilled to this: The NHL is a lowest common-denominator league that uses its power to sanction successful teams that try to win.

What league punishes teams for trying to give their fans the best product possible? The answer is, the NHL.


Hard to admit that as a Hawk fan I'm for rules to help the league be more competitive (parity). It hurts the Hawks but for the sport, if done CORRECTLY, rules to make the league less MLB top heavy is a good thing.

Obviously any reasonable person can see the parity rules as constituted are a failure. The thing needs tweaked to allow the heavy hitters, original 6 types, to more easily erase mistakes and keep their home grown talent.
- Mr Ricochet

I, too, favor parity, even if in some ways the Hawks are hurt. It's good that there were probably 10 teams that had a legitimate chance of winning a Cup this year.

But of the four major NA sports, only hockey has the lethal combination of a hard inviolable cap with a stagnant revenue base.

NFL has the ability to restructure contracts. The NBA has many cap leaks tempered by a luxury tax. MLB, of course, has no cap, just revenue sharing. And all of those have consistently (or, in the NBA situation this year, dramatically) increasing revenues and caps.

It's also the only sport that has to worry about the CDN$-US$ exchange ratio, with a good portion of revenues being received in a declining weaker currency with players salaries and other expenses paid out in a strong currency.

I, too, favor parity, even if in some ways the Hawks are hurt. It's good that there were probably 10 teams that had a legitimate chance of winning a Cup this year.

But of the four major NA sports, only hockey has the lethal combination of a hard inviolable cap with a stagnant revenue base.

NFL has the ability to restructure contracts. The NBA has many cap leaks tempered by a luxury tax. MLB, of course, has no cap, just revenue sharing. And all of those have consistently (or, in the NBA situation this year, dramatically) increasing revenues and caps.

It's also the only sport that has to worry about the CDN$-US$ exchange ratio, with a good portion of revenues being received in a declining weaker currency with players salaries and other expenses paid out in a strong currency.
- StLBravesFan

On a positive note, perhaps one of few, the Loonie is up to 77¢ US.

On a positive note, perhaps one of few, the Loonie is up to 77¢ US.
- blackhawk24

Great.

So I have to choose between paying a lot more for gas, which means I have less left over to provide for my family, but having a higher cap for my Hawks to maneuver; or being ably to afford to drive to a gas station, but having a cap that forces my team to lose Panerin, Shaw, Crawford, and one of Keith or Seabrook.

It's a coin flip....

I, too, favor parity, even if in some ways the Hawks are hurt. It's good that there were probably 10 teams that had a legitimate chance of winning a Cup this year.

But of the four major NA sports, only hockey has the lethal combination of a hard inviolable cap with a stagnant revenue base.

NFL has the ability to restructure contracts. The NBA has many cap leaks tempered by a luxury tax. MLB, of course, has no cap, just revenue sharing. And all of those have consistently (or, in the NBA situation this year, dramatically) increasing revenues and caps.

It's also the only sport that has to worry about the CDN$-US$ exchange ratio, with a good portion of revenues being received in a declining weaker currency with players salaries and other expenses paid out in a strong currency.
- StLBravesFan

NHL revenue isn't stagnant really at all. It nearly doubled in the last 10 seasons. Sure, it hit a bit of a wall because of some global economics that affect it to a larger degree, but they've done really well overall. That is why the owners like Bettman and why he is still where he is. The NHL is playing the long game because it knows there are a lot of markets they can grow into more, but it ain't gonna happen overnight.

Great.

So I have to choose between paying a lot more for gas, which means I have less left over to provide for my family, but having a higher cap for my Hawks to maneuver; or being ably to afford to drive to a gas station, but having a cap that forces my team to lose Panerin, Shaw, Crawford, and one of Keith or Seabrook.

It's a coin flip....
- StLBravesFan

Sorry.... Could be like Europe. My Scandinavian colleagues pay about $8/gallon.

Adjusted for inflation, gasoline around the US is on par or cheaper since the post embargo years.

I love the reactions in vehicle sales as they pertain to gas prices. Ford had a doozie a couple years ago, justifying a $40k vehicle purchase on a couple hundred bucks a year gas price fluctuation.

I will know prices are high when its well over a c-note to fill up my Impala with 87.

Taylor Hall is making 6 mill/year?? Geezus
- z1990z

So does Eberly and the RNH
Geezus is right
$18 million on those 3

NHL revenue isn't stagnant really at all. It nearly doubled in the last 10 seasons. Sure, it hit a bit of a wall because of some global economics that affect it to a larger degree, but they've done really well overall. That is why the owners like Bettman and why he is still where he is. The NHL is playing the long game because it knows there are a lot of markets they can grow into more, but it ain't gonna happen overnight.
- breadbag

How's 2x over 10 years compare to the other three leagues?

The highest priced non-suite seats are closest to the glass. Over a c-note per seat, times hundreds of seats per game and per team. Now add in millions per arena to retrofit, including concrete work and refrigeration system extension.

Finally, how will the AHL and other ML/junior arenas adjust? Gonna make a jump from '85 wide to 100' wide as players move to the NHL? Years ago, the under-200' long requirement had to be corrected while moving into a new place. The Stadium was only 185' long for instance. No retrofit in that instance.
- blackhawk24

From you bringing up that widening the surfaces to 100 feet wide was absurd I assumed you read my previous post about doing so would cure all hockey ills inside the glass. If you did you read where I said it wouldn't happen cuz it was too expensive citing the very points you made.

But if indeed, #1 making the game safer, and #2 making it more appealing to the fan the owners would bear the costs to widen the surfaces and make their money back over time, in theory at least.

As far as the minors/juniors yes the existing arenas would stay the same, some are international size already by the way with new ones if they want to be USA sanctioned would be built 200x100.

Sorry.... Could be like Europe. My Scandinavian colleagues pay about $8/gallon.

Adjusted for inflation, gasoline around the US is on par or cheaper since the post embargo years.

I love the reactions in vehicle sales as they pertain to gas prices. Ford had a doozie a couple years ago, justifying a $40k vehicle purchase on a couple hundred bucks a year gas price fluctuation.

I will know prices are high when its well over a c-note to fill up my Impala with 87.
- blackhawk24

The US taxpayer foots the bill for the largest military on earth, more costly (as of 5 years ago) than if you added up the cost of every single countries combined!!! In other words add up every cent every country the world spends on it's military, combine it, and the US spends more.

Much of the US taxpayers' dollars foots the bill to keep the oil flowing and safely transported. US tax payers are paying at least 8 bucks a gallon but don't realize it.

Also adjusted for inflation a dreg (middle class) hasn't had a raise since the 70's.

Love those Impalas by the way, as sharp a car as there is on the road. Thanks for buying American!!

From you bringing up that widening the surfaces to 100 feet wide was absurd I assumed you read my previous post about doing so would cure all hockey ills inside the glass. If you did you read where I said it wouldn't happen cuz it was too expensive citing the very points you made.

But if indeed, #1 making the game safer, and #2 making it more appealing to the fan the owners would bear the costs to widen the surfaces and make their money back over time, in theory at least.

As far as the minors/juniors yes the existing arenas would stay the same, some are international size already by the way with new ones if they want to be USA sanctioned would be built 200x100.
- Mr Ricochet

Must have gone thru your post too fast. It would be interesting to see how players adjust going from the AHL to NHL. To me, calling obstruction in the spirit of how I interpreted the rules to be written would solve a lot of issues, including getting increased revenue via increased scoring.

Must have gone thru your post too fast. It would be interesting to see how players adjust going from the AHL to NHL. To me, calling obstruction in the spirit of how I interpreted the rules to be written would solve a lot of issues, including getting increased revenue via increased scoring.
- blackhawk24

I'm not arguing and agree with you that widening the surfaces won't happen. But lets take a hypothetical as to the cost of widening the surface from Rocky's standpoint.

Would Toews have as many concussions as he has? Would he/Kane play longer and be more productive doing so on a larger surface? Would Toews have more offensive production if the surface was bigger. Would he have had another round of playoff home gates this year with a bigger surface? Would he have a larger tv audience with the speed/skill increasing over a 5-10 yr period. Would there be as many "purpose" players in the sport if they had to skate to catch the skill and as a result make for an overall more skilled product eliminating purpose players?

Add them all up, and ones I missed, and over time does the money invested to make the surfaces bigger pay for itself and then become more profitable?

LOL @ the the "idea" that Taylor Hall would be an acquisition in a trade for Seabrook.

Hall is 24, has already hit 80 points in a season, and is a two-way player that hasn't even hit his prime yet. With even better line-mates he'll reach elite NHL status.

Seabrook has more value to us than he would to other teams in trade discussions. With his new deal I HIGHLY doubt that he's even on the table.

Sorry guys, but let's be real. Stan will have to deal with cap hell for the third time. I don't foresee any blockbusters, as he has never done one.

And for the thoughts of trading Keith? That's not even worth addressing.

The US taxpayer foots the bill for the largest military on earth, more costly (as of 5 years ago) than if you added up the cost of every single countries combined!!! In other words add up every cent every country the world spends on it's military, combine it, and the US spends more.

Much of the US taxpayers' dollars foots the bill to keep the oil flowing and safely transported. US tax payers are paying at least 8 bucks a gallon but don't realize it.

Also adjusted for inflation a dreg (middle class) hasn't had a raise since the 70's.

Love those Impalas by the way, as sharp a car as there is on the road. Thanks for buying American!!
- Mr Ricochet

Being the world's police - not that I agree - has a [monetary] price too. I can't put a finger on effective cost of a gallon of gas though. Was hoping though, alternative extraction costs would be lower than they are at present. No doubt US military is more than everyone else combined, still to this day.

MIA: The middle class.

Love the SS, completing my mods (finally!) in the next month. She'll be ready to roll by months end. 450bhp/530ft-lbs at the rear wheels, normally aspirated. Will be decent giddy-up for a 4,400 lb, 20-year old car. Kept the 3:08 rear end so we can still cruise on the highway to Branson on a single tank, 600 miles non-stop.

LOL @ the the "idea" that Taylor Hall would be an acquisition in a trade for Seabrook.

Hall is 24, has already hit 80 points in a season, and is a two-way player that hasn't even hit his prime yet. With even better line-mates he'll reach elite NHL status.

Seabrook has more value to us than he would to other teams in trade discussions. With his new deal I HIGHLY doubt that he's even on the table.

Sorry guys, but let's be real. Stan will have to deal with cap hell for the third time. I don't foresee any blockbusters, as he has never done one.

And for the thoughts of trading Keith? That's not even worth addressing.
- TommyHawk

Pretty much any idea of losing the Top 3 is a little much and kind of ridiculous. However, to sign Panarin and Shaw, someone has to get sent packing. The marginal cap increase will not help the Hawks at all... Pretty much why the skepticism is arising. I think Keith, Hammer, Seabrook stay Hawks for a long time.

With Keith's cap hit moving him will not happen.

If Bickel could be moved with Kruger I would do it. If Bickel could be moved with Shaw I would also do it .....but reluctantly.

Either way it's 7 million in Cap Space.

Seabs cap hit, his health and his leadership make him the most likely trade target..
I would be looking at Toronto and Edmonton on this front.

Toews Panik Hall
Aa Panarin Kane
Shaw Teravinen Hossa
Rasm xxxx xxxxxx
- Colbyboy

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!
- dahawks8819

So now there's a new "insider"....fantastic

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!
- dahawks8819

Shhhhhh....

Loose lips sink ships.

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!
- dahawks8819

No Keith on the "untouchable" list??

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!
- dahawks8819

Hammer #3 overall, eh? Mildly surprised, though I have a hunch why he'd be ahead of DK is strictly the cap re-capture penalty.

I would have guessed: 19 88 2 81 4 22(back to 16?) 7 50.

No Keith on the "untouchable" list??


- DarthKane

Given the inuendo the past couple of days....

To you and everyone else talking about moving Kruger - it's not going to happen!!!!!

From a source with the Hawks:

As far as "untouchables" the only ones are: Toews, Kane, Hjalmarsson and Kruger - IN THAT ORDER!!!!

So please quit wasting space here about trading Kruger - it is purely your fantasy - absolutely NO reality to it!!!!!
- dahawks8819

Everything I've seen in your recent posts on this topic makes me think Keith is the one being discussed here... I have to think there would be off the ice issues to make this happen/locker room issues, otherwise I can't see any other reason to make the trade given him being an elite defenseman w/ a reasonable cap hit... Either way, I'm intrigued to see what goes down

Everything I've seen in your recent posts on this topic makes me think Keith is the one being discussed here... I have to think there would be off the ice issues to make this happen/locker room issues, otherwise I can't see any other reason to make the trade given him being an elite defenseman w/ a reasonable cap hit... Either way, I'm intrigued to see what goes down
- Frenchy4488

His posts do seem to be pointing in that direction. Considering how much Keith does for the team and especially considering his cap hit. Trading him would need to bring back 2 top 4 dmen and there's no way that's happening with what Keith makes.

I agree with whoever said if they're trading Keith then this is more than a "reshape" and they've given up hope of winning a cup in the next 2 years