Sure. They has to be greater benefit to the team's that draft and develop, all the while maintaining parity.

I know it sucks for you guys , but I don't want a system that benefits a team for winning more than simply winning in itself. There naturally comes enough benefits with that as it is.
- Jeropotato

No, that's singular. It sucks for TB, STL, LA, NYR, NYI, WPG and will for EDM if they don't mangle the super duper power ball multi continent world wide lottery ticket they won too in a few short years.

Hey JJ

Do you still think there is market to move CC??
- z1990z

Maybe BUF, maybe DAL. I think TB, Pitt and MAYBE even CHI now wait for the season to start and play out and wait for more markets to open up for goalies. ....No way to foresee what will happen now but you can be sure that sometime during the season a team(s) will need a goalie.

No, that's singular. It sucks for TB, STL, LA, NYR, NYI, WPG and will for EDM if they don't mangle the super duper power ball multi continent world wide lottery ticket they won too in a few short years.
- Mr Ricochet

I'm not ignorant to this. That's the game. But at least it's a level playing field for everyone. going back to the pre salary cap era would suck, and I wouldn't even have a team in my hockey mad anymore.

I lived through it. The threats of relocation, losing players over a million bucks to free agency while 4 or 5 teams doubled the bottom 5 teams in salary. It was horrible.

This is just how it goes, it has nothing to do with how bad our team or management is.

That's easy to say from the winners table...but it sucked when Dallas, Detroit and Colorado year after year kept their team intact while adding the best free agents.
- Jeropotato

I'm in complete agreement with you but the cap as is is harming the sport both short and long term.

One more thing that you might like...lthey will be some relief coming for you guys once the real serious cap recapture penalties start piling up within the league. No way the Owners will sit back and eat it when it starts to hamper them, and no way the NHLPA will stand for all that cap space not being occupied by a player under contract.

Why does AA keep coming up as a trade possiblity (besides $$, of course). He is the 2st legit 2nd line center we have had since....uhhhhh......wait....errrr.....a long f'in time. Trading him would almost leave a bigger hole than #7.
- MEhockey

The same reason tons of guys have been traded in the past....he CAN be. His NTC doesn't kick in for another week as well. If Brandon Saad can be traded (and leaving a major loss at 1L-W) then Anisimov can be traded. Contrary to 'rumors, I don't think there would be a huge market for him to be honest, so you can rest easy.

I'm in complete agreement with you but the cap as is is harming the sport both short and long term.
- Mr Ricochet

minor tweaks, perhaps. But explain to me how removing the cap benefits the poopty 1/3 of the league?

I'm not ignorant to this. That's the game. But at least it's a level playing field for everyone. going back to the pre salary cap era would suck, and I wouldn't even have a team in my hockey mad anymore.

I lived through it. The threats of relocation, losing players over a million bucks to free agency while 4 or 5 teams doubled the bottom 5 teams in salary. It was horrible.

This is just how it goes, it has nothing to do with how bad our team or management is.
- Jeropotato

I'm not going to do the internet counter argument by commenting on your teams lack of success and will add I'm a fan of a sport before I am of any jersey. That said the cap as is is harmful both long and short term for the CHI's, PITT's, LA's as well as for the CAR's and AZ's.

minor tweaks, perhaps. But explain to me how removing the cap benefits the poopty 1/3 of the league?
- Jeropotato

Show me a post in the history of my life where I said removing the cap was good for the sport.

Show me a post in the history of my life where I said removing the cap was good for the sport.
- Mr Ricochet

Hey, I haven't read every post on this thread, so forgive me, what are you suggesting?

* Coles notes please. I'm grilling a Sandwhich

That's easy to say from the winners table...but it sucked when Dallas, Detroit and Colorado year after year kept their team intact while adding the best free agents.
- Jeropotato

Let me be more clear--- I am not against a salary cap---

what I am advocating is a cap system that does NOT strangle teams who are successful in drafting and development--- perhaps this can be achieved by a cap exemption for drafted and developed players or a franchise tag--

I am not for the current cap system that is in place to create parity based upon a flawed business system that seemingly rewards mediocrity or downright tanking to gain top draft picks and predatory cap bottom opportunists teams who benefit from teams who are consistently good at development and competing but have to dump good players they draft-- OR trading for players who have retired to get to the cap bottom--- that is not a hockey trade-- (AZ Pronger / Datsyuk)

I am not for owners who 'buy' championships-- or who tank for predatory reasons

My guess is if the Hawks were able to keep the plethora of drafted and developed players that they were forced to trade-- (start with Bufyglien, Saad, Shaw) they would have been even more dominant--- they didn't BUY this players -- they drafted them--

Hawks have just 1 overall #1 draft pick in team history--- Patrick Kane--

How many do the Oilers have?

EDIT: 4 #1 overall picks since 2010--
2010 Taylor Hall
2011 Ryan Nugent Hopkins
2012 Nail Yakupov
2015 Connor McJesus--- the savior

Holy Jesus--- stop complaining man! Your team has had the pick of the crop and top 10 drafting other years--

Sure. They has to be greater benefit to the team's that draft and develop, all the while maintaining parity.

I know it sucks for you guys , but I don't want a system that benefits a team for winning more than simply winning in itself. There naturally comes enough benefits with that as it is.
- Jeropotato

Why maintain parity? Benefits to teams who draft/develop well while maintaning parity? Really? Were you saying that between 1984-1990?

This whole concept of punishing those who do well is horribly flawed. And Bettman, mouthpiece for 'some' of the owners, is going to irreparably damage the league.

Wait until there are no big market teams deep in the playoffs for a couple years and TV revenue is sacked even further. Now where is all that HRR? Gonna make the average ticket $350? Hardly. Gonna build 35,000 seat arenas? Nope.

Bet he was glad when the 'Hawks, LA, Detroit and Philly went out early. Bet he couldn't say that to NBC. This is not the NFL. Not. Even. Close. So the Packers situation doesn't apply. Why? First and foremost: TV revenue.

This zero-sum game applied here is the same flawed model others have tried for decades, to no avail. I even had park disctrict league wonks want the kids leagues at parity when I coached girls fast pitch softball. What a terrible thing to impart on such young minds.

Sorry about this --- actually I am not sorry --- I want the 'Hawks to win. Every year. And I don't care who they have to beat to get to 16 playoffs wins. Doesn't matter if it is some small market darlings or they have to gring thru tough teams like LA, StL, Dal & Wsh. Win baby win. Just win.

Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.

Let me be more clear--- I am not against a salary cap---

what I am advocating is a cap system that does NOT strangle teams who are successful in drafting and development--- perhaps this can be achieved by a cap exemption for drafted and developed players or a franchise tag--

I am not for the current cap system that is in place to create parity based upon a flawed business system that seemingly rewards mediocrity or downright tanking to gain top draft picks and predatory cap bottom opportunists teams who benefit from teams who are consistently good at development and competing but have to dump good players they draft-- OR trading for players who have retired to get to the cap bottom--- that is not a hockey trade-- (AZ Pronger / Datsyuk)

I am not for owners who 'buy' championships-- or who tank for predatory reasons

My guess is if the Hawks were able to keep the plethora of drafted and developed players that they were forced to trade-- (start with Bufyglien, Saad, Shaw) they would have been even more dominant--- they didn't BUY this players -- they drafted them--

Hawks have just 1 overall #1 draft pick in team history--- Patrick Kane--

How many do the Oilers have?

EDIT: 4 #1 overall picks since 2010--
2010 Taylor Hall
2011 Ryan Nugent Hopkins
2012 Nail Yakupov
2015 Connor McJesus--- the savior

Holy Jesus--- stop complaining man! Your team has had the pick of the crop and top 10 drafting other years--
- jb3333

Why are YOU turning this into an Oilers/Hawks thing?

If you want to go that that route, I ALMOST LOST MY DAMN TEAM TO HOUSTON!!!!!

If you can't understand why I'm passionate about finally having the system that is good for all the individual markets, and why I sat through three freaking lockouts, then I guess there really is no point trying to explain.

Then again, I can see why you wouldn't care if a bunch of true hockey markets folded or relocated as long as yours is on top.

According to Scott Powers, Leighton will not be re-signed. Not a surprised given the log jam that appears in Rockford.
- DarthKane

It's a shame. Leighton is a class act and fan favorite in Rockford. He just captured the AHL Career Shut Out Record a few months ago.

He'll be missed in Rockford.

Why are YOU turning this into an Oilers/Hawks thing?

If you want to go that that route, I ALMOST LOST MY DAMN TEAM TO HOUSTON!!!!!

If you can't understand why I'm passionate about finally having the system that is good for all the individual markets, and why I sat through three freaking lockouts, then I guess there really is no point trying to explain.

Then again, I can see why you wouldn't care if a bunch of true hockey markets folded or relocated as long as yours is on top.
- Jeropotato

I personally think it's a travesty when places like Quebec and Winnipeg have lost teams in the past and watched those teams go to places like Atlanta or Arizona. Well I think it's important to grow hockey in non-traditional markets, I think it's very difficult to see hockey rich cities lose their pro team

Why are YOU turning this into an Oilers/Hawks thing?

If you want to go that that route, I ALMOST LOST MY DAMN TEAM TO HOUSTON!!!!!

If you can't understand why I'm passionate about finally having the system that is good for all the individual markets, and why I sat through three freaking lockouts, then I guess there really is no point trying to explain.

Then again, I can see why you wouldn't care if a bunch of true hockey markets folded or relocated as long as yours is on top.
- Jeropotato

For me, one reason is that the two generations prior to Rocky absolutely screwed the fans. For decades. And this is a big market team. Ask the long-time 'Hawks fans on here and other blogs. Ask them the significance and meaning behind the date 6/27/72. I get your pain. I get it. But this system in place is out to absolutely hammer teams like the 'Hawks.

Why are YOU turning this into an Oilers/Hawks thing?

If you want to go that that route, I ALMOST LOST MY DAMN TEAM TO HOUSTON!!!!!

If you can't understand why I'm passionate about finally having the system that is good for all the individual markets, and why I sat through three freaking lockouts, then I guess there really is no point trying to explain.

Then again, I can see why you wouldn't care if a bunch of true hockey markets folded or relocated as long as yours is on top.
- Jeropotato

Its not about Hawks v Oilers--

But its pretty clear that the teams that are supposed to benefit from the league imposed parity are small market teams like Edmonton and Carolina, Arizona and others--

Personally I am one who believes its is GOOD for the NHL when Canadian teams are competitive-- I'm old school so I honor the tradition of the league--

What Bettman is doing and you seem to be advocating is to squeeze out the elite teams and promote parity in the name of what again? This is a disastrous and flawed plan--

as far as true hockey markets-- they aren't only in small town Canada-- that is an elitist statement-- maybe there should be a Canadian League with its own cap and a US league with its own cap--

Why is the cap directly connected to the CDN $ when there are more teams in the US?

IMO the fringe markets that Bettman is trying to force onto the landscape to enhance some TV deal that is never going to be successful-- no one will watch a NHL final between Edmonton - Columbus-- or Arizona-- which is why his method is flawed--

And the 500 Million franchise fee from Las Vegas--- is just a money grab by the owners that will buy Bettman a couple years until the bottom crashes out ---

I personally think it's a travesty when places like Quebec and Winnipeg have lost teams in the past and watched those teams go to places like Atlanta or Arizona. Well I think it's important to grow hockey in non-traditional markets, I think it's very difficult to see hockey rich cities lose their pro team
- ikeane

I agree with that-- there should be more teams in Canada and less teams in places like you mentioned--

Let me be more clear--- I am not against a salary cap---

what I am advocating is a cap system that does NOT strangle teams who are successful in drafting and development--- perhaps this can be achieved by a cap exemption for drafted and developed players or a franchise tag--

I am not for the current cap system that is in place to create parity based upon a flawed business system that seemingly rewards mediocrity or downright tanking to gain top draft picks and predatory cap bottom opportunists teams who benefit from teams who are consistently good at development and competing but have to dump good players they draft-- OR trading for players who have retired to get to the cap bottom--- that is not a hockey trade-- (AZ Pronger / Datsyuk)

I am not for owners who 'buy' championships-- or who tank for predatory reasons

My guess is if the Hawks were able to keep the plethora of drafted and developed players that they were forced to trade-- (start with Bufyglien, Saad, Shaw) they would have been even more dominant--- they didn't BUY this players -- they drafted them--

Hawks have just 1 overall #1 draft pick in team history--- Patrick Kane--

How many do the Oilers have?

EDIT: 4 #1 overall picks since 2010--
2010 Taylor Hall
2011 Ryan Nugent Hopkins
2012 Nail Yakupov
2015 Connor McJesus--- the savior

Holy Jesus--- stop complaining man! Your team has had the pick of the crop and top 10 drafting other years--
- jb3333

The cap system is not in place to create parity - it's in place to limit players pay, to save the owners from themselves, to create cost certainty.

The cap system is not in place to create parity - it's in place to limit players pay, to save the owners from themselves, to create cost certainty.
- StLBravesFan

I disagree---

there is no cost certainty when they can't settle on a cap year to year without getting the escrow from the players--

Anyone know why the cap is tied to the CDN $ ?? I'm not an economist-- but would like to know what the logic is on that--

Debrincat on WGN radio at 4:35 PM.

I agree with that-- there should be more teams in Canada and less teams in places like you mentioned--
- jb3333

Easier said than done.

I feel like us hockey fans get way too caught up in the game and not the big picture.

The game is a business. The game needs revenue. Canadian teams, as of now, do not bring revenue. Their dollar is poor. A place like Vegas brings revenue to the league.

I get, I'm a nostalgic guy. I would love to see Nords jerseys back on the ice, but Vegas money absolutely trumps (no pun intended) Quebec money in many different aspects.

I think the NHL genuinely wants to bring Quebec back in the league, but right now, the league is on an upward swing, and financially, needs to keep that.

We can sit here and try to speak about/strong arm the bug clubs in the league, but if the revenue drops, then the bug teams drop and its a domino effect.

Its not about Hawks v Oilers--

But its pretty clear that the teams that are supposed to benefit from the league imposed parity are small market teams like Edmonton and Carolina, Arizona and others--

Personally I am one who believes its is GOOD for the NHL when Canadian teams are competitive-- I'm old school so I honor the tradition of the league--

What Bettman is doing and you seem to be advocating is to squeeze out the elite teams and promote parity in the name of what again? This is a disastrous and flawed plan--

as far as true hockey markets-- they aren't only in small town Canada-- that is an elitist statement-- maybe there should be a Canadian League with its own cap and a US league with its own cap--

Why is the cap directly connected to the CDN $ when there are more teams in the US?

IMO the fringe markets that Bettman is trying to force onto the landscape to enhance some TV deal that is never going to be successful-- no one will watch a NHL final between Edmonton - Columbus-- or Arizona-- which is why his method is flawed--

And the 500 Million franchise fee from Las Vegas--- is just a money grab by the owners that will buy Bettman a couple years until the bottom crashes out ---
- jb3333

Agreed, and I apologize for getting hot there. Some of you guys might not understand the importance of cost certainty to some markets. And to clarify, I have no sympathy for markets that can't bring in fans no matter where their team is in the standings. No fans= no team is a fair policy in my books.

Business wise it makes sense that the NHL would favour Chicago over Edmonton for TV ratings, but if there is a system in place that does that, I want no part of the NHL.

I disagree---

there is no cost certainty when they can't settle on a cap year to year without getting the escrow from the players--

Anyone know why the cap is tied to the CDN $ ?? I'm not an economist-- but would like to know what the logic is on that--
- jb3333

The Canadian teams revenue is in Canadian dollars, but salaries are in American.

Lets just say the roster stays as is ,

Plus Campbell and Matt Martin for the bottom 6.

Hows that look ?

D would be very solid.

Martin would be very effective .

Top 6 would have rotation 1lw all year.

Not idea but this is affordable
- mrpaulish

Meh, Its a playoff team, nothing special