Not against you, but I am so tired of people harping on the 4th line as a fulcrum of team troubles.

They are what they are regardless who plays there. Top 9, and team defense are much bigger disappointment for me this season.

But carry on with the 4th line narrative.
- missingmike

Team wise, the poor team defense through most of the season, is perhaps the single biggest reason why they've struggled this season, in my opinion.

Teams (and players) know this when they sign. So yes, you'd want a team to be able to get out when a player underperforms. But at the same, time, what if the player overperforms? Should he be able to opt out as well and get a raise before it expires whenever he wishes as well?

For instance, Wayne Simmonds is on an extremely friendly contract. Would you be happy if he could tear up the existing contract and insist of a new one that pays him more in line with what the market would dictate?
- jmatchett383

I don't have much sympathy for the players. Nor owners.

Your minimum NHL salary is 500,000$.

I praise Carchidi for asking a sensible question, and then see his big idea for fixing the PK is play Giroux on it more. Not Read, not Filppula, not Lyubimov; but a forward who is already playing almost 20 minutes a night.

I don't have much sympathy for the players. Nor owners.

Your minimum NHL salary is 500,000$.
- flyer_nutter

I don't, either. You signed a contract, now honor it.

I personally think that power players are boring. 5 guys skating slowly (if at all) around 4 guys in a loose box, passing around the perimeter is not all that exciting. Exhilarating, but not exciting.
- jmatchett383

But the scoring rate would climb, which is a goal of the NHL.

I don't, either. You signed a contract, now honor it.
- jmatchett383

True enough.

I think contracts with a performance clause in them could be interesting.

Don't meet it and the team has the option of releasing you. Would make bidding and negotiations between teams more interesting.

Don't think you stop that though.

When you can have low skilled players shut down the best by basically suffocating the other club why wouldn't you do it?

I don't agree with making the nets bigger. I watch to be entertained though, despise coaches who preach a heavy D-first scheme.
- flyer_nutter

If you watched the Columbus game, they set the tone of the game and carried play due to their 200 foot puck pressure game, and didn't give the Flyers any room to skate. It wasn't a boring brand of hockey to watch in any way. Today's d first systems are far different than in the 80's or 90's. It is an aggressive attack brand of hockey that pretty much every good team in the league plays.

True enough.

I think contracts with a performance clause in them could be interesting.

Don't meet it and the team has the option of releasing you. Would make bidding and negotiations between teams more interesting.
- flyer_nutter

Opens up the possibility of benchings/scratchings for money reasons.

But the scoring rate would climb, which is a goal of the NHL.
- Scoob

I think chasing higher goal totals is about as pointless as the deployment of the recent WCoH.

I'm sure the PA would be all about that.

I agree that would be best, but it will never, ever happen.

When was the last time a team in the major 4 leagues outright folded/contracted? The Golden Seals?
- jmatchett383

No doubt, it will NEVER happen.

What id say, is players allowed to have a 300,000$ a year salary max.

Owners something similar after expenses.

No reason for these guys to be making such money in the state the world is in.

Opens up the possibility of benchings/scratchings for money reasons.
- Scoob

Good point.

True enough.

I think contracts with a performance clause in them could be interesting.

Don't meet it and the team has the option of releasing you. Would make bidding and negotiations between teams more interesting.
- flyer_nutter

I expect the max contract length to come down in the next CBA.

I think scrapping a few teams to concentrate the talent pool is step one.

Bigger ice would be good, not sure it's possible with the construction needed.

Get rid of the advertising that's starting to overtake the game, and allow teams to release players keeping a cap intact. We should not be subjected to having to watch the LeCavalier's, etc of the league just because they are under contract.
- flyer_nutter

Not sure what you're actually saying here, but teams already have the ability not to play a player just because he is under contract.

If you watched the Columbus game, they set the tone of the game and carried play due to their 200 foot puck pressure game, and didn't give the Flyers any room to skate. It wasn't a boring brand of hockey to watch in any way. Today's d first systems are far different than in the 80's or 90's. It is an aggressive attack brand of hockey that pretty much every good team in the league plays.
- MJL

Absolutely. It's not the Devils' neutral zone trap of the 90s or TB's 1-3-1, it's a high pressure scheme that starts with an aggressive forecheck and forces the pace of the game to speed up.

I expect the max contract length to come down in the next CBA.
- Feanor

Billionaires fighting millionaires. Yawn.

One buyout per team allowed each season. Crazy Wednesdays.

Sadly this league is about money, greed drives the world. So I don't think you will ever see such a thing.

I'd dump Phoenix, the Panthers, Columbus, Jersey and the Isles.

Perhaps Winnipeg. I'd also look at hiring some of the international referees. NHL officiating is a tenured position.
- flyer_nutter

You've got to add Carolina to that list. With an avg attendance below 12k (lowest in the league), and I'm guessing they're not rocking the world with merchandise, they aren't making much money for the league.

As for Winnipeg. They sell out regularly. The main problem there is that their arena holds less than 16k people for a hockey game.

True enough.

I think contracts with a performance clause in them could be interesting.

Don't meet it and the team has the option of releasing you. Would make bidding and negotiations between teams more interesting.
- flyer_nutter

Would the players have the option of renegotiating for more money if they exceed expectations?

I think chasing higher goal totals is about as pointless as the deployment of the recent WCoH.
- jmatchett383

I don't disagree at all. But if they're going to tweak things to increase scoring I prefer changes like that rather than larger nets and/or shape changes to the goal posts.

What id say, is players allowed to have a 300,000$ a year salary max.

Owners something similar after expenses.

No reason for these guys to be making such money in the state the world is in.
- flyer_nutter

These teams make, in most cases, hundreds of millions of dollars annually in revenue from ticket sales, advertising, parking, concessions, memorabilia/clothing sales, etc. And the PA signed on to have "50% of hockey-related revenue" due to them. Even if you throw that out, you're talking about tens of millions of "excess" dollars.

As long as people will pay, those will be the salaries. It's a capitalist market.

What id say, is players allowed to have a 300,000$ a year salary max.

Owners something similar after expenses.

No reason for these guys to be making such money in the state the world is in.
- flyer_nutter

The NHL is a business, not a charity to solve the World's issues.

What id say, is players allowed to have a 300,000$ a year salary max.

Owners something similar after expenses.

No reason for these guys to be making such money in the state the world is in.
- flyer_nutter

This. And give all the extra money to teachers and make the defense department have bake sales to raise funds.

Billionaires fighting millionaires. Yawn.

One buyout per team allowed each season. Crazy Wednesdays.
- flyer_nutter

I like that idea.

I also like the idea of 6 year contracts as the max length.

Absolutely. It's not the Devils' neutral zone trap of the 90s or TB's 1-3-1, it's a high pressure scheme that starts with an aggressive forecheck and forces the pace of the game to speed up.
- jmatchett383

When we don't have the puck, get it back as fast as possible.

I don't disagree at all. But if they're going to tweak things to increase scoring I prefer changes like that rather than larger nets and/or shape changes to the goal posts.
- Scoob

I agree. I'd regulate goaltender equipment before anything. I just don't think that increasing scoring makes the game more entertaining.