A deal that is bad, very bad and worse

If the NHL is committed to "genetic engineering" I'm positive Puckhead is praying they don't use MAF as a donor.

Over Napoleon's 20 year watch, the NHL has not played around 10 percent of its scheduled games...NHL action, it isn't FANtastic!

Funny thing about this deal, it still doesn't fix the problem the NHL has.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 10:24 AM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

Funny thing about this deal, it still doesn't fix the problem the NHL has.

a faulty commisioner?
teams where they shouldn't be?
Owners that need to be smacked upside the head?
A salary cap?
Instigator rule?

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 10:24 AM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

Funny thing about this deal, it still doesn't fix the problem the NHL has.

Yup. Both side are deliberately putting their heads in the sand on the need for contraction . Ten years from now it will be front and centre.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 10:24 AM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

Funny thing about this deal, it still doesn't fix the problem the NHL has.

This is the NHL. They don't fell good when they enjoy the fruits of their labors. They just have to throw some sawdust on top of that filet mignon.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 10:41 AM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

a faulty commisioner?teams where they shouldn't be?Owners that need to be smacked upside the head?A salary cap?Instigator rule?

Pierre M. , afternoon games , the shoot out , horribly easy to get second assists...........

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 10:41 AM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

a faulty commisioner?
teams where they shouldn't be?
Owners that need to be smacked upside the head?
A salary cap?
Instigator rule?

The list just goes on and on

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 10:45 AM ET  12.31 by The Aussie Caniac

The list just goes on and on

I only have so much RAM in this PC

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 09:43 AM ET  12.31 by Canuck eh?

If the NHL is committed to "genetic engineering" I'm positive Puckhead is praying they don't use MAF as a donor.

Please don't use any Russian blood, except for a select few, I'm getting tired of them.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 10:41 AM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

a faulty commisioner?teams where they shouldn't be?Owners that need to be smacked upside the head?A salary cap?Instigator rule?

In my opinion it should be a few team relocating and much better revenue sharing. That's it. The league wants parity, but they don't want to pay for it.

Maybe the instigator rule too, but i'm not talking about things like that and the trapezoid

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 11:07 AM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

In my opinion it should be a few team relocating and much better revenue sharing. That's it. The league wants parity, but they don't want to pay for it.Maybe the instigator rule too, but i'm not talking about things like that and the trapezoid

here's a switch from my (so-called) socialist leanings:
I think revenue sharing is about as anti-capitalist as you can get, I never did like it. I have the same argument with the Cap. Can you imagine if those two things were presented in the real world of business?
"yeah hi, Mr. gates...."
good luck

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 11:53 AM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

here's a switch from my (so-called) socialist leanings:I think revenue sharing is about as anti-capitalist as you can get, I never did like it. I have the same argument with the Cap. Can you imagine if those two things were presented in the real world of business?"yeah hi, Mr. gates...."good luck

Remember the system they play in. Caps, salaries tied to revenue, limited options. It's not a free market. So since this is the world the NHL wants then make the best from it. The league functions as one and in order to succeed the teams have to also. Once they do then with competitive balance will come a stronger all around league.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 12:17 PM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

Remember the system they play in. Caps, salaries tied to revenue, limited options. It's not a free market. So since this is the world the NHL wants then make the best from it. The league functions as one and in order to succeed the teams have to also. Once they do then with competitive balance will come a stronger all around league.

I don't know about this. Does parity (a far nicer word than mediocrity!) really make for a stronger league and better "product"? I say no

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 10:43 AM ET  12.31 by Harry Crack

Pierre M. , afternoon games , the shoot out , horribly easy to get second assists...........

Second assists?

And yet, no one has YET to touch the greatest record in all of sports; the 10 points in one game record set by Sittler, Darryl

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 01:38 PM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

I don't know about this. Does parity (a far nicer word than mediocrity!) really make for a stronger league and better "product"? I say no

Parity means more fan bases buy in every year, it's what works so well in the NFL. When fan bases buy in they spend more money. More money from teams = better NHL. Parity is what every sport strives for now. Gone will be the dynasty days, for better or worse.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 11:53 AM ET  12.31 by Spiny Norman

here's a switch from my (so-called) socialist leanings:I think revenue sharing is about as anti-capitalist as you can get, I never did like it. I have the same argument with the Cap. Can you imagine if those two things were presented in the real world of business?"yeah hi, Mr. gates...."good luck

You're comparing free enterprise with an entity with immunity to anti-trust laws. Can't be done.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 12:17 PM ET  12.31 by Nard Dog

Remember the system they play in. Caps, salaries tied to revenue, limited options. It's not a free market. So since this is the world the NHL wants then make the best from it. The league functions as one and in order to succeed the teams have to also. Once they do then with competitive balance will come a stronger all around league.

Sober up and rewrite this.

And i never thought id say this...gulp.. good article Brooksie.