Around the NHL: Free Agent Frenzy begins July 1 at noon

[haseoke39]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/...te-changes-to-goalie-equipment-blocked-shots/

Limiting certain types of blocked shots would be interesting.

I think reducing goalie gear is a red herring. They've done it a few times already and the results haven't been there.

The problem there is that goalies are bigger, better coached, and more athletic than ever before. Shrinking the gear just makes them even more agile.

They don't want that tapered jersey rule. Nothing uglier than a goalie whose jersey is too tight.

As for no going full slide to block shots, I could be convinced. You might not have much of an effect, though. In 2-3 years time, everyone would try to change their shot blocking style to fit the new rule. I'd accept a trial run in a lower league maybe.

 

[Jame]

They don't want that tapered jersey rule. Nothing uglier than a goalie whose jersey is too tight.

As for no going full slide to block shots, I could be convinced. You might not have much of an effect, though. In 2-3 years time, everyone would try to change their shot blocking style to fit the new rule. I'd accept a trial run in a lower league maybe.

Oh god I would hate a shot blocking rule so much.

The NHL knows how to increase scoring... We already did it once and it worked. Call Obstruction! Period.

I'm also interested in tweaks like the proposed face off rule (defending zone center has to put their stick down first). That at least increases the value of a skill, rather than limiting it like a shot blocking rule.

 

[Baccus]

Oh god I would hate a shot blocking rule so much.

The NHL knows how to increase scoring... We already did it once and it worked. Call Obstruction! Period.

I'm also interested in tweaks like the proposed face off rule (defending zone center has to put their stick down first). That at least increases the value of a skill, rather than limiting it like a shot blocking rule.

They very much just need to call the penalties. Making new judgement calls for the refs is not a good idea. Making the nets bigger would be just terrible.

Also, more over the glass penalties for Jame

 

[BowieSabresFan]

Oh god I would hate a shot blocking rule so much.

The NHL knows how to increase scoring... We already did it once and it worked. Call Obstruction! Period.

I'm also interested in tweaks like the proposed face off rule (defending zone center has to put their stick down first). That at least increases the value of a skill, rather than limiting it like a shot blocking rule.

Yea, just call obstruction, that would make a big difference I think. I've also always been a proponent of not allowing free icing for the short-handed team on power plays.

 

[OkimLom]

Yea, just call obstruction, that would make a big difference I think. I've also always been a proponent of not allowing free icing for the short-handed team on power plays.

I'm actually a fan of having the icing line moved to the each team's defensive zone blueline. I think it would keep the flow of the game going and it would force teams on PK to work to get it out of their zone instead of turning around and firing it. Leave the whole "no line change" after an icing in.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I think I'd support a floating blue line. ie, once a team has gained the offensive zone, the blue line becomes irrelevant and the puck has to be cleared past the center ice line to be considered out. It'd create a lot more room for teams to work with offensively, it'd increase the value of skill/passing amongst D (because it's a hell of a lot harder to chip it past the red line without icing it than just softly dumping it out to center ice), I think it would open up the neutral zone more (because, you know, no more of the puck going past the blue line and then the entire team that was attacking now just backing up and trying to clog up the middle of the ice), and it would likely create a lot more scenarios where tired D get hemmed in and stuck on the ice, meaning more mistakes, meaning more scoring chances.

I'd much rather see a rule change like that than something like making the nets bigger anyway. Making the nets bigger might increase scoring some, but it's not going to make the game any more skilled or exciting to watch. It just addresses a symptom, not the actual problem.

But just calling obstruction again could work too.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Oh god I would hate a shot blocking rule so much.

The NHL knows how to increase scoring... We already did it once and it worked. Call Obstruction! Period.

I'm also interested in tweaks like the proposed face off rule (defending zone center has to put their stick down first). That at least increases the value of a skill, rather than limiting it like a shot blocking rule.

Actually, regardless of officiating standards, the on-ice product will continue to be sub-par so long as the current points system incentivizes teams to play for the loser point in tied third periods.

 

[Jim Bob]

Actually, regardless of officiating standards, the on-ice product will continue to be sub-par so long as the current points system incentivizes teams to play for the loser point in tied third periods.

I wonder if it would help if they went to a 3-2-1-0 points system where you get 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for an OT/Shootout win, 1 pt for an OT/Shootout loss, and 0 pts for a regulation loss.

And yeah, go back to the strict calling of all obstruction.

It was working and I never understood why the NHL let the standard slip.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[DapperCam]

You'd think the NHL would pick up the fact that all of the fans just want obstruction called like it was post lock-out.

Sure there would be a large up-tick in penalties called the first couple of years it was enforced, but players would adjust. Scoring would go up, and the game would have a better flow.

My proposed rule changes:
- Call hooking, holding, interference, etc. to the letter of the law. Call it every time. Create very clear definitions for these penalties. Make video demonstrations if you need to (similar to the hit to the head vids that were released).
- A hit to the head is 10 + game every time. It doesn't matter if the guy ducks around at the last minute. It certainly shouldn't matter if he's injured or not (how that plays into suspensions at all is a mystery to me). Intent should not matter. Hit to the head and you're out of there. Players will adjust. Not every one will warrant a suspension though.
- No more of this make up call non-sense. Or calling penalties to "even it out" if one team is more penalized than the other. I don't know if this actually happens, but it seems like it does.
- No swallowing the whistles in the playoffs. Call it identically to the regular season. Again...players will adjust. I've seen so much interference and holding this postseason.
- Change the point structure to 3-2-1-0
- Extend overtime to 10 min in the regular season.
- Rebalance the divisions so they have the same # teams.

No need to mess with net sizes or goalie pads.

 

[TehDoak]

To be 100% honest, this might be a genius move by the city of glendale. Think about this:

A) The lease was just awful for the city. They were subsidizing the coyotes to the tune of 7M a year (15M -8/9M in services they charged the coyotes for)
B) The new ownership just OVERPAID a huge amount for a 51% stake in the Coyotes...why? Because they knew the loss limit would be hit and they could relocate in a few years.

If they force a relocation now, they save 14-21 Million (minus court costs) and they'd get blamed anyways when the Coyotes DO eventually relocate. By forcing their hand now, they either get a new lease that is more favorable and removes the out clause OR the Coyotes leave now instead of in 2-3 years and actually saves the city money. Of course, I'm sure Arizona wanted to hit that out clause JUST as a new arena in seattle or las vegas opened up....

 

[BakedBuffalo]

You'd think the NHL would pick up the fact that all of the fans just want obstruction called like it was post lock-out.

Sure there would be a large up-tick in penalties called the first couple of years it was enforced, but players would adjust. Scoring would go up, and the game would have a better flow.

My proposed rule changes:
- Call hooking, holding, interference, etc. to the letter of the law. Call it every time. Create very clear definitions for these penalties. Make video demonstrations if you need to (similar to the hit to the head vids that were released).
- A hit to the head is 10 + game every time. It doesn't matter if the guy ducks around at the last minute. It certainly shouldn't matter if he's injured or not (how that plays into suspensions at all is a mystery to me). Intent should not matter. Hit to the head and you're out of there. Players will adjust. Not every one will warrant a suspension though.
- No more of this make up call non-sense. Or calling penalties to "even it out" if one team is more penalized than the other. I don't know if this actually happens, but it seems like it does.
- No swallowing the whistles in the playoffs. Call it identically to the regular season. Again...players will adjust. I've seen so much interference and holding this postseason.
- Change the point structure to 3-2-1-0
- Extend overtime to 10 min in the regular season.
- Rebalance the divisions so they have the same # teams.

No need to mess with net sizes or goalie pads.

A lot of people completely misinterpret what calling obstruction means. It's NOT about increasing PPs to increase scoring. Naturally, that will happen, but that is not the big thing. There are more underlying implications to calling obstruction correctly. As the more strict rules are implemented, the players' will naturally have to back off, thus opening up the game, thus creating more chances and room to make plays. The PPs are just a byproduct. Plus, over time, the penalties will revert back to relative normalcy once the players know what they can and can't get away with.

The focus is too much on the PPs and their correlation to scoring, but that's not really that case at all.

 

[Jame]

Actually, regardless of officiating standards, the on-ice product will continue to be sub-par so long as the current points system incentivizes teams to play for the loser point in tied third periods.

More scoring = less tied 3rd periods

Regardless, I'm with you in changing the point system

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

More scoring = less tied 3rd periods

Regardless, I'm with you in changing the point system

Point. Your idea is better, just still not optimal under the current point system.

And one proposal I found interesting was to keep current obstruction levels through the neutral zone - to prevent defensemen getting blasted on every dump-in by a guy screaming in untouched from his own blueline - but cracking down on obstruction in the defensive zone, to prevent the "clog the paint and tackle dudes on rebounds" strategy that won the Bruins and Penguins Cups.

It was working and I never understood why the NHL let the standard slip.

Mostly because regressive voices with clout blamed the increased speed of the game for a perceived rash of injuries from 05-09 (instead of the predatory "put a guy on YouTube" hitting culture that still runs rampant in the league) and got it to stick.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Oh god I would hate a shot blocking rule so much.

The NHL knows how to increase scoring... We already did it once and it worked. Call Obstruction! Period.

I'm also interested in tweaks like the proposed face off rule (defending zone center has to put their stick down first). That at least increases the value of a skill, rather than limiting it like a shot blocking rule.

2005-06 was the best hockey i saw in 20 years.( think it was that year?)

Fixed. Cant remember back 10 years ago

 

[DazedandConfused]

2004-05 was the best hockey i saw in 20 years.( think it was that year?)

Your thinking 05-06. Unless your a huuuuuuuuuuuuge CHL fan.

 

[ZZamboni]

2004-05 was the best hockey i saw in 20 years.( think it was that year?)

The lockout was the best hockey?

There's a joke in there somewhere

 

[26CornerBlitz]

With the recent settlement of a class-action antitrust lawsuit targeting the NHL’s TV blackout policy , hockey fans will be able to see their favorite team play on the road without being forced to subscribe to a league-wide content package.

The NHL team defendants involved in the lawsuit included the Buffalo Sabres, Chicago Blackhawks, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Washington Capitals. They agreed that, along with broadcasters Comcast Corp., DirecTV and Madison Square Garden Co., the league used blackouts to limit out-of-market game broadcasts.

 

[Jame]

With the recent settlement of a class-action antitrust lawsuit targeting the NHL’s TV blackout policy , hockey fans will be able to see their favorite team play on the road without being forced to subscribe to a league-wide content package.

The NHL team defendants involved in the lawsuit included the Buffalo Sabres, Chicago Blackhawks, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Washington Capitals. They agreed that, along with broadcasters Comcast Corp., DirecTV and Madison Square Garden Co., the league used blackouts to limit out-of-market game broadcasts.

whoa....

wait... is this only for locals to purchase packages for their local teams road games?

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

whoa....

wait... is this only for locals to purchase packages for their local teams road games?

The NHL has blackout rules for Center Ice and GameCenter. The blackout rules are "designed to protect the ratings of the network that owns the TV rights for the local team" (cbssports) The suit is claiming that this is allowing media providers to rate hike because there's artificially no alternative to buying their products. So a win would be that the NHL could no longer blackout local market games on GameCenter and Center Ice because it creates a monopoly.

 

[Sabretooth]

With the recent settlement of a class-action antitrust lawsuit targeting the NHL’s TV blackout policy , hockey fans will be able to see their favorite team play on the road without being forced to subscribe to a league-wide content package.

Does this mean if I live out of market, I can buy the directv sports pack which includes MSG and the games will no longer be blacked out?

Because currently, I can have MSG without having centerice, but the feed goes black when games are on.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Jackman moves on after Blues opt not to re-sign him

ST. LOUIS -- For the first time since being selected by the St. Louis Blues in the first round of the 1999 NHL Draft, defenseman Barret Jackman faces the prospect of wearing a different jersey in 2015-16.

Jackman, 34, will be allowed to become an unrestricted free agent July 1 after being informed by the Blues that they will not re-sign him before free agency begins on July 1.

Not a great surprise given their other priorities.

 

[Paxon]

The NHL has blackout rules for Center Ice and GameCenter. The blackout rules are "designed to protect the ratings of the network that owns the TV rights for the local team" (cbssports) The suit is claiming that this is allowing media providers to rate hike because there's artificially no alternative to buying their products. So a win would be that the NHL could no longer blackout local market games on GameCenter and Center Ice because it creates a monopoly.

That's pretty absurd. This isn't equivalent to a cartel colluding to control the prices of oil or railway shipping. It's more equivalent to suing Apple because you can't buy an iPhone at Wal-Mart. The NHL creates a product and can determine how it wants to sell it.

 

[joshjull]

@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Anaheim has been given permission by Ottawa to speak with Paul MacLean about its vacant asst coach's job. Also going to talk to others, too

 

[zenthusiast]

That's pretty absurd. This isn't equivalent to a cartel colluding to control the prices of oil or railway shipping. It's more equivalent to suing Apple because you can't buy an iPhone at Wal-Mart. The NHL creates a product and can determine how it wants to sell it.

Within certain restrictions, which will be the root of the issue