I'm actually pretty geeked about this. This is the most significant movement since the lockout was announced. Both sides had concessions, and now it's just a matter of agreeing on a number for the cap. Right now they're $12 million off from each other, but I'm sure there's a resolution somewhere in the middle. With the NHL giving up on linking salaries to revenues, and the NHLPA realizing there's going to be a cap, now it's just up to some horse trading to get the right number.
The real question is if they do reach an agreement, what kind of season can they possibly have. If we assume they can pull the team together in a month, we have hit mid- March, which puts us close to Stanley Cup time. What would make it a 'valid' regular season to determine the playoff teams? Even if you played a six week regular season with 4 games a week starting in mid march, the best you could do would be what, 24 games, and that is a real stretch, 3 is more realistic. Also, would the same number of teams make it. It almost seems pointless to try to play if they agree now.
If this led to abbreviated playoffs and they kept them for coming years, I'd think the whole ordeal was worth it. I'd love it if the first two rounds were best of five, just something to make it a little tighter.
Hot Virgins-The World's Most Steadily Shrinking Commodity
Originally posted by Hogan's My DadIf this led to abbreviated playoffs and they kept them for coming years, I'd think the whole ordeal was worth it. I'd love it if the first two rounds were best of five, just something to make it a little tighter.
I COMPLETELY disagree. I think the best-of-seven format for all of the rounds works best in hockey. (Maybe because of fond Adams Divison playoff series between my then-beloved Bruins and the hated Canadiens, Sabres, Nordiques, and Whalers.) I'd like to see them shorten up the regular season, but what then of the records? Say Sidney Crosby is approaching 200 points but there are only two games left in the 72-game season. I don't think either scenario is particularly realistic.
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
I know that this was all covered in an earlier thread but the only way to play the season if they do decide to settle - which I still think is unlikely - is to play a 24 to 28 game "season" in order to determine the seedings for a 30 team tourney for the CUP. It would have to be best 2 of 3 in the opening round - 3 of 5 for the next round and then back to the best of 7 through the finals.
As for shortening the season, it's unlikely but it has happened already - a few years ago they played an 84 game season with neutral site games before they cut it back to the current 82 games.
I said it before and I will say again, I'm disgusted that hockey has allowed themselves to get to this point.
Golf is harder than Baseball. In Golf you have to play your foul balls.
By the way, a hearty congratulations to both sides as well as the NHL brass for bringing the negotiation process to where it should have been four months ago, except now there's about 20 hours to work out half of the main sticking point as well as everything else.
Although you get the feeling that the salary cap issue is like the first spaceship brought down in ID4. Once they get that sucker blown up and that battle plan gets figured out, the rest of the ships will fall pretty easy. It's just that first one that's a pain in the ass.
Good God, I did just use that analogy. What has this lockout brought us to?
(edited by Blanket Jackson on 15.2.05 1614) "Put up yer dukes, you lizard!"
We got the odd NCAA game here this year on The Score (Canada's 3rd-ranked sports station,) but only games that had some sort of "Canadian" connection...and by that, I mean there were a lot of players from Ontario on a team being shown.