David Puddy

I think the point he makes is a really good one. If the impetus behind the lockout is the help the small clubs survive, the solution should be more precise. With the proposed paycut, the Rangers, Habs, Leafs, etc. are going to make more money on the backs of the players.

http://www.askmen.co...ource=pulsenews Now, it would be completely ignorant of me to dismiss the fact that certain franchises are struggling financially. We all know this. The NHLPA has acknowledged this, and we are willing to make changes to help this group of teams -- but only this group of teams. We have no problem helping struggling franchises, but we also need revenue-sharing help from some of the "big market teams." A reduction in player salaries, without more, provides additional income to all the teams. In a league with record-setting revenue, there is certainly a solution in distributing revenue among struggling franchises. That solution will not be to take it all back from the players, this time around.

What I think the NHL needs is more collaboration between officials, so when we have the common situation of the back ref making a sh!tty call, the refs and linesman can get together and decide to pick up the flag. Or if one ref sees a penalty and raises the arm, but another sees that it was a blatant dive, they can conference and call only the dive instead of the non-penalty. (For example, stick missing the face but the player throws his head back.) Embellishment in the case of an actual penalty should be called as-is, offsetting penalties. I agree there should be fines, but only for blatant, no-question dives.

Yup. Why not charge $5 a game a la carte (with the ability to rewatch the game for 24 hours), or offer the entire season at something under Gamecenter's fees like $82 (dollar a game). As an out-of-towner, I'd gladly pay that, but don't want to pay the $160 for Gamecenter when I barely have time to watch Devils games, let alone out-of-town games.

It's nearly impossible to be that bad in the NHL since the lockout. Other sports... NFL and NBA... not so much. The NFL regularly has 2-14 teams (.125 winning %). There are fewer 1-15 and 0-16 teams, but it happens. In the NBA, there are always sub-.300 teams, and most of the time, there's someone very close to or under .200. The worst teams in the NHL (post-lockout) and MLB rarely dip below .300.

Thanks! It was a great resource for us out-of-towners.

Yikes.

mouse, if it makes you feel any better, 1994 Mitt Romney stands behind you 100%: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

With f'n Pierre as the sideline reporter... ugh.

Wonder what Semin will cost at that point...

Everyone's piling on Howson, but this had to handcuff him significantly. I doubt all 6 teams even made serious offers.

Phew.

HA HA

Just think of how sh!tty this would feel if you were one of Zach's friends on the Devils... Or maybe he didn't have any friends and that's why he left.

I'd be fine with this unless he's looking for a career contract. I'd rather have a higher cap hit than extra years at a lower salary.

I keep thinking... this has got to be really insulting if you were one of his Devils teammates who thought you were his friend.

People get this wrong a lot... From CapGeek: "It is important to note this does not mean decrease in salary is limited to 50 percent of the prior year's salary. It's 50 percent of the lower of the first two years of the contract." This means Zach's contract can drop up to $6m a season.

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." - Michael Jordan

Yeah but in those years, the cap will be MUCH, MUCH higher than $70m. If not, the league would have a huge problem on its hands. If this keeps up, by that point, the amount of actual money teams are paying to players will be lower than the cap hit, meaning the teams will be making bigger profits, which will lead to the cap going up even more. This is all just badly thought out.

The way the rule should work is the lowest year in the contract cannot be lower than a certain percentage of the highest year. (I think 33% would be reasonable... this would mean if the max were $9m, the "cheap" years would still be $3m.) This would completely eliminate this type of BS.

What a dumb statement by Zach. What about this one... "every kid who's grown up playing hockey would love to win the Stanley Cup." Good luck with that.

Just curious... I think I may burn my Parise t-shirt.

Zach's a great player but he's not a game changer. He strikes me as having an attitude of entitlement, and I will be surprised if he ever lifts the cup as a captain.

Who cares if it's a 35+ contract? If the Devils are no longer spending to the cap max, then it doesn't matter if Salvador has to retire and the cap hit stays. It's the real money that matters now, not the cap hit.

I think it's the opposite. Parise can shop around and take the offers back to the bargaining table w/ Lou.