![]() |
|
|
February 07, 2006
The NHL GM Meetings
The NHL brain trust is meeting out in Nevada this week, and there are a number of items on the agenda just before the league slips into its two week Olympic break. At the top of the list is goalie protection, the unbalanced schedule (which nearly everyone hates) along with a possible realignment that might make the Western Conference look like this: - Pacific: San Jose, Vancouver, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix. - Northwest: Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton, Chicago, St. Louis. - Central: Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, Columbus, Dallas. Nothing says Northwest like St. Louis and Chicago. Of course, the easy solution to that problem is to get rid of the geographical references, and replace them with the old names we used from the founders of the game. Sure, you'd have to add two new ones, so here's a proposal: Reinstate the traditional division names: Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe. Because you have another two divisions to work with, just give them the old conference names, Wales and Campbell, and keep the geographic division for the two conferences, East and West. I think it's a compromise that could work. For another proposal, check out Thomas Luongo. Moving Vancouver out of the Northwest and into the Pacific won't please their fans, especially if the unbalanced schedule is kept in place. Having Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver in the same division is good for hockey -- trust me, as I've watched many late Saturday night games involving these three teams. Of course, business decisions are important, and with the Stars in the Pacific they're in the same boat as their baseball neighbors, the Texas Rangers: Stuck in a division with teams two time zones to the West, with television revenue suffering as a result. But if you ditch the unbalanced schedule, this could be alleviated to an extent. But wait, there's more: There will also be a debate about the new sweaters and socks that will be imposed for the Olympics and are scheduled to come to the NHL. The problem is that no one likes them except the league's New York office and the people who make them, both of whom see them as a nifty source of profit. Back in November when NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman gave a speech at the National Press Club, I noted that he seemed way too excited about this idea. I have my doubts, but I'm willing to watch the Olympics before I pass judgement. Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsIf they're going to realign divisions why not go a step further and realign the conferences. Nashville is the closest NHL city to Atlanta yet they're not even in the same conference, let alone same division. It's tough to find someone in the east to bump over though. that would be taken care of if Pitt moved. Posted by:
I'm sorry, what? I didn't quite get that ... I think I have something CRAZY in my ear (or eyes, since I'm reading this and not hearing it). The Blue Jackets in a division made up of the Red Wings, Stars, and Predators? Why not just fold the team right now? That's all but assuring that the only chance they ever make the playoffs in the future is through some wild and crazy fluke, no matter how good they get, because of the fact they'd be playing 24 games (shame on the unbalanced schedule) against against teams that are all but locked into consistant .500+ seasons for a while to come. Posted by:
For new division names, how about the Gretzky (Pacific) and Brooks (Southeast)? I agree that you don't want to separate Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary; why not swap Colorado over to the Pacific in that case? I'd also like to see Nashville in the SE, and my impression is that Washington would love to get back into the Atlantic/Patrick with Philly and the Rangers. If Pittsburgh moves, both of those can happen. Posted by:
Post a commentThanks for signing in, . (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |