- Regarding Stanley cup winners it was quoted "the league has been more competitive over the last 20 years than it has at any time in its history". This was based on the number of cup winners and finalists. One thing that wasn't taken into consideration is the number of the teams in the league. For example, from 1940-48, I believe the NHL was basically a six team league. So 5 winners and 6 finalists in that time. Pretty good for a 6 team league.

- The article goes over the salary and revenue number of caps vs non-cap. And then comes up with the conclusion that contraction is the answer. However, not one example of contraction has been given to support the conclusion. The Cleveland-Minnesota contraction (1978-79) is an example, but was it successful? The WHA disbanding and creating 4 new NHL franchises could be looked as a form of contraction, but was it successful?

- Who pays the owners of the contracted teams? The owners of these teams will expect fair market value for the teams. 4 teams, anywhere between $200-400 Million. This money will be spread over the remaining owners. A tough pill to swallow.

- Another form of contraction may be better. Limit the team rosters to 3 lines (plus a couple extras). The salaries paid out will be reduced and the quality of the game will improve. The stars will shine since the talentless "checking line" (or clutch and grab line) will be gone. An improved product would create more interest and, hence, revenue. Increased revenue plus reduced expenses equals better profit.

-The 1940-48, 6 team league really isn't a viable comparison except on the surface. It has virtually nothing in common with the current NHL.

-What was the goal of the previous contraction effort? Was it for the same reasons, or did the teams just go under? I don't know the details on that and would be glad to learn. As for the WH>, I don't see adding teams to the NHL as contraction.

-This is an excellent point and one I didn't think much about. The easy answer would be to not bail out the next couple of teams in financial difficulties. In terms of fair market value being paid owners, I'm not sure how that would work. Let me think on it.

-Reducing the rosters would be a problem. I think a 3 line game would be less entertaining as all three lines would be exhausted late in periods, particularly in OT (and in the playoff OT marathons). Also, the 4th line is where many young players get a chance to learn the game and earn a spot, I don't want to see it get even harder for unknowns to break into the league.

Again, great points, and thanks!

Let's Go Caps!
www.washingtonhockey.com

Quote

---

...
-What was the goal of the previous contraction effort? Was it for the same reasons, or did the teams just go under? I don't know the details on that and would be glad to learn. As for the WH>, I don't see adding teams to the NHL as contraction.
...
-Reducing the rosters would be a problem. I think a 3 line game would be less entertaining as all three lines would be exhausted late in periods, particularly in OT (and in the playoff OT marathons). Also, the 4th line is where many young players get a chance to learn the game and earn a spot, I don't want to see it get even harder for unknowns to break into the league.

Again, great points, and thanks!

---

- In a strict sense, the disbanding of the WHA is not contraction (I can count too ). But there can be parallels drawn from it. The number of professional, "NHL" quality players was drastically reduced. What were the effects of this on salary (pre and post WHA)? What was the quality of play? There are contaction examples in the NFL and MLB as well (just don't know offhand). They should be examined before this conclusion is made.

- This point about reducing rosters... I heard from a sports station up here. An "old time hockey" player though of it (maybe Jean Belliveau??). So the league had smaller rosters at one time, and I don't think there was much problem with exhaustion of players. The 4th line is typically made of less talented, defensive specialists (can we say clutch and grab ). Reducing the roster would improve the average quality of player. The style would be faster, in general, and offensive production should increase. A more marketable product.

Either contraction or roster reduction would still hurt the younger player trying to break into the league. There would be fewer spots to obtain in the league overall.