The "new" NHL

Okay, so we know that we'll be feeling lockout repercussions for some time. The NHL will never be the same. Speculating on one possible change, Eric Francis writes in the Calgary Sun:

"Given the fact the Flames can now theoretically throw the same amount of money at a free agent as any other team, players will be more apt to choose Cowtown over most rival cities.

The same Alberta Advantage that has made Calgary one of the most desirable cities in Canada to live in, will likely see the team continue to flourish and grow much like the rest of the city.

"I think there will be more free agents who are attracted to Calgary," said Jarome Iginla, when asked how Cowtown will fare in the NHL's new marketplace. "It's easier for small markets to compete in free agency because the salaries won't be as high as they were before the 24% salary rollbacks."

Faced with choosing between a handful of teams offering roughly the same money, free agents will now look much closer at the cost of living and lifestyle issues that make Calgary much more favourable than most other cities."

Interesting. With the swell of free agents and a semi-return to salary parity, will players be more likely to judge possible teams on things like cost of living, the city, and the team itself?

Can't say I'm swayed that easily. I think most players will still focus on which team pays the most and which has the best chance of winning. But if it comes down to taking $750,000 to play in Edmonton or $800,000 to play in Nashville, which one would you take?

Initially, I think there will be a lot of movement, with player contracts being bought out and thus players shifting from team to team. However, if the cap in the NHL plays out anything like in the NFL (not that the two are really similar), we should eventually see player movement decrease, especially deadline deals. Teams won't be able to afford to "pick up a player" for a short playoff run.

--------------------

All is not well in Chicago. I'm sure I'm not the first to say that Chicago is a baseball town. Or a football town. And the AHL's Chicago Wolves are more popular than the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks. But did you know it was this bad: According to a poll by the Chicago Tribune on ChicagoSports.com, 54% of Chicagoans can't name a single Blackhawk player. And only 20.6% could name one or two.

Oh but it gets worse. Tribune columnist Rick Morrissey:

"The last time I wrote about the NHL, the response from readers was stunning. That's because there was no response. None. Zippo. A shutout.

The Blackhawks recently named a new general manager, Dale Tallon, and I wrote that there seemed to be actual hope hovering over our local shot-and-a-save outfit.

You responded with no discernable vital signs. A column about a Cubs middle reliever who likes to make balloon animals can bring 100 e-mails. A column about the Hawks and a new beginning brought zero.

And, yet, here I go, getting right back up on that Zamboni, risking life and self-image to write about a league that apparently has the mass appeal and relevancy of 14th-Century Incan religious carvings."

Ouch.

Comments

[Schick]

The problem with the Blackhawks (after numerous rants from Bob) is that their owner is crazy. They have a TV "deal" that never shows home games, since they never sell out. I think they might want to change that if the Hawks want more people interested in the team. I think it’s amazing that an Original Six franchise could be in such a state of disarray with nearly no fan support whatsoever.