Burnside: What’s on the agenda for GM meetings

Burnside: What’s on the agenda for GM meetings:

In the second trade period of the new NHL, the marketplace has evolved quickly into a sellers’ market, where GMs looking to make additions for a playoff run will have to pay a premium price for what is always a premium risk.

[....]

Why? Simple. Because the new NHL is about seizing the moment.

Was it just a couple of months ago some media pundits were complaining that the new CBA had killed the trade market, and that the trade deadline would be a yawner?

[....]

Over the next few days, GMs will gauge their relative hunger for players such as Keith Tkachuk, Eric Brewer, Bill Guerin, Todd Bertuzzi, Gary Roberts, Jozef Stumpel, Martin Gelinas, Ed Belfour, Curtis Joseph, Fredrik Modin and Anson Carter.

Speaking for San jose, I’d be happy to take on Brewer, Roberts, Gelinas Guerin, Modin or Carter.

What else will be on the table during the meetings? Here’s a rundown of some things GMs hope will be discussed:

Another GM said he hopes his colleagues don’t do anything at all. Of all the pro sports, hockey is the one that seems determined to perpetually change itself. You don’t see baseball officials changing the size of the bases or enlarging the plate or moving the pitching rubber, he said.

football makes rule changes every year, many of them significant; look at the recent history of rule changes to change the balance between wide receiver and defender to encourage offense, for instance. That sport makes more changes, and many of them as significant as hockey, but nobody seems to complain. Maybe it’s because football is considered to be doing well and hockey is still (in the minds of some) struggling, therefore the changes are under a bigger microscope. The things the NHL are considering aren’t any more significant than the NBA outlawing the zone defense, or later removing that ban…

• It’s expected the GMs will at least debate the issue of larger nets and what the implications would be, along with no-touch icing.

One GM told ESPN.com he is all for an open discussion about a variety of changes, rules or otherwise, but thinks it’s imperative decision-makers use a wider lens on these issues, examining if changes will have the desired effect. Would bigger nets really improve scoring or would the same be achieved by further adjusting goalie equipment?

Another GM agreed, saying he thinks the move to lengthen the offensive zones after the lockout might have had the opposite effect. While more room was thought to mean more goals, this GM believes the larger space has made it difficult for forwards to get out to cover defensemen in the offensive zone. As a result, teams in the defensive zone tend to collapse into the middle of the ice, blocking a lot more shots.

You’d think the GM’s would learn. A few years back, they moved out the goal line, to give players more room to operate in “gretzky’s office” in hopes of generating more goals. What happened in fact was that they put enough room back there that a defenseman no longer had to risk the offensive guy slipping out the other side if he went back there — so instead, the defenseman simply joined the player behind the net and wrapped him up. oops.

After that, the NHL made a decision to test changes in the AHL first. Even taht’s not infallible, because the “no go” zones for the goalies seemed to work pretty well down there from all accounts, but NHL goalies quickly figured out how to minimize their impact, and they’re something that ought to be under consideration for elimination.

now, the move to increase the offensive zone seems to have the same effect as moving the goal line, causing more defense, not offense. I’d argue, actually, that the “collapse to the net” (or ‘sumo’) defensive style was coming on anyway, thanks to Minnesota and New Jersey and Calgary, and may be incidental to the change. it’s also a side effect of the changes to the contact rules in the slot, where defensemen no longer can “pull a chelios” on anyone who enters the slot, and instead actually have to play defense. And because they can no longer simply lumberjack anything within reach, coaches have figured out the most effective way to stop pucks is not to fight with the player generating the screen (which only makes the screen worse for the goalie), but to put their defenseman in front and have them block the shots before they get to the screen. End result: forwards in the slot aren’t bruised and bloodied, but shots are down, and shot blocks way up. and more defensemen likely wake up screaming in the middle of the night seeing pucks coming at their faces in their dreams…

So I’m not convinced it’s as simple as moving the line — but that wasn’t (as I remember it) tested in the AHL, either. It probably should have been.

From my talks to people recently, the bigger net is very unlikely to have much interest — of greater interest is to continue looking at slimming down goalie gear, but they have to decide what they can do while not reducing the goalies safety. There seems to be (gasp) a growing recognition that a goalie’s safety gear is there primarily to keep the goalie safe, not to stop pucks, and if the GMs actually can agree to that, goaltending will end up being much more of a skill position, rather than a positioning (and being hit by the puck) position.

The bigger net is being discussed, but I think the media is overplaying how high on the GM list it is, because it’s such a significant change to the game (well, in theory. I don’t think adding 2″ to the size of the goal is as serious as removing the red line or allowing the forward pass, or changing minor penalties to not be served the full 2 minutes after a goal…. The folks with their knickers in a knot need to look at the bigger picture and see the other huge changes the league’s done over the years…)

• There will also be some collective-bargaining housekeeping issues to deal with. A number of GMs would like to be able to make deals that allowed for teams to eat a portion of a player’s salary. For example, Colorado would love to unload Jose Theodore and his $5.3 million cap hit for this season and next, but aren’t likely to find any takers. If, however, they could absorb some of that salary and apply it to their own cap for next season, they might have more luck. GMs believe if this was an option, the stagnant trade market might open up more dramatically.

I think that makes sense.

I also think they need to revisit re-entry waivers, which was intended to keep a team from “parking” talent in the AHL to avoid the cap and move it in for the playoffs, and has instead meant teams like Vancouver and LA have goalies in the AHL they don’t dare risk bringing up, causing LA to instead have to deal for Sean Burke to cover their injuries.

Things I’d like to see the GMs take a look at:

1) Revisit the waiver rule: perhaps by allowing a player to be brought up as a designated injury replacement when someone is placed on IR, and to bring that player back OFF IR, the player brought up has to be sent back or pulled through waivers. That would eliminate the “parking” aspect of players in the AHL but give teams flexibility to cover legitimate injuries.

2) remove the “do not go” dodecahedrons for the goalies. Nice idea, goalies worked around them, just complicates things.

3) “over the glass”: I want to see them change the penalty for clearing a puck over the glass from a 2 minute minor to equivalent to icing, where the team can’t change players.

4) “no touch icing”: I’ve long been a proponent of no-touch icing. I’ve also spent a lot of time talking it over with people and listening to others who’ve studied this issue, and I’m now convinced we don’t need it, and it’d slow down the game and reduce excitement. What I do want to see, however, are strong sanctions against headhunting during an icing chase — so any penalty taken behind the goal line while an icing is called is an automatic major penalty. THAT will help ensure that the chaser doesn’t “not hear” the linesmen and goalies screaming “no ice” so they can take a shot and look surprised when icing is called…

5) smaller goalie gear — let’s see what we can do to safely reduce the gear, so taht goalies have to stop pucks, not “just” get in the way of them. (and yes, I’m trivializing how good even average NHL goalies here, but we need to rebalance their performance to the game some more…)

6) protect goalies — the NFL understands. you don’t sneeze on a quarterback without taking a penalty. the NHL needs to figure this out, too, because a hurt goalie can be the difference between a good playoff run and early tee time in today’s NHL. If we’re going to ask goalies to take on smaller gear and see their GAA go up, let’s at least try to protect them better… So let’s modify the goalie interference rule and the crease.

6a) First, go back to the semi-circle crease.

6b) Second, any player that makes contact with a goalie who’s skates are FULLY in the crease — automatic goalie interference. If a player from the goalies team is in contact with the player when he makes contact with the goalie, it’s coincidental penalties for both. By making it automatic, it’ll force coaches to coach players to STAY THE FREAK OUT OF THE PAINT. By making the coincidental also automatic, it’ll force defensemen to stop shoving guys into their own goalie hoping for an interference call. By making it automatic/no-tolerance for any action within the crease, it’ll cause the forwards and defensemen, and most importantly coaches, to adjust their play to avoid penalties, while avoiding long arguments about intent. In this case, we don’t care about intent, we’re giving the goalie the crease, and inside the crease, he’s untouchable (unless the puck is inside the paint with him. If it is, you can go in after it, as you can today).

6c) Third, outside of the paint, make it clear that the goalie can’t be checked, but incidental contact is allowed. If a goalie wants to come out to cut off an angle, players are allowed to make some contact with him. Goalie doesn’t like contact? stay in the paint. By making the crease a no-touch area, If we’re going to tell other players to stay out of the crease, tell the goalies to stay in, and give him incentives to do so.

6d) behind the goal line? if a goalie wants to act like a third defenseman, treat him as one. you can check him, and contact is allowed, since he’s not trying to focus on stopping a puck. Again, this is for a goalie to decide whether they want to do this or not; they can always stay in the crease. but the days of the “patrick roy floating screen and canival parade float” back there need to go away.

7) hits to the head: make any contact with the head by elbow or shoulder an automatic 5 minute major. make any stick contact with the head a major penalty. These days, players are willing to risk a “sloppy stick” because the penalty is most likely 2 minutes. Let’s give them incentive to care. hell, Scott Stevens wasn’t a small person, but he knew how to keep his elbow down. the “size difference” issue is over-used as an excuse for players not caring. use major penalties to make them figure it out.

You might also want to read:

1. We need bigger nets (oh, no we don’t!) KuklasKorner : Hockey: “Goalies have to get smaller or the nets have to get larger,” Regier said. “That goalie has to get significantly smaller for...
2. ESPN – Burnside: Did Bettman tell Preds to back off Balsillie talks? – NHL ESPN – Burnside: Did Bettman tell Preds to back off Balsillie talks? – NHL: Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie has accused NHL commissioner Gary Bettman of...
3. ESPN.com – NHL – Burnside: Day 2 of NHL GM meetings ESPN.com – NHL – Burnside: Day 2 of NHL GM meetings: As expected, GMs voted to expand the threshold on suspensions for instigator penalties from...
4. how to improve the NHL even more: rule changes for next year We’re about a third of the the way through the season, so I think it’s time to ask how the rule changes are working… And...
5. how hockey has changed… and how rapidly it’s changed. Nice CBC article on Jose Theodore, which had a comment that struck me funny: Theodore finished the year with an...