General Managers Have Lots to Discuss in Abbreviated Meeting

On Wednesday, NHL General Managers will be meeting together for the first time in this shortened season. It will be a one-day, 6 hour meeting. Usually they will meet twice a season, for two-day sessions.

They have a lot to talk about.

There has been a lot of discussion on what the main topics will be, but the three that seem most likely to me are the structure of overtime, mandatory gear, and, of course, trades. 

Shootouts are one of the most stressful, entertaining parts of hockey. But some GMs aren't in favor of it. 

“I’d like to have a little longer overtime,” Ken Holland, GM of the Detroit Red Wings said in an interview with the New York Times. “I’d like to see us play four-on-four for four or five minutes and three-on-three for four or five minutes. I’d like to have more games decided playing hockey.”

I personally like the idea of adding on additional minutes to OT, but what happens if no one scores then? I say keep the OT/shootout form the NHL currently has, but maybe make it a 10 minute 4 on 4 OT instead of 5 minutes. 

Adding on to scoring in OT and just in general, goalie gear has been talked about as well. Some think that goalie gear in general is getting much too bulky and unnecessary and hindering the ability of players to score. 

That's ridiculous. As long as the gear is within the mandatory guidelines, wear as much as you want.

Those guidelines will also be most likely discussed in relation to players wearing helmet visors. While the NHLPA will most likely not approve of a rule to make them mandatory, the GMs may take it upon themselves to say that's what they suggest players to wear. 

Lastly, there will be trade talks. 

Right now the trade deadline is a little over two weeks away, and there are rumors flying. But there are two complications this year. 

The first complication is next year's salary cap. It's about 10% less than this year's, and even though each team is allowed two compliance buyouts (Montreal and New York using one each already), no GM will be in a hurry to add much salary to the small amount of cap room they may have.

The second complication is how close the rankings are. Trades might be beneficial, but they could prove TOO beneficial to an opposing team you might be in the playoff race with. 

Wednesday should be a big day.

Really, Sports Illustrated?

Really, Sports Illustrated? 

Now, we all know that Sports Illustrated and ESPN aren't exactly the friendliest to the NHL and hockey in general. But this headline is just insulting. 

First off, three months ago, the NHL was NOT dead. It was just starting to recover from a (unnecessary) lockout. But arenas were sold out for opening day games. People still wanted to see hockey. To say the NHL was dead is an exaggeration. Sure, losing half a season takes away from the excitement, but even though fans swore they wouldn't come back, they did. 

Secondly, the game has always mattered. Maybe not to you, SI, but to all of us fans, players, and coaches, it will always matter. There could be a work stoppage every time a CBA expires but it will still matter to us. Just because it isn't a big enough sport to make it into your magazine half the time does not mean that it isn't big enough to impact lives. 

And finally, what about the streak makes hockey all of a sudden a "must-see"? It was just that - a streak. Sure, it was record breaking. But when the '11-'12 Wings won 23 games in a row at home and broke that record, where was their cover? How about the '92-'93 Penguins 17 game overall winning streak? (they got a cover the season before for the Stanley Cup, to be fair) And what about the '79-'80 Flyers undefeated streak (25 wins and 10 ties)? No cover for that either.

The Blackhawks did not make hockey a "must-see" by themselves. Hockey is a must-see because of the dedication of the players and the passion of the fans. Hockey is a must-see because of the energy in your home team's arena, when you're singing your team's goal song. Hockey is a must-see because it's a great sport, not because of the Blackhawks.

Should Visors be Mandatory?

Should Visors be Mandatory? 

This has been a problem we've seen numerous times. Player A is by the net. Player B shoots the puck. Puck is deflected off of Player C's stick, hitting Player A square in the face. 

Or maybe Player A is on defense, and decided to dive to block the shot. 

Either way, Player A gets a puck to the face. And this is much more dangerous than you think. 

Last night (March 5th, 2013), Marc Staal was hit in the face with a puck, and fell to the ground kicking in pain. He was able to skate off but did not return to the game. No word on his condition as of now.

Patrick Eaves suffered a broken jaw AND concussion from a puck to the face only  ten games into the 2011-2012 season, and missed the rest of that season.

Stevie Yzerman suffered a puck to the face during playoffs of 2005, requiring almost 5 hours of surgery to repair his eye and making him miss the rest of the postseason. He wore a face shield the next season.

A little different situation in 2000 involved Bryan Berard, playing for the Toronto Maple Leafs, getting hit in the eye with a stick. He missed a full season, and needed to get a contact to get that eye's vision up to 20/400, the league's vision requirement. 

Now, here's the question: Could all these injuries be prevented just by wearing visors? 

I say yes, of course. Visors would make all the difference (except perhaps in certain stick-to-face situations). 

But should they be mandatory?

I again say yes. I understand that players might have difficulty getting used to them if they've never wore one before. But to put comfort above safety is not the answer here. The question players need to ask themselves here is, "Would I rather wear a visor, or would I rather get a puck to the eye and possibly have my career ended?"