NHL teams were supposed to be opening training camps last weekend, and starting the season four weeks from now. Instead, we will lose the beginning of the season, and maybe more.

I have to admit that I'm not missing hockey as much as I thought I would. Now I have an extra 3 hours, three times a week, to hit refresh on the BBS in hopes of a new posting. Plus, Toronto's best chance at a Stanley Cup may come from a half-season that wouldn't damage the fragile veterans so much.

Anyone else thinking that a couple of southern teams declaring bankruptcy and throwing a bunch of players out of work might light a bit of a fire under both the owners and the union to get back to the bargaining table? I could very easily live in a world without NHL teams in Tampa and Anaheim.

You probably won't hear them come out and say it, but having a few teams fold is probably exactly what the players want; or more accurately, what they are willing to accept in order to keep their salaries high. If 20% of the teams fold, that still leaves 80% of the players with high paying jobs - higher paying than if they were to agree to any kind of a salary cap.

Unfortunately, Calgary, Edmonton, and even Ottawa would be more likely to go than most of the tropical teams.

Jed wrote:If 20% of the teams fold, that still leaves 80% of the players with high paying jobs

I think it's safe to assume that if 20% of the players lose their jobs, it will be the least talented 20%, which is going to be more or less the lowest paid 20%.

I've read a couple of interviews where the players claimed that a salary cap would squeeze the low-paid players, and have minimal effect on the top guys. The message they are trying to send with these statements is that they are fighting for the "rights" of the low-paid journeyman players. If this is true (how much truth one should expect from either side of any labour conflict is a topic for another day) then the 20% who would be losing their jobs are the very players that the union is trying so hard to protect.

Jed wrote:Unfortunately, Calgary, Edmonton, and even Ottawa would be more likely to go than most of the tropical teams.

I believe that the teams in the southern US will be much harder hit by the lockout than Canadian teams. Up here, it has been big news since months before it started. When it ends, it will be front page news across the country. Everyone will be aware within 24 hours that hockey is back.

In the south (say, everything from Carolina/Nashville on down) there is very little awareness yet of the sport, particularly in the newer markets. High school basketball gets better TV ratings in many cities than the NHL! Those teams all have huge advertising budgets just to keep themselves on the public radar. I bet that if you were to ask people in Nashville, a large fraction of those that even knew they have a hockey team to start with would simply think that it had folded or moved away. Attendance in southern cities will lose a lot of momentum as a result of the lockout, far moreso than any team in Canada.

Greg,
Happy anniversary on this post. Not often that a post can be a year old and still be the newest topic in a bbs forum. Congrats.