Coming back to the Blackhawks and the league vis a vis cost reduction…it is not Gary Bettman who determines the agenda, but the Board of Governors. Bettman is basically the referee–the owners are ‘the players’.

The NHL, throughout its history, has been slow to embrace change. Any of the books I have mentioned to you–especially “Power Plays” by Bettman’s predecessor, Gil Stein–makes that clear.

“Power Plays” also has a fascinating study of William W. Wirtz, who remains a controversial figure, and for good reason…given Wirtz’s immense fortune, overwhelming personality, and position as one of the NHL’s power brokers for many years.

I highly recommend Stein’s book for a look inside the league’s workings, and a key to understanding, at least in part, what made Bill Wirtz tick.

From the introduction: “Behind closed doors, there are power plays, stickhanding, bare-knuckle fistcuffs, and shoot-outs that will put to shame anything you will see on the ice.”

Thankfully for Blackhawks fans, the regime of Rocky Wirtz has shifted the focus to the success of the team.

But there is still a contingent of writers/commentators who can’t wait to pounce when the Hawks organization “gets it wrong” …in their view.

As I mentioned, Stan Bowman has managed to deflect or even ignore what is written and said. He has, from what we see so far, a plan that embraces the change that has taken place in the NHL–the trend towards younger, cheaper players surrounding a highly paid core with expectations to match.

After several seasons of dramatic change, Bowman appears to have put in place the personnel and salary structure that will be followed for the next few years, or at least until the new CBA.

The young Hawks selected by Bowman’s staff, like the Hayes Brothers, Morin, Rensfeldt, Vishnevskiy, and so on, represent where the team may be headed.

The Hawks are now once again part of the so-called ‘elite’ teams. Bowman’s challenge is to make sure they stay there.

I’m sorry if I got the commentary a bit off-track, but I actually trust in the talent of the 2010-11 Hawks more than I do the future of the NHL, FWIW. In other words, the greatest limitation I see for the future of the Blackhawks may be the future of the NHL.

Another team going BK would not be pretty.

I think we are headed for one or the other of the following scenarios:

1) The “hard cap” approach continues. I would argue that this is the “Gary Bettman saves face approach.” This would enable at least some of the marginal American teams in the S-SW to continue operations for at least another cycle of the CBA.

As you envision, the marginal veteran would cease to exist, at least over time. The problem I see is little continuity from year-to-year. Most fans, eithher casual or hard-core, don’t seem to like this approach. I am basing this on my experiences as an American sports fan of all four leagues.

To give myself as an example, I am an Indiana resident. Traditionally, most Hoosiers will follow the Colts and Pacers. Since there is sort of a hockey and baseball vacuum, Indiana residents will follow either the Cubs, Cardinals, or Reds, based on their location within the state. Similarly, hockey fans tend to follow the Red Wings, Blackhawks, or Blues. Again, regionalism seems to be the key. Winning certainly doesn’t hurt.

I don’t think there is such an animal as a “casual hockey fan” in Indiana. There is no local hockey tradition, since even Northern Indiana isn’t cold enough for a real season of pond hockey from year to year.

For example, the Bluejackets are sort of screwed. Hardcore hockey fans don’t care about Columbus. They could win the Cup next year, and no one in Indiana, or even most of Ohio, would care. Due to inter-collegiate rivalries and pre-existing loyalties, an Ohio team is the last concern on any Hoosier’s mind.

From a Midwesterner’s/Midsoutherner’s standpoint, the status quo is more or less a zero-sum game, at best. Most hockey fans in Indiana, Kansas, the Dakotas, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. would be in favor of retraction. We have no “natural” team, and we tend to follow teams from the second wave of expansion or so-called “Original Six” teams. No one really gives a shit about the Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, etc. outside the teams’ own metropolitan areas.

2) Massive restructuring, realigment, and/or relocation, including the possibility of retraction.

In my mind, this is the future of the NHL, and the sooner someone nuts up and does it, the better. I am an original season ticket holder for the Lightning, and my real passion for the game only goes back that far. At the same time, that doesn’t make two South Florida franchises a viable plan. The entire image problem that the NHL has as a “fourth sport” is largely due to carrying deadweight in non-hockey, warm weather markets. (Thanks again, Bettman.)

I don’t care if the overall population of the U.S. is larger than Canada, that doesn’t translate into t.v. ratings in non-hockey states. I think that a hockey team in Indianaplis would have had a better chance than the Nashiville Predators, just for example. At least we see ice in nature every year!

Regional teams were a viable strategy for the NFL and MLB for decades. It’s known as making money the old-fashioned way, i.e. having a virtual monopoly. There are too many teams in the Mid-South and Deep South for anyone in the NHL to turn a respectable profit and compete.

I would be all in favor for about 24-26 teams, with at least two more franchises in Western Canada. This would be the key to damn better hockey on the ice as well, IMHO.

There’s a lot of good points being made left and right in this thread, and I’m too tired to address them all systematically.

1. The Spurs (NBA) have had some succes by adding roleplayers from International competition to supplement their superstars. The best example was adding Fabricio Oberto in 2007. It was pretty obvious that Oberto, who had limited (but very real) skills, made a much bigger impact when on the court with fellow Argentinian Ginobili. This was due to their years of playing together and mutual friendship.

This model doesn’t really hold true with Tomas Kopecky and Marian Hossa. That is, they could be very tight, but they haven’t logged any significant time together on the ice, from what I have been able to determine. Obviously, playing the same position (RW) doesn’t help. I agree that Kopecky is more of a third-line player, but I wouldn’t be adverse to trying the two of them out together on the same line in a few “walk-over” games.

Since Hossa is signed long-term, and the Hawks control Kopecky’s destiny for another year, I don’t see any harm in pairing these two and observing the results for a few games. As much as I hate to use the term, hockey is all about “synergy,” and the team will be losing a lot of established synergy next season. The best-case scenario would be increased productivity from Kopecky, and the worst-case scenario would be just another case of “Quenneville being Quenneville.”

This really depends on either Hossa or Kopecky being comfortable as a LW, or Hossa assuming more of a C role. Don’t forget, both Hossa and Kopecky shoot left, FWIW. This is more of a pipe dream than a real strategy.

2. Like Byfuglien, Niemi is a product of a team concept and team execution, at least as much as individual talent. That is, if he commands too much salary, good luck, buddy. Niemi is almost as flawed as Leighton, but he had the advantage of playing for the better team. Now that the adrenaline has died down, look back at some of the playoff games. Yes, Niemi stood on his head for the San Jose WCF series. He stole a few game here and there, IMHO. Did it matter? We can’t really say. (If I could, I would be making my living at the sports book at Caesar’s Palace, not commenting here!)

There is a lot of goalie talent still available, and I would be willing to roll the dice (assuming that Rocky is willing to eat the Huet contract). If Nabokov and/or Turco are willing to sign a one-year K, I’m more than content for Niemi to be a theoretical second-stringer or an arbitration casualty.

I admit that I’m being pretty hard on Niemi, but as a Stanley Cup winner, he will find his payday eventually. Again, I don’t think he’s a stiff, but it’s pretty obvious that he is a product of overall team defense. When the Hawks fail to play proper team defense, he gets shelled. As much as I hate to use the word, it’s about “synergy.”

3. I think Hossa could play C. A lot of what others have written so far would be retracted if somehow the Sad Panda emerged as a center. I realize that this is a little crazy to expect, since Hossa is now 31. Still, am I just a fool, or does he play more like a center? Huh? Huh!!! I think Quenneville shuffled the lines in the Finals precisely because you can have too many “playmakers” on one line. If Hossa could buy into this idea, I think the Hawks would be sitting pretty.

Again, call me a lunatic, but the 2010-2011 Hawks would look like world-beaters if they could roll Hossa in the C position.

First off, what many critics ignore is that there is no certainty as to whether the salary cap will continue to increase, or whether it will flatline (or go lower) when the next CBA is negotiated.

To a certain extent, it is in the owners’ best interests to see the salary cap reduced, simply because it allows to negotiate harder deals with the players.

The players stand to lose if the cap goes down. They won’t make as much money, and the mid-priced veterans will find themselves out of a job as soon as their contracts are up.

More and more ‘bad’ contracts (meaning those that don’t justify their value) will be waived…as we saw with Souray, among others, and as we will probably see with Huet.

Therefore, what Bowman is doing can be seen as anticipating a drop in NHL teams’ salary ceilings in the next few years. Trimming the roster down to a core while bringing in affordable, young, hungry talent makes economic sense.

It also makes sense to give the young guys a shot, because if he needs to trade someone, he then has a ready replacement.

PLUS…the young players today are SO much better every year, and in every way.

Having the kids battle for jobs with the veterans is good business…and ultimately makes for a team that competes harder.

Looking at the current collection, the message that ‘no job is safe’ may be a subtext in management’s approach.

This echoes the philosophy Conn Smythe pioneered in the 1940s, when he uttered his famous phrase “Put the kids in with a few old pappy guys who still like to win and the combination is unbeatable.”

Lest anyone choose to mock Conn Smythe, one of the builders of the NHL and a remarkably successful man, the Toronto franchise was never more powerful than when Smythe ran it with an iron fist…winning the Cup six times from 1942 to 1951, and four times in six seasons between 1962 and 1967.

Bobby Clarke puts this in perspective when he stated that “there’s not much difference in what it took to win the Cup in 1974 and 1975, and what it takes today.”

What Clarke was saying is that you can look at teams ‘on paper’ all you want…what matters is the level of desire and purposeful aggression a team is ready to bring when it counts most.

That was true in his day…and it remains true.

If the young, ‘new look’ Blackhawks have the guts and drive to set their sights on another Cup, anything can happen.

Anyways, here are a few thoughts on the way I see the lineup:

- I put Brouwer on the top line since I think that Kane and Towes play well with a “disrupting big” and since they have played together before, this is a plus. Also, I think that T-Brou will have a better year that Buff.

- I put Stalberg with Sharp and Hossa since I think that his speed plays better with Sharp (and they’re both UVM guys – okay, I know that means nothing, but “it’s a little known fact”). Whether he wants to be or not, Sharp is the second best center on the team, and he finally is with the program. Also, I think that Hossa can play with virtually anyone, but Bolland is one of those guys that Hossa can’t play with so…

- I put Bolland as the third line center because I think he makes the guys he plays with better (they feed off of him) and I think having him on the third line makes the Hawks deeper. Yea, he’s probably a bit overpaid as a third-liner, but he plays special teams too and he’s a luxury the Hawks have chose to afford. A year without back pain will serve us all well.

- I’m with you, T-Kop doesn’t quite have the hands for the second line – he’ll be an energy guy and his contract will serve as tagging room to resign Seabrook and one or both of Brouwer and Stalberg (whom I think will go off this year, more so than Versteeg would have).

- If Scott can become the big man, shut down guy, that’s great – bye bye Boynton and Hendry gets a reprieve, back to the 6th/7th D-man he was last year (a role he’ll share with Scott, depending on the match up).

- Here’s hoping that Niemi doesn’t crap the bed this year and that Crawford can be a capable backup.

- Any chance Hjammer signs before Niemi? I know, we have time, but it would be good to get him locked up.

The funny thing about this is that we’ll probably be doing more of the same next year since the talent in the system is going to need to be elevated, and some guys are going to get too expensive. There are going to be a lot of guys in the NHL that will have the Hawks seal of approval stamped on them before they move onto more money elsewhere.

The prospects camp in Chicago is July 9-12, and before/after that there possibly some changes left to be made.

Much depends on how the newcomers perform. There is a lot of talent to choose from.

The main thing in the short term, is stabilizing the situation with Niemi and Hjalmarsson.

Q. could use Stalberg with Toews and Kane.

Also Bolland could center the second line between Sharp and Hossa.

Dowell and Reasoner would be the pivots for the other lines.

There are options…Q. always seems to like Hossa and Kopecky toether although I wouldn’t play it that way.

Also depends if they want to keep Sharp at center or they want to try Bolland with Hossa again.

Crawford will be on the big club.

Niemi will be too……unless he goes to arbitration and is awarded crazy money.

Brouwer / Toews / Kane
Stalberg / Sharp / Hossa
Bickell / Bolland / Skille
Kopecky / Reasoner / Dowell

Not sure about Skille – I’ve never been impressed with him as I think he’s a low-skill top-2 line guy and not sure if he’s built for a checking or energy line. If he doesn’t fit here, I’d go after Aaron Asham (provided he can be had at a reasonable cap hit for a year or two).

Seabrook / Keith
Hjammer / Campbell
Boynton / Vishnevskiy

Scott is the 7th/D-man and 13th forward (combo).

I would resign Boynton as I think he handled himself well when he played and the Hawks need a big body, stay-at-home type to play with Vish-whatever. I think that Hendry is the odd-man out here.

Niemi
Crawford

I think that Crawford gets chance to prove himself and if he doesn’t, the Hawks pick a veteran goalie up mid-season either via trade or off the scrap heap.

Finally, I think that this team can be signed and make it under the cap. Oh, and I think that they can very much contend in the West, and for the Cup – ‘haters be damned.

So – whatta y’all think?

I really think Stalberg can be something special. If he can approach 20 goals for the season, which I will cede is a lot to expect, that will nicely round out the top 6 and make everyone wonder why they worried so much. While I loved Sopel, Eager, Madden, and Burish, they’re all role players and are replaceable. I feel Bickell’s size and Ladd’s size are interchangeable so that is a wash.

Byfuglien may not be missed so much during the season but, I’m not ready to start worrying about how he’ll be missed during the playoffs until the season plays out and we see what we have. StanBo has made some really smart moves and its starting to look like he could leave some cap space for the trade deadline.

In any case, I really enjoyed this season and I’m going to relish it just a little more before the puck drops in October. Many thanks to all current and outgoing Hawks! It was really a great thing to witness.

What a contrast to the TSN and SportsNet analysyts whose stock and trade is access and whose claim to fame is getting the scoop seconds before everyone else.

When one of their supposed best is a former Leafs enforcer forced out of the game by concussions, the fuzzy thinking in their collective analysis is quite understandable.

This is why the articles here stand head and shoulders above the rest – based as they are on carefully considered and balanced reporting, without the macho machismo that is the former NHLer’s forte.

As David Morris explains clearly, Stan Bowman has made the best of the hand that he has been dealt. What Mr. Morris does not say is that Bowman (not unlike Lamarillo) has gone about his business quietly without the bombastic BS of The Burke, and far more effectively as a result.

The Hawks development cupboard is stuffed to the breaking point and this year the best of these kids will finally break into the NHL with predictable success and a potantially large impact on this carefully balanced squad.

It`s a great time to be a Hawks fan as their prospects have seldom seemed brighter. I see the Hawks and Canucks as the class of the West next year and, as was the case this year, the East simply doesn`t matter.

Keep up the good words, and keep ‘em coming!

Your enthusiasm is infectious.

All the books I cited are available used from Amazon or Alibris.com, for a very affordable price, if you are so inclined.

And being a Hawks loyalist, you are always among friends here.

BTW I am most grateful to Al Cimaglia, who invited me to join HockeyIndependent, and whose own Hawkey experiences include some terrific stories. His podcast on XM Sirius–all included with his articles at HI–are well worth discovering.

You probably also know Mike Kiley’s work at Blackhawks Confidential; HockeeNight! and The Fifth Feather, as well as Sam Fels’ irreverent Second City Hockey…all fun to visit.

Thanks for the references. I live in SW Indiana, and I am more or less self-taught when it comes to hockey, much less hockey history. “Hockey: The Story of the World’s Fastest Sport” is the only one of these I have read. Our public library system doesn’t carry any of those later books.

I was a college student living in St. Petersburg when Tampa Bay got its expansion franchise. I didn’t seriously follow hockey until then, although I am a long-time bandwagon follower of the Hawks (oxymoron?) due to 1991-1992.

I used to be a regular contributor for “Another Cubs Blog” until I returned to school to take the classes I needed to sit for the CPA exam. I really didn’t know much about NHL history until I did a series of articles on parity and salary caps back in late 2008.

Technically, he is still one of the better goaltenders in the NHL.

The issue seems to have been that the Sharks are not a particularly good team when it comes to overall defense. And this is not to diminish the efforts of Todd McLellan and his staff.

The 2010 Russian Olympic team had similar problems in front of Nabby.

“Hockey:The Story of the World’s Fastest Sport” (Macmillan, 1969) by Dick Beddoes, Stan Fischler and Ira Gitler, is in my view, a must have in this regard.

If you are interested in delving into the aspects of the subject you cite further, I highly recommend the following:
>”Deceptions & Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey” (Dundurn Press, 2002);
>”Cracked Ice” by Stan Fischler (Contemporary Books,1999);
>”Power Plays: An Inside Look at the Big Business of the NHL” (Birch Lane Press, 1997) by Gil Stein.

Pro sports has never been the domain of nice guys…it’s the domain of the super rich.

On the bright side for Nabokov, his stats would likely improve enough to get a bigger offer in 2011-2012 after a one season stint with Chicago.

As I’m sure you know, the Norris story is even shadier than people imagine. Since many people may not know about it, I’ll share an excerpt from my article on NHL parity that I mentioned.

“The so-called ‘Original Six’ era was the NHL equivalent of the Dark Ages. Essentially, professional ice hockey resembled ‘sports entertainment’ more than a legitimate professional league during most of the era. The NHL even had its own version of Vince McMahon, James E. Norris. James E., sometimes known as James Norris, Sr. (to distinguish him from his son, who was actually James D.), essentially took over the league in just 16 years.

James E. Norris was a self-made Canadian-American millionaire and former McGill defenseman. In 1926, James E. was outbid for the Chicago franchise by Frederic McLaughlin. McLaughlin made the early Black Hawks competitive overnight by buying out the contracts of the WHL Portland Rosebuds, a pro team with a ten year track record. In 1929, James E. stole a march on McLaughlin by becoming one of the primary backers of the Chicago Stadium. This began a vendetta between Frederic McLaughlin and James E. Norris that lasted until McLaughlin’s death. Since the existing NHL owners would not allow James E. an expansion franchise, he decided to back the Chicago Shamrocks of the outlaw American Hockey Association (a.k.a. American Hockey League) in 1930. For the first and last time, the NHL was able to unite to keep James E. in check, and Norris withdrew his support from the AHA/AHL, which folded in 1932.

By 1932, the NHL had denied over five proposals from James E. Norris, including plans for an expansion team in any of the following areas: Chicago, New York City, St. Louis, Toronto, and various locales in the silver-mining country of Ontario. This included a proposal to bail out the struggling Ottawa Senators (folded in 1934) and relocate them to the Toronto area.

In 1932, James E. Norris launched upon an entirely new, dramatic strategy: becoming the landlord of the NHL in the U.S. In 1931, the Detroit Cougars and the Detroit Olympia Stadium went into receivership. In 1932, James E. bought the Detroit Olympia outright, and he leveraged this position into approval from the NHL to buy the Detroit club with Arthur Wirtz, which was reborn as the Detroit Red Wings. In the next 10 years, James E. Norris would acquire significant interests in all four of the NHL facilities in the U.S. In 1936, James E. bought the Chicago Stadium. By 1939, James E. had acquired a controlling interest in Madison Square Garden. By 1942, James E. also acquired a significant ownership interest in the Boston Garden.

In 1944, Norris helped longtime Black Hawks president Bill Tobin put together a syndicate that bought the team from the McLaughlin estate. It was an open secret that James E. actually made all of the major business and personnel decisions for the Black Hawks and Rangers until his death in 1952.

To recap, the Norris family essentially owned two teams outright (Chicago and Detroit), effectively controlled another (New York), and held significant influence over the remaining NHL team based in the U.S. (Boston) during the ‘Original Six’ era. Additionally, the Norris family owned the stadiums in Chicago and Detroit outright. During this period, critical journalists in the U.S. and Canada routinely denounced the NHL as the ‘Norris House League.’”

Basically, if you thought that professional baseball had some skeletons in the closet, you should look into the history of professional hockey. It’s pretty shocking. 

The Johnny Mariucci story bumped the Daze reference, though…

As has been noted by a number of hockey historians, the original intent of the Cap was (a) to ensure teams wouldn’t get into a spending war which would ultimately sink the weaker clubs (b) to implement ‘cost certainty’ whereby budgets could actually be planned based on a relatively stable salary mass.

In the case of the Chicago Blackhawks, the franchise itself was in danger of extinction in the 1950s before it was rescued by James ‘Jimmy’ Norris and Arthur Wirtz.

Ironically, Jimmy’s dad James Norris Sr. had wanted to buy the Black Hawks from the original owner, Major Frederick McLaughlin. When he was rebuffed, Norris went out and purchased the Detroit Falcons which he renamed the Red Wings.

Thus do rivalries begin.

As for the prospects of the Hawks in the Central Division next year, their objective will probably be what it was last year…to shoot for another Division title, as that has become the only guarantee of playoff seeding.

Looking at where Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis and Columbus are at, a second Central Division Championship is not unrealistic.

Right now, much rests on the upcoming negotiations regarding Antti Niemi’s filing for salary arbitration.

Depending on the result, Stan Bowman might just turn around call Marty Turco, Jose Theodore or Evgeni Nabokov.

The thought of the oft-victimized Nabby wearing the Indian Head could scarcely be more ironic.

Here’s yet another thought regarding expansion in the various leagues…

I was thinking about Atlanta, and two more points finally dawned on me.

First, when I was a youngster, Atlanta was more or less known as the pre-eminent city of Black America. I’m not sure this is really true anymore. (I’m pushing 40, so I’m talking about the ’70s-’80s.)

Second, when I was a youngster, the Atlanta teams were more or less it in the Deep South. Almost all of the pro teams in Florida, Tennessee, and the Carolinas have come into being in my lifetime. Only the New Orleans Saints and Miami Dolphins were around back then. The Atlanta teams used to be regional teams with larger potential fan bases. This was definitely true in the case of the Braves, who used to market themselves as such.

I’m thinking this may be a factor in the current struggles of the Braves, Hawks, Falcons, and Thrashers.

I agree that the NHL is the “weak link” in the “salary caps don’t work” argument. However, I did mention that franchise location was important, and I think this is essentially the same point you are making regarding Kovalchuk in Atlanta. That is, not all cities are created equal.

The NHL has a harder cap than the NBA or NFL, due to the NBA’s laundry list of exceptions and the ability to cut players in the NFL. (There are some limitations on the ability to do this in the NFL, such as signing bonuses.) I think the argument for a salary cap has its best evidence in the NHL’s system, but I also think that there are some other factors that explain the relative parity.

Since we sort of cross-posted, I’ll mention the fall of the Iron Curtain and over-expansion again. The talent pool expanded, but the number of franchises expanded during the same period. There may still not be enough “A-level” talent to go around. If true, this is not so much “parity” as “dilution.”

At the same time, some of the perennial losers seem to have no hope. Atlanta will never attract top free agents on any real scale, because they have no chance of winning. No doubt, the fact that Atlanta is not a top media market is a major part of the equation, but the Braves had no trouble in attracting free agents when they were winning. Conversely, the Clippers play in the same city as the Lakers.

Don’t get me wrong, I think you are on the right track with Kovalchuk. It’s really difficult to say for certain whether the primary factor is franchise location, market size, “winning tradition,” etc., precisely because all of these factors tend come together with the more successful franchises.