The Sports Daily > The Pensblog
Gord from Canada makes a good point

Besides having an awesome last name, Gord Miller doesn’t bring much to the table for me. He’s your typical old school Canadian hockey guy who doesn’t put much weight into stats and thinks fighting still has a place.

Actually, his entire online existence can be summarized with two tweets:

I follow for the ladder, obviously.

Anyways, Gord’s Twitter feed produced another gem this morning (we have to assume this was his wife’s idea):

Not just one change from the walking, talking stereotype, but THREE! And I’ll be damned if they don’t make a lot of sense.

1.) Three points for a regulation win makes unlimited sense. Even if you like the loser point (you must be from Philadelphia), you have to agree that it doesn’t do anything to help the product the NHL *wants* to put out. Tell me if you’ve seen either of these scenarios before: 1.) Team with lead plays ultra-conservative to protect lead late in game, or 2.) Two teams tied late in game play ultra-conservative to ensure game goes to OT and loser point is “earned”. Giving three points for a win in regulation does a little more to create separation in the standings between the teams that are actually good and the other teams that are just kind of…there.

2.) You don’t see many players stick around with the same team, so this would be a cool little wrinkle to give teams an incentive to keep players. Also, it would provide some motivation for those players to stay with the same team since theoretically the cap savings could be used on another player that could come in and help. It would also make the draft and trade deadline a lot more interesting, since it would then be harder to obtain players through free agency. There are a lot more ins-and-out that could transpire through the cause and effect of this rule, but those are the three that stand out most to me.  Either way, Gord is two for two here.

3.) Looking at you, Edmonton. Again, unlimited sense to punish teams for being stupid. If you whiff and just keep whiffing, why should you just continue to be rewarded with the same chance to whiff again? Just because you are a bad team and are going to stay bad, shouldn’t prohibit another bad team from getting better. Basically, I could have just wrote “Edmonton” 100 times in this paragraph and you would have got the picture.

So in conclusion, a big day for Gordo. Three well-thought points to start the day. What do you think? Would these proposals help or hurt the game? Sound off below.

One thought on “Gord from Canada makes a good point

  1. #1 – That was a gimme.

    #2 – This would have saved Chicago from the misery they’re in now. It would also allow the Pens to be unstoppable (Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Dumoulin, Rust, soon to be Maata and others all at half price!) I guess it comes down to if you would rather see dynasties or not. It certainly rewards teams for building from the ground up – and that’s hard to argue with. It might create an incentive to tank…depending on how you view point #3. Also would be a kick to the nuts for teams in struggling markets if they just don’t have the money to basically be spending over the current cap(which is supposed to be the point of the cap).

    #3 – I like it. Then again, the draft will never be perfect. Every answer has its pitfalls(you could keep getting the 2nd overall pick with no penalty).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s