2025-2026 NHL Offseason

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Being a Blackhawks fan I am supposed to hate the Blues.  I certainly don't like them, but I was a big fan of Brett Hull growing up and I dislike Dallas more.  So, I'm pleased that the Blues have eliminated them but that is the last I root for St. Louis.  I will say their fans deserve the thrill & spoils of seeing their team lift the Cup, though.

I liked Hull, but God did I love Al Macinnis.  He had that 100 mph slapper from the point, that came off like a ton of bricks.  Dude had to back off of it for fear of hurting people.  How many players have ever done that??

Ranking the 10 Hardest Slap Shots in NHL History

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2679131-ranking-the-10-hardest-slap-shots-in-nhl-history#slide1




According to the bleacher report, you would be correct.  Look, he did it with a wooden stick...how 'bout that.

If he did let off his shot, it likely was to prevent injuring a teammate in front of the net.  But even then, I'm not convinced he would take much off his shot...he sure as heck was not doing it help his opponents.

I remember hearing/reading that he did take something off during power plays but to protect players in general, not just his own.  He also tried to keep it down.  Who knows how much that means, but I just remember that from back in the day.  He was dangerous out there.  Split a goalie's mask in half one time.  

HesCalledDyer said:

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Being a Blackhawks fan I am supposed to hate the Blues.  I certainly don't like them, but I was a big fan of Brett Hull growing up and I dislike Dallas more.  So, I'm pleased that the Blues have eliminated them but that is the last I root for St. Louis.  I will say their fans deserve the thrill & spoils of seeing their team lift the Cup, though.

I liked Hull, but God did I love Al Macinnis.  He had that 100 mph slapper from the point, that came off like a ton of bricks.  Dude had to back off of it for fear of hurting people.  How many players have ever done that??

I remember playing NHL '94 on SNES.  You could never shut out Calgary because he'd ALWAYS end up with a one-timer. Never failed.

Ha, it's like a glitch in Double Dribble down in the corner with teh Lakers.  You couldn't miss.  
Here's something I didn't know about Al..

In 1999, he injured teammate and goalie Rich Parent during warmups, breaking his protective cup and rupturing a testicle.

I am one of the few who believes if the wooden stick was brought back and made mandatory scoring would go up.  Those new sticks break way too easily and a lot of the time it happens at the worst time...

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

I am one of the few who believes if the wooden stick was brought back and made mandatory scoring would go up.  Those new sticks break way too easily and a lot of the time it happens at the worst time...

Bring back the wood and shrink the pads of the goalie?  I'd be good with that.  

Yes, especially the goalie equipment.  If they were serious about head injuries they'd also re-introduce the older shoulder and elbow pads, the new equipment is like body armour.

I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  

MayDay10 said:

I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  

Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.

HesCalledDyer said:

MayDay10 said:

I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  

Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.

I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

MayDay10 said:

I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  

Video replay is ruining sports.  Taking away a goal because someone's skate was half a pinky toenail length across the line - something that one could only even determine by stopping the video frame by frame - is not what replay is designed for.  It's the same in baseball when a runner's hand or foot lifts off the bag half a centimeter while the tag is still applied; that is not an out and not what replay is designed for. Or in football when the tip of cleat is on the sideline and they call it out of bands. None of that is why replay was instated. If you can't watch the video at full or I'll even give you half or quarter speed and make an obvious call one way or the other, the call on the ice/field should stand.  It's funny how the TV announcers will shove it down your throat about how it has to be "clear and convincing evidence to overturn" then sit there and show you every fucking frame of video while the officials overturn the call based on microscopic measurements that the human eye could never possibly determine at full speed during a live moment.

I hate this more than any other replay issue in sports. If you over slide a bag by a foot, okay.  But the natural body movement when you hit a bag is stupid.  I don't mind baseball replay for fair pole home runs, out at first, and the like, but this one gets me.   

What did you guys think of the replay call on the goaltenders interference last night (was that last night?).  To me, that was interference that should have been called, and it was missed.  I don't mind that.  The player elbowed the goalie in the end, and pushed him out of the crease.  It should have been no goal AND a penalty.  

It was not last night?  All 3 goals were legit last night.  

Meltdown99 said:

MayDay10 said:

I agree on the equipment, as long as they don't sacrifice protection.  Goalie equipment needs to be minimized where possible.  IMO, they could increase the size of the nets too.... even just a few inches in either direction could make a lot of difference.

And please do away with stupid, counter-productive "coaches challenges".  All the offsides and goalie interference challenges serve is to drain the game of even more goals and excitement. You cant challenge an incorrect offsides call to get a scoring chance back, it only works 1-way.  In both cases it is unnecessary and cumbersome.  In 35 years of watching hockey, I had never desired anything close to those rules.  Video review should be reduced to: did the puck cross the line?

Other, more revolutionary things?  Increase the height of the glass in each team's zone, and if not, standardize the netting and make it in play.  Move the net away from the boards a couple feet.  

Also, with each new building from here on in (or major structural renovation), mandate that the ice surface is larger.  Not necessarily olympic/international sized, but larger.  Players are way too large and move too efficiently for the size of the ice.  There is very little room.  It may take 50 years for all teams to have the larger ice surface, but when I grew up there was variance, and it ended up dictating teams' styles which was cool.  

You have some very good ideas.  I do not want international size.  Before the NHL move to mandate large ice surface, I think it would be a good idea to experiment first...which means they would need to construct an ice surface that can be adjusted and tested out in the exhibition, otherwise it's just a guess if it will make the game more exciting...international hockey is boring...Mike Babcock has stated larger ice surface decreases scoring...

Yes, I do agree that they would need to do some trials.  I do think with the focus being youth and speed, young stars like McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, McKinnon, Dahlin, Marner, etc could really shine.  I sometimes watch old games, and the smaller players, smaller goalies, with 1 ref... plus, an overall slower speed, there just seems to be so much space.  You can really distinguish the good players from the others.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX3NpyCVRA


look at all the 'apparent' space as well as how small the goalies appear.

I honestly would be interested to see how an NHL game would look on an International rink.  I think an overall width increase of 15 feet would be a good thing, and may bring forth more 1 on 1 potential mismatches as Connor McDavid comes bearing down on Dion Phaneuf or some lugnut who would be undressed.