Realignment Plan Dead (For Now)
by Amerinadian on Jan 6, 2012 7:15 PM CST
in News
Email
PrintLate breaking news from the NHL, as it has been announced that the NHLPA has withheld their consent on the proposed realignment plan.
Per PHT, who got a hold of the press release, here is the statement from Bill Daly:
"It is unfortunate that the NHLPA has unreasonably refused to approve a plan that an overwhelming majority of our clubs voted to support, and that has received such widespread support from our fans and other members of the hockey community, including players," NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement. "We have now spent the better part of four weeks attempting to satisfy the NHLPA’s purported concerns with the plan with no success. Because we have already been forced to delay, and as a result are already late in beginning the process of preparing next season’s schedule, we have no choice but to abandon our intention to implement the realignment plan and modified playoff format for next season."
"We believe the union acted unreasonably in violation of the league’s rights. We intend to evaluate all of our available legal options and to pursue adequate remedies, as appropriate."
So, we're back to status quo for next year, as the divisions and conferences will remain the same for at least one more season. There's something else going on next season. What could it be? Oh, that's right: the expiration of the current CBA.
Is this the NHLPA puffing out their chest and declaring war on the NHL in preparation for some very tense negotiations? Were the majority of the players really that upset with the proposed plan? If it was due to some of the players worried about travel and the playoff schedule?
Regardless of the reasons, this does not bode well for the Wings, who are stuck in the same division facing the same travel schedule for at least another year. One can't help but think that Ken Holland and Mike Illitch are not very happy with the current development.
Is this the first volley in a war that could lead to another lockout? Despite the doom and gloom that seems to exist around the interwebz, I say no, because neither the NHLPA nor the NHL is stupid enough to risk losing what few casual fans they have with another lockout. I think that this is simply a negotiating tactic by the PA before they get down to business. They have do something, but the PA is going to try and use this as a way to get something else from the NHL.
The rhetoric has already begun. Strap yourselves in because it's going to be a very interesting ride.
UPDATE: The Red Wings' front office has spoken, and they are none too pleased with the NHLPA's response. From Jimmy Devellano:
I'm disgusted and disappointed but not entirely surprised by that union
Very strong words from the Wings' Senior Vice President. I think it's safe to say that we have now have definitive proof that the Wings were not one of the 4 teams that voted against the realignment plan last month.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well...maybe this means a Winnipeg/Detroit swap?
I wouldn’t mind, but I’d be surprised if the NHL settled for a change that minor after the radical re-alignment plan that just got shot down.
Gonna be very interesting to see what happens in the next few days. For now, everyone prepare yourselves for another year in the West.
I like to Dangle Dangle.
Probably not
I can’t envision any one-for-one swap of teams.
Something very similar is going to be put in place, but it will be after the CBA is extended.
I think if it's coming to blows like this, that means the NHL is not going to budge, either
Which means the whole one-for-one swap is not going to happen.
"I believe in a good kick in the ass. This— I believe. " -- Walker Percy
I tweet about stuff sometimes @jackhitts.
Dreger says it's unlikely
On Twitter: “The Jets will stay in the southeast unless the NHL can legally out muscle the PA. At the moment realignment for next season is dead.”
by Lola by the Bay on Jan 6, 2012 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
not gonna happen, with Columbus and Nashville whining...
Plus, if Phoenix is in Quebec next year, then none of Det/CBus/Nash will be in the East. Different story if it’s KC or Seattle,
Look at the PA bein' all tough guy...
It seems like just yesterday that it was 2005 and the Players’ were all bent over, grasping their ankles, screaming “THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER,” doesn’t it?
Way to pick something to get all puffy-chested about, clowns.
by Michael Petrella on Jan 6, 2012 7:25 PM CST reply actions
But what about all that travel?
Won’t someone please think of the eastern teams?
by Amerinadian on Jan 6, 2012 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder if it had to do with the situation with the Florida teams..
IDK. I just can’t think of a real reason the NHLPA wouldn’t agree on this re-alignment.
I like to Dangle Dangle.
Of all of the ideas floated about conference realignment plans, the one eventually (and apparently unsuccessfully) adopted by the league powers-that-be was surprisingly good. There were some disappointments (being in one of the 8-team conferences, etc) but overall it was far better than I’d feared. It solved our travel time issues, and that was public enemy #1. I am sorry to see it tabled for now (or heaven forbid scrapped for a re-do). I think we dodged a bullet on the last one, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in the league management to come up with a better one. (Tinfoil hat alert: Especially when it comes to treating the Wings like they deserve to be).
Relentlessly preaching the word of TPH and converting the heathens in the NHL wasteland that is Oregon.
Any chance
That the new format still gets approved for next season if the NHL follows the NHLPA’s wants.
Datsyukian Deke, Detroit Red Wings Blog
Follow @cnsportsblogs
From Puck Daddy:
So why did the NHLPA refuse to endorse this plan, besides a clear disregard for the League’s rights (OK then)? Simple: They felt realignment was unfair and inconsiderate to the players; they weren’t given a chance, in their eyes, to help create it; and it communicated that the NHLPA isn’t going to be shoved around now or during the CBA talks.
I like to Dangle Dangle.
How the hell is it inconsiderate to the players?
They’re the ones that have to do all that traveling, not the owners. This was as close to perfect a plan you could get. I’m baffled.
"I believe in a good kick in the ass. This— I believe. " -- Walker Percy
I tweet about stuff sometimes @jackhitts.
Spot on
Being a union employee myself – the likely (and best case) scenario is that this is just posturing in preparation for collective bargaining. The association will demand changes, the leage will concede some, and we’ll end up with the same plan plus a few tweaks. Which I am totally ok with.
Or, they want something completely different, and hell if I know what that is. Stay tuned, I guess.
Relentlessly preaching the word of TPH and converting the heathens in the NHL wasteland that is Oregon.
This is definitely the first punch. If they rejected a proposal that almost every single owner and all the fans seemingly loved, I get the feeling they would have rejected just about anything the NHL threw their way. This is their way of letting the NHL know that they aren’t happy, plain and simple. That and they plan to use this as a bargaining chip now, which is bullshit.
And, I’ll get shit for this on a Detroit-based site, but this is a great reason of why I hate unions with a passion. Rejecting something good for the whole to get something good for the few is an absolute awful way to bargain.
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 6, 2012 9:13 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
To be fair
As much as this may have been embraced by detroit fans, judging by random message boards around the league, the fans were much more split for a variety of reasons.
Also, I think the big deal is that the league presented it with the message “this is how it is, now say yes.” And seriously, fuck that. The league should have brought the NHLPA into the process of creating it.
The NHLPA should have no say in this matter, regardless of how the league presented it. They shouldn’t have a say in a lot of things, honestly, but that is likely my dislike of unions more than anything so I will leave it at that.
As for the fans, I was judging by the media mostly who almost unanimously praised the plan. Detroit fans were on board and I know a few other SB Nation blogs were too (I remember some great support from the Chicago, Dallas, and Minnesota blogs).
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 7, 2012 12:15 AM CST up reply actions
Shouldn't have to bring in the NHLPA
The league should be able to determine on it’s own how it’s split up. This is like if the NHL were to micromanage player transactions so teams were set up the way they wanted, but then they’d have to switch the name of the league to the “NBA”.
Fan of the Detroit Tigers, Lions and Red Wings.
This is micromanagement?
The league came out in 2005 and called their collective bargaining with the players a “partnership”. I would say that realignment of the league is something that all partners in a business should be brought in on.
Do any of you honestly believe hockey is better off as a sport with the league making all of the decisions and the players having no say?
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
Maybe not all the decisions, but it certainly seems like the sport would be better off with them making this one. From reading the statements from Daly and Fehr, it really seems like the PA is in the wrong here. They looked at this purely as an opportunity to “concede” something to the league in the next CBA. From what Daly said, the PA was “brought in” early in the process and asked to submit proposals. They didn’t.
As a fan, regardless of the legal issues, the PA is the one in the wrong here because they rejected a plan that had overwhelming support in the league and the fanbase. I was really looking forward to seeing every team in the league 2 times next year, now that won’t happen and I instead get to watch Columbus and Nashville a million times. Unless the PA puts out a plan that is much better, I’ll be pissed they didn’t approve this one.
Divisional realignment is a league issue, not an employee issue. Just as Ford would not consult with its employees on a potential new factory, a closed one, or moving one across town, the league should not have to consult with its employees on how their business is structured.
The league is better off with players having input, however there should most definitely be limits to that input. For example, they have next-to-zero input on the current changes to the disciplinary policies and, on several occasions, have spoken out against it. While the reason they have no say in that is different (it is a conflict of interest in that case), I do believe it is along the correct lines in terms of control.
If this realignment was contracting teams, I fully believe the players should have a say. In that case, 50-ish full time jobs in the league would vanish. Here, however, the only thing that would be any different for them is less travel (if the league is to believed, of course) and a more balanced schedule in terms of start-times. Why should they have any say in the playoff format? Or which teams are placed where? They shouldn’t. Leave the business running to the ones running the damn business, leave the player care to the union.
Two final notes:
1) I despise all unions at this point. Their purpose is noble and needed, but that is not the purpose they serve anymore. They operate as businesses more today than as employee protection agencies as they should be. In the end, they matter more than what it is truly best for the business which is bullshit beyond a doubt. I just want that out there. I am biased in this issue for more reasons than one and players unions, especially, have grown to be too greedy for their own good. Look no further than the recent NBA lockout to see what I mean.
2) I wrote this entire comment with Gary Oldman speaking in my head. It was a brilliant experience to say the least, far better than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was (though Oldman deserves to win that first Oscar)
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 7, 2012 3:02 PM CST up reply actions
You either have partners or you have employees. When the league called the NHLPA its partner, the players ceased being employees.
It is collectively bargained that the league needed the NHLPA to sign off on this plan. If they want to go back to Manager/Employee, then it is something to take up in the next round of talks, but as it stands right now, the relationship between the owners and players is a partnership.
That is what gives the players a say and it is right that they have it.
If Ford is going to move a plant to a place where their incredibly highly-trained employees would not follow and would leave them with nothing but a workforce that can provide sub-standard products, then it is definitely in Ford’s best interest to consult with their employees on that decision.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
You have me wrong, there. I don’t think that the league should have moved forward without the NHLPAs approval here. They can’t. They are legally/contractually obligated to do so and for that matter, the NHLPA has every right to do what they did.
What I do question, however, is why they have that authority in the first place. It is not as cut-and-dry as you put it with “partners or employees.” There is a middle ground where the two meet. Whether or not they think it, the players are employed by the owners. If you have an NHL contract, that contract is with these people. The players should absolutely be able to veto things that affect them directly, but things like realignment, revenue sharing, potential team owners, new arenas, etc. etc. should not have any input from them at all.
Again, I know that they have this say. And I believe the NHL made the right call by keeping things the way they are for another season. They had to because they agreed to this sharing of the power. But there is no reason the players should have this kind of authority on issues where they aren’t affected.
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 7, 2012 3:14 PM CST up reply actions
Doesn't really make sense
If the players don’t like it, play in Europe. Easy to find a league where you don’t have to travel much there.
Fan of the Detroit Tigers, Lions and Red Wings.
Calm down, Mr. Devellano...
Greg Wyshynski wrote a pretty good article on this, entitled, “Why the NHLPA rejected NHL’s 2012-13 realignment plan”. Mr. Devellano needs to remember that BOTH parties must be in accord for a restructuring to go forward, and he should restrain himself from mud-slinging.
Since this article only presents one side of the argument, here’s the NHLPA’s statement, quoted from Wyshynski’s piece:
UPDATE: Donald Fehr and the NHLPA released the following statement:
“On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that
they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with
the 2012-13 season. As realignment affects Players’ terms and
conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the
NHLPA’s consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have
had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with
Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on
January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the
new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and
(2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the
smaller and larger divisions.
“In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new
structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing
travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League
to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling
conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the
scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier
road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not
want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we
received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific
and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the
current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On
the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to
eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but
the League was not willing to do so.
“The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide
its consent to the NHL’s proposal. Players’ questions about travel
and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently
addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the
proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have
further discussions should the League be willing to do so.”
This sounds like the PA didn’t have a better solution to realignment but they didn’t want to look weak before the CBA talks. Instead they throw out some petty excuses about wanting more information from the league and saying the league refused. Lets be honest here, when you’re bargaining over $1.5 Billion, you don’t rely on the other party to get you information, you go out and research it yourself so they don’t try to slip something by you.
"More giveaways than the Salvation Army" - Mickey Redmond
Simple solution for Fehr and the NHLPA...
Since it’s not fair to have unbalanced conferences/divisions, then we contract 2 teams. Problem solved.
Also, if this is about the East Coast teams bitching about it being a disadvantage to travel more, well too bad. The West and Central teams have had the disadvantage for 20 years. The Eastern teams don’t always have to get their way.
This really cheeses me off, and I didn’t completely like the plan. I wanted an Original 6 division, or the Wings to at least be in with at least 2 of Toronto, Montreal, or Boston. But I understood how that couldn’t happen, and was willing to live with not having to play 3 rounds of West Coast games just to get to the Finals.
Donald Fehr… helped mess up baseball, now he’s bringing those talents to hockey…
I've always liked the Idea...
I’d Of loved to of seen an original 6 division and then disburse the rest of the teams in divisions of North, South, East and West…Thats 5 divisions..For the playoffs take the 2 best teams from each division and then add the next best six teams throughout the NHL seeded by their points. Then start the playoffs top to Bottom 1 plays 16, 2 plays15 ect..ect…You may have SanJose playing Pittsburgh in the 1st round but so what, Detroit has had to travel out there for years. Let everyone else in the NHL get a taste of what its like and their fans get to stay up and watch a playoff game till 1am. And have to work the next day. No tears here.
As much as this sucks for the Jets...
It might actually be for the best. This plan wasn’t, I recall, expected to have as much support among the owners as it did, so I suspect several owners voted along with the majority once it was clear there were enough votes to pass the plan. And if the Coyotes are going to move to who-know-where after another year, they may as well let that happen first before making major changes. I can’t see them lasting in Phoenix much longer.
If the NHL actually told the players “no, we can’t give you an example schedule with the new alignment” that is one of the biggest bull flops that has ever been flopped. Just assume the same open arena dates as a previous year, toss in the new schedule, and spit out a hypothetical to determine mileages for the different teams. If the NHL is unable to do what any other business would call something along the lines of “contingency planning” they have more incompetents in their ranks than I imagined. (And I imagine there are A LOT of those.)
Random nonsense at @Baroque97
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
I'm Pissed
This is what we get and what I feared when the NHLPA brought in that idiot Donald Fehr… Everything I expected from the man that cancelled the World Series, something that even Hitler couldn’t make happen. Only thing Fehr knows is how to fight with the league, and doesn’t understnad a thing about working hand in hand with the league. No matter what the NHLPA press release says this is about making throwing their weight around publically. League finally has gained some momentum and instead of enjoying the ride and the increased salaries the NHPLA decides to play “who’s is bigger.” Lost year nearly killed my love for the game, and another “stunt” might end it for good.
Meh, the realignment was crappy anyways.
I really didn’t like it. We complain so much about travel time, but honestly, over the last twenty years it hasn’t really affected the Red Wings in the standings at all.
So we don’t see a new change. So we play one more year like this. So what?
The NHLPA has every right to protest this change. They’re the ones who have to work under the conditions the NHL sets forth, so why shouldn’t they have a say in it?
by eight_legged_freaks on Jan 7, 2012 12:58 PM CST reply actions
Wow...
after reading through these comments you would think that the PA just guaranteed that next season will be cancelled. Everyone needs to take a few deep breaths and step back from the ledge.
by Red, White and a Mile high on Jan 7, 2012 1:08 PM CST reply actions
Its a shot across the bow
That is why we are worried… CBA negotiations start up in the next few months and the NHLPA has already taken an aggressive stance.
But why?
Why shouldn’t the NHLPA be taking an aggressive stance? Put yourself in their shoes and try to picture what the league is going to be asking the players to give up.
Then apply it to your own job and ask yourself if you’d want that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 2:03 PM CST up reply actions
If I were them, I would be taking an aggressive stance. But that is not the point here. This was the best option for the league and they really had no real reason to say no. Yes, things were not as balanced, but you either deal with horrible travel and start times or you go with an alignment along these lines. The PA did not say no to this proposal because it wasn’t something they agreed with, they said no to have a bargaining chip. They put themselves before the league as a whole and that is at the very core of my hatred for unions.
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 7, 2012 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
By that logic
Then I would simply start calling the league “The Owners’ Union” and begin my long list of decisions made by that group of like-minded individuals which have done the sport of hockey a disservice for bad reasons.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
Which would be correct if they didn’t own the damn business. If you start up a business tomorrow (or in April, I suppose. Don’t want to do it before tax day), every decision is at your feet. Your employees aren’t responsible, you are. It’s your business. The employees should be able to fight for better conditions (and before you go there… I do not believe the realignment would fall under “lesser working conditions”), better wages, better benefits, and more jobs, but they shouldn’t have a say in the business and if they do, it shouldn’t be veto power over any decision.
Again, this is how it should be. I know it isn’t this way and that is where my issue lies.
by Apocalyptic0n3 on Jan 7, 2012 3:21 PM CST up reply actions
Now you're arguing something else
There’s no evidence that the realignment plan is truly what’s best for the business of hockey.
We’re either talking about the game of hockey or the business of hockey. If the players are going to take shit for doing something which may not be better for the game then fine, then the league should be looked at the exact same way when they even schedule potentially dangerous outdoor games, fail to implement a good solution for the concussion problems, and change the schedule of their championship series to benefit a network trying to sell a late-night television host.
The owners’ union is more damaging to what’s best for hockey than anything the players have done.
Funny part is that we don’t call it the owners’ union simply because there IS a players’ union. The entire reason unions exist in pro sports is to give the owners a group to bargain with collectively to keep all of these little arguments out of the courts (since the concept of 30 individual businesses acting as a union with the power to prevent outside competition is something which constantly opens them up to questions about anti-competitive business practices which are illegal)
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 3:58 PM CST up reply actions
Problem here
Is that the union didn’t fight this because it was bad for the league fo bad for the players… They fought this because they could… Acting like your teenager kid does when they are being rebelious (anything except you want). They did this because they want to improve their barganing positon… Compete BS when the league needs to resolve the Winnipeg issue, as the current structure is bad of hoceky. But what do they care when CBA negotiations are about to start.
My positons isn’t a negative union stance… My positon is one of anger toward this type of negotiation tactic. I’m afraid what we are seeing is the start of a public pie fight on every single little issue. Union trying to flex its muscles in a “mine is bigger than yours” contest. Its the mountain out of a mole hill plan that the Fehr did with baseball. And in the end fans and the game suffer. Call it reactionary to take this stance… But Fehr has a track record and as such I have a right to be concerned.
Acting like your teenager kid does when they are being rebelious (anything except you want). They did this because they want to improve their barganing positon
Except teenagers don’t have bargaining position. The players are acting like businessmen. They’re playing the league’s game for a change and this is the biggest problem… that it’s ok for the league to act as it’s business and not ok for the players. This is going to be a good bargaining chip for them.
Personally, you have a right to be concerned no matter what. You’d have the same right to be concerned if the NHLPA signed off on this and that made the league think the NHLPA has no teeth when it comes to locking their asses out and demanding that players take a $200M paycut after 5 years of business growth that’s seen about a $150 BILLION growth in revenues which promised the fans that things would get more affordable (they haven’t) because of “cost certainty”
No matter what the players did in this situation, there was always the right and, more to the point, probably the expectation that there should be concern.
I just think it’s either naive or disingenuous to think that the CBA negotiations were going to go better overall if the NHLPA hadn’t pulled this tactic.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 4:20 PM CST up reply actions
$150 BILLION
Yeesh… make that $1.5B (or $1,500 MILLION)!
Sorry about that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 4:22 PM CST up reply actions
Your right in that the NFLPA ruling the opposite wouldn’t have given me indications one way or the other on the future CBA negotioations. But the way the NHLPA handled the relocation issue has given us indication… And it doesn’t look good for fan or the sport. I’m trying to get in front of this and say I’m not at all happy about that. And that is my right as a fan of the league and the sport to make my voice heard on here and with my TV viewing habits and wallet. I’m hoping my fellow fans will join me in making it clear to the NHLPA what we want to see… Which is labor peace at a time where 15% (unemployment + underemployment + those who have given up) of the regular public have trouble getting a job.
The NHLPA isn’t the problem in the upcoming CBA talks is my position.
I don’t believe there’s any reason to expect the players to give up a dime that they were promised by the last CBA and that’s something the league is going to ask for.
Believe me, when push comes to shove, if there’s a labor stoppage, it will be a lockout and not a strike. While I’ve come around to believe the last lockout was something necessary to bring the players into line with a plan that would make sense for the sport (or at least the start of a plan), a lockout in the upcoming offseason would send no message other than “the owners are the bad guys and they’re taking hockey away from the fans because the rich teams expect the players to care more about the profitability of the small teams than they themselves do”
Beginning from that point of view, my thought is that the more bargaining chips the players can collect to prevent the league from locking them out, the better.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 4:37 PM CST up reply actions
If the league is the problem during the CBA than I will put a pox on their house… But any leeway the NHLPA had in my mind is spent. Can’t stand the tactic of blowing up mole hills into mountains for negotiating leverage. It is the exact problem on my why US Congress has got nothing done to correct the problems that everyone agrees has needed to be fixed for 30+ years. People not doing what is right because it weakens their negotiating position for other items.
so....
you’re saying that heading into what will certainly be very controversial, diffcult negotiations, the players should “just let things slide” and agree to things the league wants? even if the league is very hostile when “proposing” those changes?
by Red, White and a Mile high on Jan 7, 2012 5:10 PM CST up reply actions
To repeat myself… “If the league is the problem during the CBA than I will put a pox on their house”
I got that
and I’m leaving it at my point that I believe this move by the NHLPA to collect a bargaining chip where they had a chance will help prevent that from happening and will help make sure that there is a new CBA done next summer without the need for a work stoppage.
If the players turn this chip into some overly bold dick maneuver where they’re demanding any more than what they got in the last lockout, then they’re the bad guys and I’m happy to turn on them.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 5:27 PM CST up reply actions
If there's another lockout
This league will die south of the border.
by eight_legged_freaks on Jan 7, 2012 10:02 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
