It's a decent rule of thumb: If there's something you hate about the NHL, blame the general managers.
Do you wish officials actually enforced the rulebook? Would you like to see meaningful action taken to increase goal scoring? Do you think the loser's point for ties should be scrapped? Wouldn't it be cool to know, officially, how much each player in the league is paid?
Totally. All that stuff would be great. The reason none of it ever happens is because NHL GMs, more than any other major professional league, call the shots. They wield the power, and they're always going to choose to make their jobs easier and more secure.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that; self-preservation is human nature. And really, you shouldn't blame general managers for acting in their own interests _ you should blame the league for giving them the means to do so, even when the fan experience suffers for it. In most cases, it does. General managers' interests shouldn't be the league's interests _ and they certainly shouldn't be the fan's interests. It's all intertwined, though, and that inevitably makes for mistakes.
The latest comes out of the GM meetings (which are held in Boca Raton, Fla., because of course they are). Those 30 dudes, according to ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun, told the NHL that they don't want to reveal their respective lists of protected players ahead of the expansion draft.
Of course the GMs don't want to do that. The issue, again, is not with them _ why would they willingly choose to broadcast which players they'd be OK with losing? If you're Jim Rutherford, do you want the world to know that you value, say, Brian Dumoulin more than Olli Maatta?
They're exercising the power that's afforded to them. Fine. It's power they shouldn't have. One of the league's biggest issues _ and they are sundry _ is its ability to ignore, with metronomic efficiency, that it's in the entertainment business.
This happens on a micro level; players get dragged for being charismatic, let alone outspoken. Look at P.K. Subban, if you doubt that.
It happens on a macro level too, though, and Wednesday's move is as good an example as any. What the NHL has on the way in June, in the Vegas expansion draft, should be a made-for-TV-and-Twitter behemoth. This is how it should work.
_On June 17, GMs have to submit their final protected list. They can choose either eight skaters and one goalie, or seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie. (The Penguins are in an interesting spot here, by the way; the emergence of Justin Schultz, combined with Dumoulin, Ian Cole, Olli Maatta and Kris Letang's non-movement clause, is going to cause serious issues. But let's stay on topic.)
_Those lists are made public, ideally in a televised special. Use Rogers Sportsnet's coverage in Canada and run that feed on NHL Network. As long as you sell ads, make money and build interest, whatever.
_For the next four days, until the draft on June 21, fans and media can speculate, screw around, and make their own draft boards based on the Golden Knights' actual pool of available players.
There's value in specificity; it'll be a bigger deal (and an easier exercise) for the other 30 fanbases if they actually know who could stay and who could go. That way, won't just be media wonks and superfans at work. Hypothesizing can only get you so far. Remove the barrier of entry. Encourage more people to get involved.
GMs will say they're worried about unprotected players getting publicly outed and judged. The flip side is that, if the actual lists are released, the correct players will get publicly outed and judged. Why risk fans and media speculating on the merits of Maatta, Dumoulin, Cole and Schultz when only two of them are even on the board?
The harder line: Who cares? Public referendums on your competency are an unavoidable part of life as a professional athlete. It's part of life as general manager, just like creating fan-friendly, money-making opportunities should be part of life as a league executive. The NHL forgets all that far too often, though, and it seems to have forgotten it again.
