Some teams will be forced to do that because they don’t manage their cap well, committing too much money to free agents or overpaying to re-sign an interchangeable part instead of developing a core of 5-7 players that they plan on committing the vast majority of their payroll to, and then build around that.

If we’re talking about teams that are ran like the Flyers have been for the last 20-some-odd years, you’ll see as much as half the team turn over, cap or no cap, each season, and if teams want to engage in the, “Well, let’s just tank it, trade away all our players for picks, and dramatically overpay for a predatorily-plucked free agent or three from that other team that’s having cap trouble,” yeah, you might as well be an AHL fan, where you see 12-15 players on the 23-man roster leave.

But players sign for term, and players give up money for no-trade clauses, for a reason.  Buccigross, Kevin Allen, Jim Kelley, they love talking about how the NHL needs to be more and more merciless regarding player personnel, that fans need to “get used to” NFL-style turnover…

And guys keep signing long-term deals, and smart teams understand that you can’t build a marketing plan by saying, “[Insert Name Here], the face of your [insert team name here for this season].”

Teams who manage their cap well have players that they build around, and build around for a long time.  The Sedins and Roberto Luongo are going to be Canucks for a long, long time.  The Eurotwins will be Red Wings for the vast majority of their careers.  And if the Penguins have any sense, they’ll find room for Malkin.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 03/18/08 at 10:36 PM ET

It seems that hockey fans get more attached to players than football fans do.  I doubt marketing the laundry will be that much of a long-term plan for most teams.

Another problem I see is the playoffs.  In football, each playoff “round” is one game, not four to seven, and if an injury occurs in one “series” since the next game is in a week it is less likely to have a lasting impact, as long as the team can plug in another one of their 85 players into the empty spot in the system and finish off that game.  You can’t plan on building toward a run in x number of years, because so many things can derail it - and then what happens if you miss your window?

With Pittsburgh, what happens if the Hossa rental this year doesn’t work and they don’t have a long playoff run, and then they trade Malkin?  How many fans would keep coming out for whatever combination of assets Pittsburgh gets for the same dollars as Malkin would cost to retain?

People root for other people.  That’s why there is such a big deal about the “face of the franchise” and why charitable organizations try to personalize an issue.

It’s one thing to ask a bunch of high school kids to run a food drive for “the hungry in the county” and it’s another thing if they know the food they are collecting will help out some of their classmates.  You can have a rotating supporting cast and people understand that fine - you can’t switch out everybody on the team.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/19/08 at 05:54 AM ET

That whole article seemed written by another person.  Bucci is usually so upbeat and optimistically honest.  I didn’t agree with his assessment of the Pronger situation, and Pronger might be my favorite defenseman in the league.  That just wasn’t a Bucci-type article, and it saddened me.  I haven’t read his stuff in a while cause of time constraints, and I picked a bad one to hop back on.

Posted by Phil M on 03/19/08 at 10:53 AM ET