<p>The NHL GM meetings came and went this week in Florida. Among the topics tabled were were the standard of officiating and whether the LTIR salary-cap loophole should be eliminated in the playoffs.</p>



<p>Time to put our imaginary GM hats on and table our own topics. If we had the power to change anything in the NHL rulebook and/or collective bargaining agreement, what would it be?<br><br><strong>FRANK SERAVALLI: </strong>I’d love to see teams have the ability to straight up trade for salary-cap space. Yes, I mean the Arizona Coyotes trading a team $8 or $10 million worth of space. Sure, we have a system now where salaries can be retained, but it doesn’t create the excitement or interest that it could. It boggles my mind that we’re 17 years into the salary cap and we’re still now just getting to the team payrolls that existed in the pre-cap era with the Red Wings, Flyers, Maple Leafs and Rangers. I understand and appreciate the reason for the salary floor, as well. But certain teams that are rebuilding don’t want to spend to the floor, they have already been doing so artificially by acquiring LTIR contracts&nbsp;that are insured, and they could hasten their rebuild in a significant way by trading away actual cap space. Since we’re in a flat-cap world, it would cost teams dearly to be able to add salary. And it’d be really fun to watch.</p><div class="injected-ad injected-video" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="0" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="235"></div>



<p><strong>SCOTT BURNSIDE: </strong>The Colorado Avalanche dodged a bullet when Nathan MacKinnon didn’t suffer any serious injury after fighting Matt Dumba after Dumba had delivered a hard but perfectly legal hit to Mikko Rantanen. It would have been karmic, however, if MacKinnon had been out of action though given the nonsensical nature of the fight, and it highlights for me one of the stupidest parts of the game as we know it: players having to fight after delivering clean hits. In my NHL, any player that instigates a fight after a hit that does not result in a penalty would receive a game misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension with suspensions increasing incrementally for further brainless fighting. It’s a physical game. People are going to hit. Deal with it or take a seat.</p><div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="1" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="132"></div>



<p><strong>CHRIS GEAR: </strong>I’d start with getting rid of the automatic delay of game penalty for putting the puck over the glass in the defensive zone. This should be a discretionary penalty assessed when a player is actually trying to delay the game by firing the puck over the boards / glass to evade trouble. Referees have discretion over every other penalty that is called, so why have we singled out this relatively trivial offense as one that absolutely must be penalized?! Punch a guy in the face? No problem.&nbsp;Accidentally shoot the puck over the glass? Better sit in shame for two minutes and think about what you have done! So many times, these penalties are handed out for accidental clearing attempts when the player obviously had no motive to delay the game. I’m all for seeing more power plays, but why don’t we start by actually making calls on real penalties and let these made-up infractions go?!</p><div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="2" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="157"></div>



<p><strong>MATT LARKIN: </strong>I’ll take page from Ken Dryden and ban incidental head contact. So often, I see fans incensed with the Department of Player Safety over letting certain hits go, and those fans have no idea that their issue is with the rulebook, not the DOPS. The DOPS can only dole out punishments based on what’s in the CBA. Currently, a certain amount of head contact IS allowed on bodychecks as long as the head isn’t the principal point of contact. If we want to cut down on brain injuries, we could ban any hit that catches part of an opponent’s head, including unintentional blows. Nothing can change without an amendment. When Matt Cooke infamously hit Marc Savard in 20210, there was no discipline because the hit wasn’t illegal in that moment. Then came Rule 48.1 as we know it today, and any similar play became illegal going forward. We can make a similar amendment for incidental head contact.</p><div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="3" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="159"></div>



<p><strong>MIKE MCKENNA: </strong>Get rid of the trapezoid. Not a single goaltender likes it. And I truly believe you would see an increase in scoring if it went away. The goalies who can actually handle the puck should be rewarded. Instead, they’re punished.</p>
