Barry MacDonald has an interesting column about how the Canucks won't play the Penguins, Senators, Habs, or Leafs at home this season. It's all a part of the NHL's plan to build rivalries. And it's not a bad plan. But it does have fallout. For instance, consider how come playoffs, almost no one on the East coast has any idea what's going on in the Western Conference. Consider, if you have consideration room, that while people are able to stay up for Avs/Red Wings games, it's a lot to stay up for California/Vancouver/Alberta match-ups. So basically, about half of the NHL is dead to a big part of the hockey-watching community in the East.
I'm not one to think along with Jeremy Roenick, but in this case, I'm going to. He thinks the media should be all over the Coyotes, considering they've got Wayne Gretzky coaching and Ed Jovanovski on the blue line (my sources tell me their goalie isn't awful, either). But you don't hear about the Coyotes because they don't have that East Coast exposure.
The NHL needs to think not just about the health of individual divisions, but the health of the league as a whole. The only way to grow the sport is to let everyone see as much of the good of the sport as possible. There's a lot of amazing hockey in the Western Conference and the NHL needs to figure out how to widen that exposure. Sure, the travel sucks for the players, but maybe it just means it's time to shorten the season to better spotlight the product.
Also, maybe it's good the Blackhawks are almost never on TV.

I've been a little curious about the Blues this summer. They were pretty active in terms of making moves, but a lot of the moves seemed to be gear more toward recapturing their successful-yet-Cupless past, rather than blowing things up and starting over.
It seems to me, looking back on it all, that the team is just trying to establish itself as a serious NHL destination. In the new NHL, where the pay for most players is going to be about the same across the league, players want to win. So before the Blues can look to the future, they have to get their present in order.
In other words, they need to differentiate themselves from the Blackhawks.
But in case you were wondering, the new ownership does wish the old ownership hadn't traded away Chris Pronger.
You know, I kind of feel like Edmonton might wish the Blues had just held onto Pronger, too.
Anaheim? I think they like how things worked out.

I love how teams always have a compelling reason to raise ticket prices.
The Bruins are hardly the only team to do this, but I find their rationalization of increased tickets especially distasteful, mentioning an increased salary cap as a reason to increase ticket prices. But since the cap is revenue-based, doesn't that means the Bruins made more money last year? So, basically, the Bruins made money last year, and instead of lowering prices, are raising them?
It's just offensive. You can trade away your franchise player and field a horrible team, but I really don't think it's fair to do that AND raise your ticket prices. I really believe it should be one or the other.
Speaking of messed-up hockey things, here's Tim Panaccio on the NHL and the media (login info.):

Finally, the Los Angeles Times has decided it no longer will send its hockey writers to cover Kings and Ducks road games. It's a frightening day in the NHL when one of the world's largest newspapers decides to write off hockey. Last fall, the New York Times decided not to cover the Rangers on the road, until it became apparent that the newspaper could no longer ignore how good they were. "There are some markets in the United States in which hockey remains one of the major sports," and "some in which it has become a niche sport," Randy Harvey, sports editor of the Los Angeles Times, said in an e-mail interview. "In our market, it's a niche sport." That hockey is viewed in such terms should be of grave concern to commissioner Gary Bettman.

The interesting thing here is the LA Times and New York Times are both national papers. They serve a geographic region, but they're edited with a much wider outlook than their mastheads indicate. So while I applaud Panaccio's calling out of Bettman in the same kind of way I always clap when Marty's dad punches Biff in BACK TO THE FUTURE, I'm not sure the situation is that dire. Hockey isn't a national sport in the states. Just like college football isn't. There are lots of fans, but it's much more of a regional thing. If the Detroit Free Press or the Detroit News ever cut back on hockey coverage, I'm sure there'd be riots. Hockey is a niche sport, but sports in general are niche. MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL isn't on a network anymore (and NBC's FOOTBALL NIGHT IN AMERICA is more wistful than accurate). The NBA sends more and more of its programming to cable, too. Bettman should be keeping his eye on this, but I'm not convinced it's a grave issue. I'm way more worried about goalie-crashing.