I've got baseball-envy this week.

The entire baseball world is assembled in Indianapolis: GMs, agents, scouts, media, you name it. The buzz, as always, is tremendous from the baseball winter meetings.

Why don't we have this in hockey?

Two years ago this month, I pitched an idea to the NHL, but it failed to gain any traction. I suggested to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, other league staff and several GMs that the annual March GM meetings include the trade deadline. My idea is that it would create incredible attention for the NHL with more media than ever descending upon the meetings to cover the wheeling and dealing.

Bettman, to his credit, while not sold on the idea, did me the favor of actually running it by the GMs at the end of their two-day meetings in February 2008. Much to my chagrin, the LeBrun Proposal got a lukewarm response. Not only where some old-school GMs against the idea, but they've since regressed even more, holding their March GMs meeting after the trade deadline to make sure there was no buzz whatsoever at their meetings. Mercy.

This year, the two-day GM meetings are again a week after the March 3 trade deadline. Gee, let's send a bunch of media to Naples, Fla., to discuss head shots for three days.

On Wednesday, I sent Bettman an e-mail about the buzz the baseball winter meetings were getting again and wishing my idea had got more debate two years ago. His response made a very good point.

"These are offseason meetings in MLB," Bettman wrote in an e-mail. "Different level of activity (free agents, etc.)."

Which leads me to the LeBrun Proposal, Part 2.

I suggest we gather all 30 NHL front office staffs, player agents and media in a hotel June 29-July 3 and let the fireworks go off baby. Buzz city!

"I think it's a great idea," veteran Don Meehan of Newport Sports told ESPN.com on Wednesday. "Anything to provide exposure for our game is beneficial. It's progressive. Lord knows we need everything we can to generate interest in our game."

The start of NHL free agency is July 1, but there is a lot of chatter on June 29-30 as teams try to re-sign players before the market opens.

Somebody please tell me how this is isn't a great idea?

"I think anything that puts some buzz in our sport, I'm all for it," Wings GM Ken Holland told ESPN.com on Wednesday when asked about the concept.

Holland also liked our first idea two years ago, but some of his colleagues said it's difficult to focus on league agenda matters at those meetings and have to deal with the trade deadline. I don't totally buy that, but maybe they'll buy the new concept instead.

In our June 29-July 3 proposal, I say there are no actual GM/league meetings. The only reason we're all gathering is for the wheeling and dealing.

"From our perspective, the best way to consummate deals is, and always has been, face to face," agent J.P. Barry of CAA Sports told us Wednesday. "Having everyone together during such a critical time would certainly create a lot of buzz and lead to an exciting free agency kick off for the fans."

In the end, I could live with either LeBrun Proposal, whatever it takes to generate the kind of event that the baseball winter meetings produce every year.

"I like your new idea just as I liked your original one with the trade deadline, because it draws attention to the sport," GM Jim Rutherford of the Carolina Hurricanes said Wednesday. "That's a good thing. Baseball does that well."

But when push comes to shove, Rutherford prefers the trade-deadline idea.

"One of the downsides of your July 1 idea is that not all teams participate in free agency at the start anymore, so there's no guarantee it would generate the same kind of attention it would have three or four years ago," Rutherford said.

Well, that's true. But I still think it would generate all kinds of attention. And for the frugal teams that don't spend on July 1, the meetings would still provide a chance to lay the groundwork with agents and other GMs for future moves in the summer.

"I am for any innovation that grows the recognition of hockey," agent Pat Morris of Newport Sports told us Wednesday. "Some might say that the draft brings tremendous focus to the game leading up to free agency and the attachment of new young talent to their teams through the draft process. ... It may be practical for all parties involved in free agency to be somewhat together in one place that gives global recognition, but we also see great advantages formulating our strategies and results in our offices given all the manpower and dynamics involved with the free-agency period."

In the end, this is about catering to you, the hockey fans. This kind of hockey summit of GMs and agents would provide you with all kinds of gossip and activity. And that's a good thing. So why not do it?

ive never watched a game in HD, nor do i need to to enjoy the sport. bettman... he seemed supportive and passed the info along... remember, hes simply just the collective voice behind 30 owners. i like bettman. he seems to have a good personality and enjoys the sport. i just dont think hes fit to be the commish of the NHL.

So, you like Gary Bettman, but not HD hockey... you are truly the most contrarian of people.

So, you like Gary Bettman, but not HD hockey... you are truly the most contrarian of people.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

HD makes no difference when you can only watch over an internet feed, and when you don't have an HD TV it is worthless also.

Tell me again how it would help them out? Should the NHL just buy an HDTV for everyone who wants to watch hockey then?

And since I've watched plenty of Football in HD the past two years or so, it really hurts your eyes when you only have watch SD for your entire life, it's difference and just makes the contrast better, yes it looks better and there is so much detail, but then again, it hurts the eyes of people without HD in their homes.

I don't care if it is in HD or SD, we still aren't even pure HD only in everything yet, when that time comes that HDTV's take over completely in the home, then it will change over. Whether it be this year or next year or two years from now.

Companies still make SDTV's, until they are ceased production expect SD feeds from places still as it will be cheaper still.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

PSP, I don't have an HDTV so basically it would be worthless for me at least.

I want an HDTV for my PS3 but I don't really have the money for it right now to buy one.

Plus I don't watch too much TV, so HD is really nothing big for me right now.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Once you have a big screen (LCD, PLasma) watching hockey in SD totally sucks. It's much worse than watching in SD on a standard tube TV, because the bigger screen emphasizes the fuzzy pixalation of SD. I'm continually pissed with DTV and the Comcast/MSG conflict that forces me to watch SD games after paying big dollars for LCD TVs and the Center Ice package.

I paid big dollars for a lesser product.