MOD Lemieux did not reture because of the dead puck era, and I have seen no proof to support that it was harmful to the NHL. Mario Lemieux retired because of the clutching and grabbing that was allowed during the dead puck era. Only reason he suited up in 95-96 was because of the league's promised obstruction crackdown (note how much higher the per game scoring rates were that year than in the previous and next seasons). That was abandoned in 96-97, which is why he retired at the end of it. I'd provide a link, but newspaper articles from 1997 aren't easily available on-line, if they're even on-line at all. He's right about the money never coming back, but his perspective needs qualification. He doubled his salary after the 1994 CBA was settled. He made over 70% of his career earnings between that CBA and the capped one. Did he kvetch during that lockout? Of course not because he believed that he'd come back and be on the same earning trend as before, maybe not realizing that the lowered UFA age + cap was going to cause a massive shift in where the money would be spent. There was that onerous 35+ rule as well to absolutely make sure teams wouldn't throw money at the geezers (and in retrospect, I have to wonder why the league really wanted this rule). Yes, indeed, the lockout cost him a ton. He would have been much better off under the CBA before