We are not giving up on the Coyotes in the Greater Phoenix Area... The team has got a number of options and is going to pursue them, so nobody should think that team is moving other than out of Glendale.

I think there needs some attention to be paid to what sport is going to represent to young people: should it be viewed in the competitive, team-oriented sense that it is now, or does it become a vehicle for betting, which may, in effect, change the atmosphere in the stadiums and the arenas?

I think it's fair to say that all of the teams that have been in the playoffs have played very physically.

We don't tell the officials to change the standard for the playoffs, but as we all know, time and space tends to evaporate very quickly in a playoff game; there tends to be a lot more physicality and a lot more adjustments in the course of a series.

All have used the economic opportunity of a new arena project to transform their cities into the future.

I'm having trouble understanding why there hasn't been further progress on CalgaryNext.

I don't worry about the integrity of the game. Our players are professionals.

You don't want people rooting for anything other than the team that they love and the players that they think the world of to win. We don't want there to be another agenda.

Relatively, a very small percentage of betting takes place on hockey and even baseball because of the nature of the game and the scoring.

While we know gambling is part of the industry in Las Vegas, we're not going to make it all that easy for you to pick up a ticket, a gambling ticket, on your way into the arena.

We're concerned how gambling and betting affects the NHL game and changes the perception of and challenges the integrity of the NHL game.

I think that when somebody loses a bet, they tend to sometimes confuse their motives in rooting and enjoying the game because if you lose your bet, even though the team you're rooting for wins, you have a potentially conflicted outcome.

We don't worry about the integrity of our game. I'm more focused on the atmosphere in the arena, and that's something we're comfortable with going forward.

I don't think taunting chants at players on the other side of the ice is intended to be sexist in the slightest. It's like when you call a goaltender a sieve, they chant that. Is that now inappropriate also?

On the issue of behavioral health and the like, the program we have in place has always been available to former players as well.

We encourage the growth of women's hockey.

Our franchises have never been healthier. Our league, in terms of its economic footing, has never been healthier.

Young people, particularly in their teens and 20s, are not consuming sports the way my generation did. They are doing lots of things; they are multitasking. They are getting downloads; they are getting alerts on their computers or on their cellphones, and they are consuming sports in a more real-time but less full-time basis.

I would hope there would be a greater appreciation by casual sports fans of the incredible skill and passion of our players.

We'll have clinics and educational events and conferences to get more and more young players developing as hockey players.

While players say they like the five-day break, they're also saying they don't like the compression that goes along with it, and that's something that is of great concern to us as well.

Obviously, we're focused on the Winter Classic.

None of our series are ever static in terms of the dates. We always have a range of flexibility to respond to whatever may or may not happen.

It's not about big markets or small markets. It's not about dominant teams or not. It's about the actual competition and how good the games are, how good the series turn out. That's what I think is the most important for fans.

When you're in other time zones in other places, you don't get quite as much attention; you don't get quite as much visibility for the game, and you give up a lot to do it.

Our sport probably has the best history and tradition of being engaged in international competition.

I was always a fan of the game, and I wouldn't have taken this job if I wasn't a fan of the game.

There is less fighting in the game than we had years ago. I mean, we penalize it.

I think the media world is adjusting to the digital age.

Having to respond to things that are made up or untrue tends to be a waste of time.

I never rule anything in or out; life can surprise you.

I view myself as a dealmaker.

If you're a sports fan, it is really cool when you see the best-on-best for hockey at the Olympics.

I know when you're in the business of cover sports, you look for 60-minute games and a result. It's never that simple.

When you look at the team that Jimmy Rutherford has put together and the players that he has, this is just a great story of excellent in professional sports.

The fact is, I view part of what I do is, if necessary, on difficult issues, be the lightning rod.

If you're thin-skinned, you don't belong doing what I do for a living.

There are always going to be critics... and I have always had a rule: no matter how good the commentary is, or how bad the commentary is, it's more important that you do what you think is right.

In '94, we made the deal during collective bargaining that wasn't the right deal, just to save the season. Allowing the 'in the crease' rule, the foot-in-the-crease rule, we should have not done.

We're not anti-Olympics, we're anti-disruption to the season.