If were to make an all-injured player all-star team, it's probably Daniel Sedin(notes), Eric Staal(notes) and Marian Hossa(notes) up front; Andrei Markov(notes) and Rob Blake(notes) on the blue line; and Cam Ward(notes) between the pipes. Which is to say that there are some pretty damn good players watching the game form the press box right now (though Hossa and Sedin are nearly back).

This infirmary-on-skates was a topic for both the Globe & Mail and the Sun this morning, as the NHL reaches the quarter pole; with Mike Zeisberger of the latter publication writing that the injuries have a devastating effect on the League's marketing:

For a league thirsting for star power, the assembly line of sidelined marquee performers truly is a punch right in the NHL's P.R. gut. That's especially true south of the border, where, in the absence of a true national television contract (sorry, Versus, but you are no ESPN), big names are crucial in the wooing of fans.

There's no question that the NHL's marketing focus has been star-centric ever since Gary Bettman came over from the NBA, where the name on the back of the uniform might as well be on the front, too.

That's why the NHL flopped and flailed in its promotion of the game during the trap years: How does one market stars when their talent is literally being held back? That's why the NHL has found its stride after the lockout, as the new rules have opened up the offense; players like Sidney Crosby(notes), Evgeni Malkin(notes) and Alex Ovechkin(notes) have become marketable stars; and the shootout provides SportsCenter-ready highlights in games that would otherwise end in a tie. (Though as Puck Buddy Walt wrote over email today: Take the helmets off already.)

So Zeisberger is correct that big names are "crucial in the wooing of fans" because the NHL has set it its marketing up to be that way. But it's that "especially true south of the border" part that we're wondering about: Do star players make a difference in the NHL's popularity in the U.S.? Or is it still about the logo on the front?

One of the reasons Zeisberger's line raised our interest was that it harkened back to something Stu Siegel, new majority co-owner of the Florida Panthers, told us in an interview this week when asked about the impact of star players in "non-traditional" U.S. markets. In this case, we were talking specifically about Ilya Kovalchuk(notes) with the Atlanta Thrashers:

That one superstar, arguably one of the top 10 players in the League. And the market doesn't know who he is, or they're not marketing him properly.

There are few extremely marketable players in the League: Crosby, Ovechkin ... there aren't that many. People look at us and say we don't have any stars on our team. I would argue, "What makes a star?"

Siegel went on to say that David Booth(notes), the injured forward for the Panthers, "is a star or pretty close to that" on a local level for the team. That said: Will the fans who do attend Panthers games not go, or not watch on television, if Booth is out?

Like Siegel said: The players that can have that affect on gate in the U.S. are rare. Crosby is one. Ovechkin is another. On a local level, the absence of Martin Brodeur(notes) from a particular Devils game probably affects the walk-up gate. Are there others locally that do the same?

For television, U.S. fans will make time for Ovechkin or Crosby or Malkin; the Versus ratings back that up. But is, say, Rick Nash's(notes) participation in the Blue Jackets game going to determine whether you watch it or not, as a fan inside or outside of Columbus?

If there aren't a great number of players that swing attendance and/or viewership one way or another, what does? We'd argue that the franchise brands carry more weight with fans than anything else. The Detroit Red Wings coming to town, for example, is a big deal in a U.S. market, and not for any particular player.

Where these theories collide is for teams like the San Jose Sharks and the Chicago Blackhawks, who are winning and entertaining teams with more than a few "name" players. Are we paying, and paying attention, as U.S. fans because of their place in the standings or because of names like Thornton, Heatley, Kane and Toews (and soon, Hossa)?

If Zeisberger is correct, then the NHL does need to work harder to make this generation of stars viable. It needs to be "Steven Stamkos and the Tampa Bay Lightning" coming to down, or "Rick Nash and the Columbus Blue Jackets"; we're not sure the marketing is there yet for casual hockey fans in the U.S.

If Zeisberger is off-base about what "star power" means in U.S. markets, then is the NHL better off marketing teams rather than players?

Related: Gary Bettman, Commissioner for Life