Around Hockey XII (All Non-Jackets Hockey talk in here)

[db2011]

And I won't disagree that most of those players have no reason to be in the league either. In the case of guys like Dorsett and (yes, I'm about to say it) Cooke, they can at least play in other aspects of the game.

But, to say that Jared Boll is on our team for any reason other than to drop the gloves from time to time, is sugar coating the facts. The moment he drops the shoulder into someone's head from the blind side, these same questions will arise.

You are really laying down a hard line here and I don't agree. I don't like your authoritarian view of kicking players out of the league based on some stat. Sure you didn't mention suspensions in the literal way it was brought up, but it's not unfair to object to your line of thinking by offering the fact that a player hasn't been suspended (ergo, has not to date exhibited inordinately prohibited behavior).

In the case of Boll, I would ask that you suspend judgement until, you know, he actually does what you describe. It's also worth mentioning that the guy wears a letter, so he must have more value to the team than just dropping the gloves.

I'm on the side of player safety, and I don't support gooning it up. The stories that are coming out about the effects of concussions are important. But I have to object to your fundamentalist position here.

I'm on your side about the hit in question though- clearly dirty, and the kind of thing that needs to be taken out of the game.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

And I won't disagree that most of those players have no reason to be in the league either. In the case of guys like Dorsett and (yes, I'm about to say it) Cooke, they can at least play in other aspects of the game.

But, to say that Jared Boll is on our team for any reason other than to drop the gloves from time to time, is sugar coating the facts. The moment he drops the shoulder into someone's head from the blind side, these same questions will arise.

Nice fundamentalist position here, SL. I suppose you would like to nominate yourself as the guardian of who should be in the league and who shouldn't?

"Yes, well, this guy's PIMS suggest he might someday lay a dirty hit on a player, so let's just preemptively ban him from the league now."

And I assume you'd want to keep him out of any professional league, or any beer league too, given your strict adherence to player safety. I mean, we're not just protecting millionaire players here, are we?

"Take his skates and add his name to the registry of potential offenders."

Welcome to Minority Report, hockey edition.

 

[pete goegan]

Nice fundamentalist position here, SL. I suppose you would like to nominate yourself as the guardian of who should be in the league and who shouldn't?
"Yes, well, this guy's PIMS suggest he might someday lay a dirty hit on a player, so let's just preemptively ban him from the league now."

And I assume you'd want to keep him out of any professional league, or any beer league too, given your strict adherence to player safety. I mean, we're not just protecting millionaire players here, are we?

"Take his skates and add his name to the registry of potential offenders."

Welcome to Minority Report, hockey edition.

I'm not ready to retire, so that position is not open.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm not ready to retire, so that position is not open.

To be fair, I think folks just assumed you were past mandatory retirement age already.

 

[pete goegan]

To be fair, I think folks just assumed you were past mandatory retirement age already.

Ouch! Self-appointed positions carry no age restrictions, Viq.

 

[Roadman]

To be fair, I think folks just assumed you were past mandatory retirement age already.

Experience gives you perspective.

A necessary quality for such a position.

 

[Viqsi]

Ouch! Self-appointed positions carry no age restrictions, Viq.

Huh. You really do learn something new every day.

* * *​

Experience gives you perspective.

A necessary quality for such a position.

Point conceded.
(granted, there's a few too many situations I know in which age arrives without the requisite experience, but, well, we're talking about Pete here, so that's probably not a consideration. )

 

[Sore Loser]

You are really laying down a hard line here and I don't agree. I don't like your authoritarian view of kicking players out of the league based on some stat. Sure you didn't mention suspensions in the literal way it was brought up, but it's not unfair to object to your line of thinking by offering the fact that a player hasn't been suspended (ergo, has not to date exhibited inordinately prohibited behavior).

In the case of Boll, I would ask that you suspend judgement until, you know, he actually does what you describe. It's also worth mentioning that the guy wears a letter, so he must have more value to the team than just dropping the gloves.

I'm on the side of player safety, and I don't support gooning it up. The stories that are coming out about the effects of concussions are important. But I have to object to your fundamentalist position here.

I'm on your side about the hit in question though- clearly dirty, and the kind of thing that needs to be taken out of the game.

Nice fundamentalist position here, SL. I suppose you would like to nominate yourself as the guardian of who should be in the league and who shouldn't?

"Yes, well, this guy's PIMS suggest he might someday lay a dirty hit on a player, so let's just preemptively ban him from the league now."

And I assume you'd want to keep him out of any professional league, or any beer league too, given your strict adherence to player safety. I mean, we're not just protecting millionaire players here, are we?

"Take his skates and add his name to the registry of potential offenders."

Welcome to Minority Report, hockey edition.

Take whatever stance that you want, but until the headshots are eliminated from the game, and the people at the top finally get their heads wrapped around fighting; whenever something like this happens involving player A), any given team's 6'8" goon; and player B), any given team's top line forward, the question of tough guys in hockey will always arise. In the case of John Scott vs. Loui Eriksson, they actually have a point. Scott is a player who holds absolutely no other value in the league other than to inflict punishment, and Eriksson is probably sitting in a dark room somewhere, trying to remember what he had for breakfast.

And as much as you all want to take the defense of a guy like Jared Boll, should he ever commit a similar offense, there will undoubtedly be people calling for his head as well. I didn't say to kick him out of the league, but in the case of John Scott, what value comes from keeping him? The Buffalo Sabres should be held somewhat at fault for both he and Patrick Kaleta. My point being, if you're going to employ players like this, you should be prepared for the consequences.

You want to eliminate hits like this? Eliminate the players who throw them, make the punishments more harsh. Otherwise, it will continue to happen.

 

[major major]

Boller is hardly in Kaleta territory, but I'd still be fine with rules that took relatively clean fighters out of the game. Even a rule that gave a years suspension for anyone with 5 fighting majors would take out most of his job.

 

[EspenK]

Take whatever stance that you want, but until the headshots are eliminated from the game, and the people at the top finally get their heads wrapped around fighting; whenever something like this happens involving player A), any given team's 6'8" goon; and player B), any given team's top line forward, the question of tough guys in hockey will always arise. In the case of John Scott vs. Loui Eriksson, they actually have a point. Scott is a player who holds absolutely no other value in the league other than to inflict punishment, and Eriksson is probably sitting in a dark room somewhere, trying to remember what he had for breakfast.

And as much as you all want to take the defense of a guy like Jared Boll, should he ever commit a similar offense, there will undoubtedly be people calling for his head as well. I didn't say to kick him out of the league, but in the case of John Scott, what value comes from keeping him? The Buffalo Sabres should be held somewhat at fault for both he and Patrick Kaleta. My point being, if you're going to employ players like this, you should be prepared for the consequences.

You want to eliminate hits like this? Eliminate the players who throw them, make the punishments more harsh. Otherwise, it will continue to happen.[/QUOTE

This is the only solution. Make the punishments harsher and progressive for each subsequent hit. I still think a minimum of 5 games for first offense, 10 for second and 20 for a third would help solve the problem. The other is to make the suspension equal to how long the player is out if it is greater than the defined punishment.

The only problem is with the inadvertent hit to the head. Guess that's where Shanny has to make the call.

 

[db2011]

You want to eliminate hits like this? Eliminate the players who throw them, make the punishments more harsh. Otherwise, it will continue to happen.

I agree. It's just that how you determine who to eliminate and when to do it requires more nuance than you're providing. Your pre-screening authority would get abused from the word go.

And there's a difference between a guy who fights (I have no problem with that) and one who headhunts.

I'm still puzzled why you're singling out Boll, too.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

You want to eliminate hits like this? Eliminate the players who throw them, make the punishments more harsh. Otherwise, it will continue to happen.

This is almost completely different from what you suggested in your earlier post, in which you suggested we could know in advance what players would commit heinous acts on other players, and we should preemptively remove them. It deserves derision and you rightly are backtracking from it.

Severe punishment for headhunting and the like? I'm all on board with that. And don't try to suggest I or anyone else wouldn't be if a player on the Jackets did it. That's a pretty high horse you're trying to ride.

 

[Crede777]

More than a few empty seats in Toronto tonight. Surprising, although it's a sell out because the seats are sold but the people don't show up.

 

[Mayor Bee]

More than a few empty seats in Toronto tonight. Surprising, although it's a sell out because the seats are sold but the people don't show up.

If you can, please grab some screencaps showing the scoreboard, a bit of the action on the ice, and huge blocks of open seats.

Anyone watching a Detroit home game, please do the same. If a bunch of jackasses feel free to blast any of us for attendance, I'd love to have clear evidence of exactly who's clearly padding their numbers.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

If you can, please grab some screencaps showing the scoreboard, a bit of the action on the ice, and huge blocks of open seats.

Anyone watching a Detroit home game, please do the same. If a bunch of jackasses feel free to blast any of us for attendance, I'd love to have clear evidence of exactly who's clearly padding their numbers.

Like .jpg gold they'd be.

 

[major major]

More than a few empty seats in Toronto tonight. Surprising, although it's a sell out because the seats are sold but the people don't show up.

That's nothing new in Toronto. There is too much money there, folks buy tickets who will only show up for part of the game to socialize, or will just not show up at all.

 

[FANonymous]

That's nothing new in Toronto. There is too much money there, folks buy tickets who will only show up for part of the game to socialize, or will just not show up at all.

Tr00 fans don't have to show up to the game when it's an O6 team you silly sunbelters.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Here come the Flyers. Just won again tonight. Rangers get DET to OT

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Rangers win, Brassard on a breakaway

 

[Mayor Bee]

Tr00 fans don't have to show up to the game when it's an O6 team you silly sunbelters.

1 Canadian fan = 5,000 American fans, unless it's Philadelphia or the O6

This is how they claim Saskatoon could support a team, with an apparent adjusted population of over 10,000,000.

 

[sommervr]

More than a few empty seats in Toronto tonight. Surprising, although it's a sell out because the seats are sold but the people don't show up.

There are no empty seats. Those are just corporate types grabbing sushi and a beer and ambling back to their seats

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

There are no empty seats. Those are just corporate types grabbing sushi and a beer and ambling back to their seats

Yes, Obi-Wan.

 

[Sore Loser]

Vanek to the Islanders

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435220

Honestly, to me, it doesn't seem like the Sabres got enough. Moulson without Tavares is a mediocre, middle six winger. The picks are solid, but unless there's more, this one seems like a head scratcher to me.

 

[Mayor Bee]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435220

Honestly, to me, it doesn't seem like the Sabres got enough. Moulson without Tavares is a mediocre, middle six winger. The picks are solid, but unless there's more, this one seems like a head scratcher to me.

Since the beginning of the 2005-06 season:

Thomas Vanek - 254 goals, 243 assists (497 points)
Rick Nash - 252 goals, 244 assists (496 points)

Return for Thomas Vanek - 1st, 2nd, Matt Moulson
Return for Rick Nash - 1st, Tim Erixon, Brandon Dubinsky, Artem Anisimov

How could we in Columbus have been cursed with such an awful GM?

 

[major major]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435220

Honestly, to me, it doesn't seem like the Sabres got enough. Moulson without Tavares is a mediocre, middle six winger. The picks are solid, but unless there's more, this one seems like a head scratcher to me.

I agree, and I have no idea why the Sabres would want Moulson. I think the low value might be explained by the "Minnesota factor", but still Moulson?