Kronwall's suspension was a bit soul crushing for me. Really shook my faith in the league.
Yes, the guy he hit had his head down, but that was not Kronwall's fault. The speeds they were moving at, he didn't have time to correct his hit. He feet didn't leave the ice before contact, at worse the hit deserved a fine, if even that. It was the first time he was brought up before the player safety board. A game 7 suspension for a first time offense? It was a bs call. Especially when there were more egregious blatantly illegal hits on Wing players earlier in the series without any action taken.
The only reason he was suspended is that the Wings were eliminated, if they were still in contention he would be active. The NHL only suspends people when it doesn't matter.
djones520 wrote: He was given a suspension after game 6. He was suspended for game 7.
The NHL pulled the Wings #1 D man just before Game 7. Tell me that's not some bs.
I've never been one to buy into overarching conspiracies, but there definitely have been plenty of curious suspensions of key players on various teams at key times for infractions that seemed relatively minor.
Its funny really, because the NHL constantly says that it doesn't want officials to determine games, but it is more than happy to do so itself...sometimes. Really it just needs to admit that the officials, and the rules they enforce (which are gak), define the game; making the officials and disciplinarians a part of the game. Also, the disciplinarians are morons.
As an example these were two incidents that occurred within this season.
I kind of agree with those two suspensions as they were called though (at least insofar as the BOS/DAL one warranted fewer games lost)
From my point of view, as an average joe spectator, The Bos/Dallas hit you can pretty clearly see that the Boston player was an active participant, and was "ready" for the hit... the NY clip shows an elbow/shoulder to the head/face of a shooter who was more focused on his shot/movement than he was receiving a hit.
From my point of view, as an average joe spectator, The Bos/Dallas hit you can pretty clearly see that the Boston player was an active participant, and was "ready" for the hit... the NY clip shows an elbow/shoulder to the head/face of a shooter who was more focused on his shot/movement than he was receiving a hit.
As to the NY hit: that's not the best angle. The New York player hit him in the chest, and the Minnesota player's head snapped back as a result...because that's what happens when you get hit really hard in the chest. Even the NHL admitted the initial point of contact was the shoulder, and followed it up with some bs differentiating the "initial point of contact" from the "main point of contact".
I'm fine with a "No contact to the head." standard, if it is applied uniformly. The problem is that it isn't, I have seen far worse hits to the head than Moore's that got no penalization at all. A mixture of incompetence, personal bias, and money has created a perfect storm of stupidity.
From my point of view, as an average joe spectator, The Bos/Dallas hit you can pretty clearly see that the Boston player was an active participant, and was "ready" for the hit... the NY clip shows an elbow/shoulder to the head/face of a shooter who was more focused on his shot/movement than he was receiving a hit.
As to the NY hit: that's not the best angle. The New York player hit him in the chest, and the Minnesota player's head snapped back as a result...because that's what happens when you get hit really hard in the chest. Even the NHL admitted the initial point of contact was the shoulder, and followed it up with some bs differentiating the "initial point of contact" from the "main point of contact".
I'm fine with a "No contact to the head." standard, if it is applied uniformly. The problem is that it isn't, I have seen far worse hits to the head than Moore's that got no penalization at all. A mixture of incompetence, personal bias, and money has created a perfect storm of stupidity.
Such as when Shea Weber grabbed Henrik Zetterbergs head, and slammed it into the wall a few years ago in the play-offs. He was just fined for that incident. While many of the above mentioned suspensions were just hits gone wrong, this was outright aggression with intent to hurt.
Inconsistency is certainly rampant...
Anyways, other big Hockey news. Babcock has been allowed to talk to other teams. There has also been talks of an offer sheet needing to be signed, for round 3 picks for the next 3 years. So if Babcock goes, we'll be getting something for it.
I'm not entirely against the idea. Blashill from the Grand Rapids Griffins is almost certain to be the choice to take his place, and I think he could do great things with the team. The only thing that has me worried if Babcock leaves, is if St. Louis ditches Hitchcock and grabs him up.
Shea Weber is a liability (not the word I would use in personal conversation), and I'm glad he got injured in Blackhawks series. The fact that he is team captain speaks volumes about the team itself.
djones520 wrote: The only thing that has me worried if Babcock leaves, is if St. Louis ditches Hitchcock and grabs him up.
Why would Babcock wanna go to St. Louis?
I think Hitch will be back next year.
I don't think he wants to go to St. Louis. I think if he goes anywhere, he's going to Buffalo or Edmonton.
Apparently his wife has a big say in where he ends up, hence I highly doubt he's heading to Edmonton, and most definitely NOT! Toronto either as the media here are utterly relentless when it comes to the organisation.
My gut says he goes to either the Pens or the Sharks as both teams have play-off competitive teams, with Buffalo being an outside option that'll depend entirely on what they do over the draft & early free-agency frenzy... (hell, Toronto would be a better 'long term project' than the smoldering train wreck that is the Sabers!)
Oh, and the Habs live to play another day! First time in franchise history that they've been down 3-0 and forced a game 6 too!
From my point of view, as an average joe spectator, The Bos/Dallas hit you can pretty clearly see that the Boston player was an active participant, and was "ready" for the hit... the NY clip shows an elbow/shoulder to the head/face of a shooter who was more focused on his shot/movement than he was receiving a hit.
As to the NY hit: that's not the best angle. The New York player hit him in the chest, and the Minnesota player's head snapped back as a result...because that's what happens when you get hit really hard in the chest. Even the NHL admitted the initial point of contact was the shoulder, and followed it up with some bs differentiating the "initial point of contact" from the "main point of contact".
I'm fine with a "No contact to the head." standard, if it is applied uniformly. The problem is that it isn't, I have seen far worse hits to the head than Moore's that got no penalization at all. A mixture of incompetence, personal bias, and money has created a perfect storm of stupidity.
Such as when Shea Weber grabbed Henrik Zetterbergs head, and slammed it into the wall a few years ago in the play-offs. He was just fined for that incident. While many of the above mentioned suspensions were just hits gone wrong, this was outright aggression with intent to hurt.
Inconsistency is certainly rampant...
Anyways, other big Hockey news. Babcock has been allowed to talk to other teams. There has also been talks of an offer sheet needing to be signed, for round 3 picks for the next 3 years. So if Babcock goes, we'll be getting something for it.
I'm not entirely against the idea. Blashill from the Grand Rapids Griffins is almost certain to be the choice to take his place, and I think he could do great things with the team. The only thing that has me worried if Babcock leaves, is if St. Louis ditches Hitchcock and grabs him up.
im actually ok with that hit on zetterberg only being a fine. (BTW before I go any further, I am not a fan of either team, im speaking completely from an unbiased POV) Zetterberg hit him on the numbers, at the end you can see zett trying to pull out of the hit and kinda rolls off him, but yeah, you get hit from behind like that and all you see is red and you want to destroy the person that did it.
Woo-hoo! 8 year drought at the World's is over after Canada pretty much utterly destroyed Russia yesterday!
Not even really a game, considering the shots ended 37-12 in favour of our Canucks... Hell, in the second, Canada held the Russians to just a pathetic 1 shot! (maybe the Russians should have dressed lord Putin so he could score his 9th goal of the weekend?! )
Pretty low of team Russia though to leave the ice before the anthem was played, talk about classless.
If I were Hitchcock, I'd be pissed. Blues signed the offer sheet to talk to Babcock. They were fishing for a new coach.
I'm not surprised Babs left, i'm kind of glad he went on to a new team. The fact that he chose Toronto though... had to have been purely a money decision. He now earns more then twice what the second highest paid coach in the NHL gets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW Whembly, Detroit really needs a top line D-man. Who ya got?
djones520 wrote: If I were Hitchcock, I'd be pissed. Blues signed the offer sheet to talk to Babcock. They were fishing for a new coach.
Eh... the company line was that Hitch was kept in the loop during the whole thing... even was asked on radio and he said something like, "you need big boys pants in this league". Had the Blues hired Babs... Hitch would remain with the Blues in upper management.
I'm not surprised Babs left, i'm kind of glad he went on to a new team. The fact that he chose Toronto though... had to have been purely a money decision. He now earns more then twice what the second highest paid coach in the NHL gets.
Our trade fodder right now consists of Jimmy Howard, and a handful of prospects who are just about NHL ready. Stephen Weiss as well, if anyone wants him.
Zetterberg and Datsyuk may be getting a little long in the tooth, but folks are crazy if they think they'll ever wear any Jersey but the one with the Winged Wheel on it.
djones520 wrote: If I were Hitchcock, I'd be pissed. Blues signed the offer sheet to talk to Babcock. They were fishing for a new coach.
Eh... the company line was that Hitch was kept in the loop during the whole thing... even was asked on radio and he said something like, "you need big boys pants in this league". Had the Blues hired Babs... Hitch would remain with the Blues in upper management.
I'm not surprised Babs left, i'm kind of glad he went on to a new team. The fact that he chose Toronto though... had to have been purely a money decision. He now earns more then twice what the second highest paid coach in the NHL gets.
Can he "fix" the Leaf?
Not with the useless prima-donas that make-up the current 'core unit' of that team...
Fail Kessel & Pylon Phaneuf need to go ASAP! They can also stand to be rid of Tyler Bozo for no real loss as well.
Jake Gardner is a huge liability who needs some serious ***kicking, while Kadri needs to stop acting like a gakking spoiled 4 year old.
They picked up a handful of 2nd & 3rd rounders before the trade deadline, along with Nashville's 1st rounder, on top of their own 4th overall pick. (Please, oh please take a d-man Toronto... letting your opponents wear themselves out by taking 40+ shots/game on your goaltenders isn't a winning strategy...)
Still can't believe Babs went for TO though! Hopefully he and the rest of the management team Shanny will be putting together can help turn this tem around... As a Habs fan, I'd love for games against the Leafs to become relevant again!
Though I hope for a 7 game series. Overtime in every game, maybe even 2 or 3 overtimes with a Lightning victory in triple overtime of game 7 followed by a parking lot parade.
Last time the lightning won the cup, they held it for 2 years.
I won't make a prediction because I spent way too much money for game 3 and 4 tickets, and there is nothing made of wood in my apartment to knock on. But thesetwo articles are interesting.
But if a team has got to build a dynasty, and it can't be the Wings, might as well be the Hawks.
Now, a true test of how good the team is, to see how well they survive the post-season. Their going to be hurting cap wise, and are going to be forced to shed some of their talent.
Now, a true test of how good the team is, to see how well they survive the post-season. Their going to be hurting cap wise, and are going to be forced to shed some of their talent.
The obvious resigns are Saad, Oduya, and Kruger. The real question is Vermette v. Richards.
Now we can get hyped for Canada Day and the start of Free Agency!
Most exciting thing to see is actually the Maple Loafs for once, as there's tons of dead weight that needs dumping, and there's been talk around them potentially bundling one of their 1st round picks to perhaps help move out certain issue players...
My poor Habs on the other hand need to build themselves a proper secondary scoring line that can be consistent game-to-game, instead of the current monster we have that goes bonkers for 2-4 games, and then disappears for the next week and a bit.
Man, I'm so glad those guys won, really lets all the Michael Jordan fans know that the organization still cares about the sport and the city. Although, lets' be honest here, Patrick Kane doesn't hold a candle to MJ's greatness
According to some sources I've seen, Kane and Toews are going to be worth 10 mil a piece in cap space next season.
They're cap hit will be at least 10.5 million each, but the 'Hawks can easily clear cap space by dealing Sharp and cutting Bickell. Rozsival is likely gone as well.
According to some sources I've seen, Kane and Toews are going to be worth 10 mil a piece in cap space next season.
They're cap hit will be at least 10.5 million each, but the 'Hawks can easily clear cap space by dealing Sharp and cutting Bickell. Rozsival is likely gone as well.
I really like Sharp.
He's getting old... but, he's one of those guys that can "turn it on" during the playoffs.
Too bad the Blues can't afford him... we're pretty much up at the cap and needing to deal one of our core players in order to pay for Taransenko.
Oshie and/or Burgland seems to be the prime candidate to be dealt.
Maybe, shockingly, Petrangelo.
We'll see... I think things starts rocking after the 1st of July.
According to some sources I've seen, Kane and Toews are going to be worth 10 mil a piece in cap space next season.
They're cap hit will be at least 10.5 million each, but the 'Hawks can easily clear cap space by dealing Sharp and cutting Bickell. Rozsival is likely gone as well.
Another option could (Highly unlikely but not impossible) would be to trade away Crawford ($6m Cap hit) and rolling with Ranta & Darling (Who combine for $1.1m)
Sharpie will likely be dealt as well as Bicks, but I'd like to see them try & retain Desjardin and Krugs, the 4th line really performed well this post season when Desjardin wasn't being scratched all the time. Steeger is also likely to be gone and Richards not resigned but if they could resign Vermette that's the top 2 lines sorted if Saad resigns
Another option could (Highly unlikely but not impossible) would be to trade away Crawford ($6m Cap hit) and rolling with Ranta & Darling (Who combine for $1.1m)
I don't think any GM would take that cap hit, they would be afraid his numbers were only good because he played behind Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson. That's 2 of the best defensive forwards in the NHL, and 3 of the best defencemen.
KC, I kinda see could use a team (though ultimately, I worry that they'd just be taking revenue away from the Blues, though I doubt a "real" Blues fan would change allegiances to a KC team, just because there's a team now)
Las Vegas absolutely does not need a team. In any sport. Period.
Quebec actually has a rabid fanbase... the trick is finding local (wealthy) owners. However, I suspect Montreal/Ottawa would try to resist since it's in their neck of the woods?
KC, I kinda see could use a team (though ultimately, I worry that they'd just be taking revenue away from the Blues, though I doubt a "real" Blues fan would change allegiances to a KC team, just because there's a team now)
No worries there! KC actually has a brand new, state of the art stadium and potential ownership group.
Las Vegas absolutely does not need a team. In any sport. Period.
Quebec actually has a rabid fanbase... the trick is finding local (wealthy) owners. However, I suspect Montreal/Ottawa would try to resist since it's in their neck of the woods?
That's what I was saying... I was saying that I can see how Quebec "needs" a team, They've fairly consistently not shut up about not having a team since they lost their last one
KC, I kinda see could use a team (though ultimately, I worry that they'd just be taking revenue away from the Blues, though I doubt a "real" Blues fan would change allegiances to a KC team, just because there's a team now)
No worries there! KC actually has a brand new, state of the art stadium and potential ownership group.
My worry for KC isn't one of facilities and owners, it's one of drawing fans
Las Vegas absolutely does not need a team. In any sport. Period.
Why not?
The easiest reason: they don't have a consistent enough population to really support a full time club. The reason why things like the NBA all-star game worked there, were because the arena was "small" enough, and because it was a once a year thing. And even that wasn't enough to keep the numbers coming for the NBA. Or rather, they do have a population, but if their minor league baseball club numbers are anything to go by, attendance will be a major issue night in and night out.
But the bigger reason why I think that major pro sports should not be in Vegas? Gambling. I honestly don't know how MiLB convinced people that it was a good idea to have the Las Vegas 51s in town (Reno Aces aren't as bad, but still not really all that good). I think that the big 4 in the US need to keep their distance from Vegas, if they are to keep any sort of "clean game" reputations around them. Lord knows they tend to do enough to tarnish their reputations without having more gambling hanging over them.
Quebec actually has a rabid fanbase... the trick is finding local (wealthy) owners. However, I suspect Montreal/Ottawa would try to resist since it's in their neck of the woods?
Montreal is only 100% supportive of the Nordiques returning, as it would rekindle a truly epic rivalry. (and we're still at least 3-4 years away from Toronto resembling anything close to a contender...)
Ottawa likewise has a very large francophone base, and there's plenty of distance between the two cities. (for feth's sake, you're talking about Canada here! 50-100km's is considered 'next door neighbours' status )
The other contender that *SHOULD* be considered but never will be, is to put a new team in Hamilton or the northern GTA. (Markham has long been mentioned, though Oshawa or Kitchener/Waterloo could likely do very well also)
Unfortunately, while the Loafs may offer some token cries of foul, Buffalo will (and has in recent years) gone to great lengths to ensure there's 0 chance of further GTA expansion. I mean, half their season ticket holders are simply Canadians who can't get their hands on Leafs tickets! An option to stay this side of the boarder and simply train/bus it to the games would be the death knell for the Sabers organisation.
I think Seattle is the most deserving city to get a franchise. Las Vegas and KC I dont really care much either way. Whenever people say "Bring back the Nordiques" I say "Why, so they can get moved to another city when they fail to properly support the team in QC, AGAIN?"
How does everyone feel about Patrice Bergon Winning his 3rd Selke?
I have heard a lot of people spouting the traditional "EAST COAST CONSPIRACY" so I want to get your opinions.
Personally I think he deserved it more then Toews, primarily because Toews played with Marian Hossa who was in the top 10 for Selke voting as well. Teamed with the fact that the Boston Bruins had probably the most injured Blue line the entire season its easy to see why Bergeron won over Toews. With that said Im glad the voting was close because Toews is amazing.
chaos0xomega wrote: I think Seattle is the most deserving city to get a franchise.
Not gonna happen. "We" already have a minor league team, which is kind of strike one.
Secondly, most people here who care about bringing more sports into the city are still marching and protesting for "Bring Back the Sonics" It's more of a basketball town than it is hockey. Though in reality, it is much, MUCH more of a football and baseball town based on the fact that Seahawks and Mariners games are usually well attended (there's a long wait list for seahawk games)
Thirdly, the majority of hockey fans I see around here, are all wearing Canucks stuff.
Actually, come to think of it, I think that just about the only way an NHL team would work in Seattle, is if their arrival coincided with the arrival of the "Sonics" again, just to ensure that a new arena was properly used.
Ghazkuul wrote: How does everyone feel about Patrice Bergon Winning his 3rd Selke?
I have heard a lot of people spouting the traditional "EAST COAST CONSPIRACY" so I want to get your opinions.
Personally I think he deserved it more then Toews, primarily because Toews played with Marian Hossa who was in the top 10 for Selke voting as well. Teamed with the fact that the Boston Bruins had probably the most injured Blue line the entire season its easy to see why Bergeron won over Toews. With that said Im glad the voting was close because Toews is amazing.
While I love Toews... Bergeron deserved it.
No problems with it whatsoever.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
I also want to switch the point system to a 3-2-1 system. 3 points for a win, 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for an OT Loss. I feel it would make more teams try for the win in regulation and have fewer OT games which I find nauseating.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
I don't know if it'll actually work though. with fewer people on the ice, yes, it speeds up the game, however it also creates a situation where there's less opportunity to screen your shots which as we know improves your odds of success.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
I don't know if it'll actually work though. with fewer people on the ice, yes, it speeds up the game, however it also creates a situation where there's less opportunity to screen your shots which as we know improves your odds of success.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
If you want to eliminate the shootout go back to a system where tying is possible. You get 60 regular minutes to win, and 10 minutes to decide. But after that it is a split: 1 point each.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
If you want to eliminate the shootout go back to a system where tying is possible. You get 60 regular minutes to win, and 10 minutes to decide. But after that it is a split: 1 point each.
They don't want to eliminate it. They just want to reduce the number of games that go to it. I believe it was something like 56% of games that went into OT went to a shoot out last season.
What's everyone thoughts on 3-on-3 overtime now? I like it.
I don't know if it'll actually work though. with fewer people on the ice, yes, it speeds up the game, however it also creates a situation where there's less opportunity to screen your shots which as we know improves your odds of success.
Yes, but there are also fewer blocked shot angles. The AHL has shown that the 3 on 3 is very productive in reducing the number of shootouts. It will carry over into the NHL.
They don't want to eliminate it. They just want to reduce the number of games that go to it.
By creating a situation that almost never happens in the course of the game.
The NHL overruns its broadcasting spots a lot, and it is trying to shorten up the length of games. The change to 3x3 is nothing more than that.
The NHL really had nothing to do with the decision. They only agreed to it after the teams themselves came forward and said "we want this". Many of the teams did not like that 2nd point being determined solely on the skills of 2 players.
The NHL really had nothing to do with the decision. They only agreed to it after the teams themselves came forward and said "we want this". Many of the teams did not like that 2nd point being determined solely on the skills of 2 players.
When I said "NHL" I meant the whole of the sport as defined by the umbrella term "NHL".
The NHL really had nothing to do with the decision. They only agreed to it after the teams themselves came forward and said "we want this". Many of the teams did not like that 2nd point being determined solely on the skills of 2 players.
When I said "NHL" I meant the whole of the sport as defined by the umbrella term "NHL".
Yeah, but the teams have nothing to do with the way the game is televised, and issues like that. That is an NHL issue. As I said, this was decided below that level, then taken to the governers, and they weren't left with much of a choice but to accept it.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3403288/PossibleIdealisticHound.0.gif)
)
)
