Leaderboard

Bad move by the Hawks! If I were them, I would play Niemi and tell Huet to stick his ass to the bench lol http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/news/story?id=5024819 It's funny to read all the comments from the ESPN article. Hawks fans going into meltdown mode. 1st Round exit coming! (If its against us)

Canucks fan had a major unfair advantage.

I agree. What a punk *****.

Calgary Flames @ New York Islanders -- 7pm Los Angeles Kings @ St. Louis Blues -- 8pm Phoenix Coyotes @ Nashville Predators -- 8pm Western Conference GP PTS 1. * Chicago 72 99 2. * San Jose 73 98 3. * Vancouver 74 94 4. Phoenix 74 97 5. Los Angeles 72 90 6. Colorado 73 89 7. Nashville 74 89 8. Detroit 73 87 9. Calgary 73 83 I think it's fairly safe to say that the majority of us are Islanders, Blues, and Coyotes fans for the night. The Flames lose tonight and it's going to be very tough for them to catch us. If the Coyotes can take care of business in regulation we'll be 2 points back with 2 games in hand. Both the Blues and the Kings played last night and have to travel. Hopefully the Blues find their legs, 3 points back of the 5th spot would look great at the end of the night.

This might be a death wish to whatever reputation I have on these boards - but I find myself coming to the defense of...Gary Bettman (I just threw up a little in my mouth). Before my Man-Card is revoked and I'm dragged into the streets and beaten with a bag full of used pucks - know that there is sound reasoning why I find myself the defense of Bettman. I believe a lot of the general hatred towards Gary Bettman is misdirected based upon confusion and ambiguity regarding what it is he's actually responsible for. As much as we like to romanticize what the NHL is, it is a business first and a competitive sports league second and as such, it is run entirely like a business. The NHL Commissioner is the de facto "CEO" of the league and as such, reports to the "Board of Directors" like any CEO would, in this particular case the Board of Directors is actually referred as the Board of Governors. The NHL Board of Governors is comprised of representatives from all the NHL franchises whether that is actually the owner (in the case of Peter Karmanos of the Carolina Hurricanes), or a senior official for that team (Brian Burke of the Toronto Maple Leafs). So this large collection of individuals are actually the driving force behind any and all decisions made by the NHL. This includes but is not exclusive to: Appointment of the NHL Commissioner, the CBA, Rules, Players, Marketing, Revenue Sharing, Expansion, and Transfer of Ownership. The Board of Governors acts very much as a Board of Directors for a large Fortune 500 company. The met periodically and discuss the general estate of their business, determine the strategic objectives of the company, and agree upon the rules and governance that the organization will adhere to. Gary Bettman is tasked with the execution of whatever it is the Board of Governors decide. Any systematic or structural change to the game is not a unilateral decision made by Bettman - it is an order from the Board of Governors for him to achieve. Cheif Executive Officer - he executes, he doesn't dictate strategy or direction. Bettman's responsibilities are neatly written within the NHL guidelines when the position was created back in 1993. I'll not bore with legalese, but basically he role is over Business Operations: Budget, Marketing Contracts, The Officials, etc., as as a conflict negotiator/resolvement. If there is a disagreement or contract breach between any number of parties: Clubs, Players, Officials, Business Partners, etc - he can mediate and judge based upon his discretion and further review by....The Board of Governors. Bettman is at best, the central public spokesman of the NHL ownership to ensure successful business operation consistent with their direction. The owners task him to execute particular strategy and allow the league to have a central figure in which the NHLPA, and the general public as a whole to interact with. Some "questionable" decisions that Gary Bettman that the fans typically hold him responsible for: 1) Expansion into Underdevloped Hockey Markets, particularly the South. The expansion was well underway before Gary Bettman was appointed the NHL commissioner. In the summer of 1991, the San Jose Sharks were added to the NHL. In the summer of 1992, the Ottawa Senators and the Tampa Bay Lightning were added to the NHL. That is three added teams, two of which in questionable markets while Bettman was still with the NBA. In 1993, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks were added and the Minnesota North Stars were moved to Dallas. So within 1 year of Bettman's reign, another team was added to a warm weather market, and a northern team who was financially failing was moved to a southern market. In the course of the next decade seven franchises were added or moved. How can Bettman be held accountable for these decisions that 1) started before he was commissioner 2) he actually has no jurisdiction over? It's not as if Gary Bettman was like, "Well Hartford, you all are terrible so I've decided to take your team from you and move it to Raleigh." The decision to move or create new franchises lie solely with the Board of Governors and the Owners. These are hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, that financial consequence and agreements before this type of action to occur. Municipal argreements with a town, market research and forcast to determine if their is a large enough consumer base, construction or destruction of arenas, a new owner who has the financial resources to make this happen, and the unanimous vote of the existing ownership. Bettman cannot not make all of this happen. So why would the NHL turn to underdeveloped markets where there is not hockey footprint? Money. It really makes no other decision other than the chance to generate more revenue. With the revenue sharing structure of the league, all franchises pool a percent of generated revenue from ticket sales, mechandise, and TV contracts (regional and national) and split the profit amongst them. Move a team to Dallas? How many potential new hockey fans is that? Roughy 7M people around the metro area. That's a lot of jersey sales, regional broadcasts, and more ticket office sales. The more franchsies, the larger the fan base, the larger the collective pool of revenue. 2) The NHL Lockout Expansion into non-traditional hockey markets didn't exactly turn out the way that the owners that it would. Despite Bettman providing the public face for the whole debacle, the owners chase for more revenue was met with angry defunct franchises (I hear you Quebec), and the new markets are floundering as the NHL failed to understand how to properly market and build a consumer base into markets that had no exposure to hockey before. So now half of the league's franchises are operating at a net loss and the revenue of the larger established markets (Toronto, Montreal, New York, Detroit) are being undercut and sapped by the smaller failing markets. So, what should we do about this? (I imagine the conversation went something like this): Florida Panthers Owner: "Wah! We're terrible and I'm losing money because no one wants to come to our games!" Detroit Red Wings Owner: "Well, maybe if you actually spent some money on a team and won a couple of game, you can afford better players and win even more games and build a fan base." Florida Panthers Owner: "But then I would lose even more money because Florida is a hard place to sell hockey. Poor us! You have an unfair advantage to outbid us." Detroit Red WIngs Owner: "Well maybe you should have thought about all of that before you randomly decided to build a hockey franchise in freakin' Florida. Then, maybe I wouldn't have to subsidize a mismanaged, cost inflated, hell hole of a franchise that does noting but suck cash from the collective revenue pool. There are so many of you right now that are underperforming that we need a deep run into the playoffs to break even this year." All Owners: "Yeah, this expansion thing wasn't a great idea. And the only obvious solution to make the league more competitive and to get us profitable again is to cap the roster salaries and the maximum amount a player can make." Bettman: "The NHLPA isn't going to like that." All Owners: "Tell them to go to hell. And don't come back here until there is a hard cap. We can't afford to operate at a lost. Cancel the season if you have to." 3) Marketing John Collins, VP of NHL Marketing/Corporate Sales. That is the man who is responsible for the current NHL marketing campaigns. At least to some degree. Granted, Bettman approved his hiring but he is the individual responsible for the National marketing campaigns that are conducted. So, the Crosby centric advertisements are a collaboration between him and the corporate sponsors. For NHL to secure strategic commerical partners (Visa, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, etc.), certain marketing agreements must be met between them. As the NHL has a limited consumer base, they are unfortunately at the collective decision makers at these business. So, Visa wants to agree with the NHL to a 5 year, $50M dollar contract to be the sponser for the NHL. Excellent. Part of the agreement for the NHL to receive this money is that they must allow certain levels of access, tickets, board space, commercial time, and access to players. Now, the head of Visa marketing speaks with John Collins and wants to run an NHL marketing campaign to attract new customers. NHL is contract obligated to provide player access and time to run the Visa commercial during games. Visa gets it's pick of NHL footage. Who do you think they ask for? The player with the largest name recognition (according to the marketing polls, it's Crosby), who can speak english well (Goodbye European players), is personable (Sorry Pronger), and is a winner (Getzlaf, Kane, Toews, get back to us when you're on the cover of Sports Illustrated when you win something). So the National marketing campaigns are a collaboration between the strategic partners and John Collins. I fail to see how Bettman is responsible for this. His involvement is the contract negotiations and fulfillment. Unfortunately the NHL does not have the bargaining power of the NFL and cannot walk away from large corporate sponsors when something doesn't suit them. So, the end result is we end up with Crosby centric commercials. Young, Champion Superstars sell a lot more than Foreign Born, Aging Legends (Sorry Lidstrom). Additionally the other smaller issues that Bettman is held accountable for: Rule Changes: Competition Committee (Owners, and NHLPA) Restructure of Conferences: Board of Governors Fines, Assessments, Suspensions: Disciplinary Committee (Colin Campbell) Glowing Puck: Production and Marketing And bear it mind, all of these changes and decisions ultimately rest upon the approval of the Owners - it is Bettman's role to implement the changes ask of him. Finally, the last note that someone mentioned "Can the Board of Governors remove Bettman?" Of course, the absolutely can remove him. However, why would they want to? Every change and decision made is their choice and Bettman is valued in two categories: 1) Did the NHL institute the change? 2) Is he the focal point for all protests against the NHL? Yes...and Yes. Bettman is doing his job perfectly in the fact he protects and deflects all criticism and anger of the general public away from the owners. He is the face of the League but if far from the brains that makes the decision. The very fact that he is universally blamed for all of these changes makes his an effective commissioner. He is there to be unpopular. Do you think that the owners are unaware that Bettman is hated by the fans and players? Of course they are. If they were so concerned with that level of unrest, wouldn't they have released him a long time ago? Yes, but that is what he is there for. To be the "bad guy" while allowing the owners anonymity to make unpopular decisions without public backlash. If you truly want someone to blame, turn your attention to profit seeking ownership who ignore their fan bases, continually put forth a subpar product on the ice, and cut cost to maximize their revenue with disregard to the health of the league as a whole. These at the individuals who drive franchises into odd locations, refuse to spend to build a competitive team, demands more parity in terms of business revenue and ignore the tradition of the game to increase ticket sales.

How come the Flip haters never post after he has yet another good game? At least when Cleary has/had a good game I still give him crap lol

Yeah, good clean hit. Hopefully Booth can get back, he can be a great player.

I never thought I'd type these words, but props to Cooke. I loathe the guy and he does a lot of dumb s*** - but in this particular instance he did the right thing. Find the other team's toughguy early and fight him straight up, get it out of the way. Had Cooke gone after May instead of fighting non-fighter Cooke, Bert might not have broke his neck.

I didn't notice. If he was, he should have ditched it. Nonetheless, going after Thornton early was the right thing to do. Failing to fight a toughguy or turtling would have put his teamates at risk.

Cooke was f'n brilliant in fighting Thornton early. Had he not, he would have been either jumped and beaten, or he'd have dodged a fight or two and the game would have turned into a bloodbath. I can think of a lot of ways the Bruins should have acted if Cooke wussed out - but once he fought Thornton, and willingly, I don't know how much more justice you can ask for. He took his medicine like a man, it's in the past, everyone knows that if you f*** with a Bruin you meet Thornton's fists, now play hockey. The Bruins failed at the "now play hockey" part. It would have been nice if somebody'd jumped cooke immediately after his tripping penalty, but whatya gonna do? I wish it had been team Captain Chara who got hold of Cooke instead. Had Cooke ducked Lucic, Chara and Thornton, I would have zero problem with any and every Bruin going after Crosby or whatever other non-fighter they could get their hands on. You have to send a message - if the villiam will not accept his punishment, then punsih the men who allow the ******* to share a lockerroom with them. He'll get the message.

Yup. the Wings wear a "borrowed" logo from a Montreal team and the "red"part has no significance whatsoever, except that the team's colors as the Falcons were red and white. They are not named after the Red-Winged Blackbird as some have suggested.

..or a mule! Our PowerForward, Johan Franzen, outweighs Cooke by 15 lbs and has 4" in height on him. I hope Franzen drops his gloves and gives cooke the beating that he deserves, just as a warning - to say "This is what you're gonna get lots more of if you ever mess with one of our guys". I hope we beat defending stanley Cup Champion Captain and Defending World Champion Sidney Crosby in this game. While none of our players are as amazing as he is, perhaps as a team we'll be able to eek one out.

Fin, you've been asked several times how much pre-instiogator rule NHL hockey you watched, and I'm not sure you answered. I suspect you're basing your oppinion on the rule of what you fear would happen rather than what you observed before it was in place. Allowing players to pick fights without taking an additional penalty did not result in goons picking on star players before and I don't see why it would now. Enforcers might not be gifted scorers, but they are not always idiots either. They know that the Datsyuks of the league bring in the money, and they know that there is no way that the league is going to tollerate a $500k/yr hack pummeling a superstar for no reason. IF that ever became a problem, I would support efforts to stop it post haste - that is not hockey, that's a sideshow. Come on, man. Nobody here is talking about "fighting just for the sake of fighting", the topic is fighting as a part of a package that will discourage headshots. I don't think that fighting is magic and I don't think that it will prevent every instance of thuggery - just like rules and penalties and suspensions and fines wouldn't - but there is room for all of them, and all of them together could form a nice package that's safer for the players and better for the fans. If player A just took an elbow to the head, there is no ******* reason I can immagine for his teammate to recive an extra penalty for going after the bad guy. That's what good teammates are supposed to do, why discourage it with penalties, fines and suspensions? That is what the instigator rule does.

Don't worry, I'll say something ridiculous soon enough.

You're basing your oppinion on fear instead of history and direct observation. I don't think that's sound practice. People are responsible for policing themselves to an extent. One may use force to defend themselves or another person from likely bodily injury. Police cannot be expected to stop all crime, and you and I have a responsibility to deter and or actively fight back against illegal attacks to the extent possible. If the league would give the boot to the Cookes of the league with the quickness they would give it to Donnald Brashear if he took to randomly jumping and kicking the s*** out of superstars, there would be no problem, that's true. Until that day comes, I'd like to see players able to defend themselves and their teammates without the threat of 17 minutes of penalty along with possible fines and suspensions.

With the threat of fines, jail, and legal counterattack.

It is not legal per the NHL rulebook to fight back and defend yourself or another person. As far as how normal folk defend themselves, it varies. Some learn to fight, some hire bodyguards, some carry guns, some exersize caution in where thy go and when, some lock their doors at night, etc. Most of us don't think about it very often, I don't. Some people live in places where they must worry every day about stopping some thug that wants to do them harm. Where are you going with this, and why are you asking questions that you know the answers to? If Crosby were hitting my sister in the back with a stick and I feared that she was at risk of bodily harm, I could proceed to feed him punches until the threat was removed, and the only legal punnishment would be against him.

Can punish it accordingly? I don't think it has anything to do with what the league can do, but what the league does. If the league ever gets so serious in their punnishments against cheap-shotters that they cease to exist, then players will not need to fight. Until the day that the league cleans up the game, the players should be able to police themselves as they have for the majority of the league's history. ..and I'm okay with that, at least in hockey. It isn't just about punishing bad guys, it is also about sending a message to others - "If you mess with this team you will be punished, even if the league won't get you, we will. Don't do anything stupid."

No s***? I'm all for punnishing fight instigating, right after the league eliminates dangerous play.

Oh sweet another Crosby thread.

Good. The league has to take action post haste in order to maintain any sense of credibility (or rather, as a first step towards gaining credibility). "But we were waiting for the NHLPA" will not be a good enough excuse if someone important gets hurt by one of these hits.

Agreed. Plastic belongs on helmets, skates, chest plates and other areas that are not typically led with in a hit. Elbows (even though players aren't *supposed* to lead with them) and shoulders should be soft padding, if the player elects to pad them at all. While I want to get grievous injuries out of the game, I am not interested in moves to make the game hurt less. Getting hit should hurt. Throwing a hit should hurt. Nothing wrong with that.

Wish Kalinka still layed for Dats. Russia > Brazil... jeez. Uprising - Muse (is a staple now) Inavders Must Die - Prodigy (the coda is played when a shootout is being prepared)

Rob Ray rules. I could go without the Rob Ray rule though.