BringHomeTheCup!

I disagree with the idea that expansion is the problem. I feel it is the solution. Bare with me here, and let me explain. What happens when you contract teams? You reduce the number of teams, and thus increase the number of talented players on each team. In this situation, it is going to be much harder for teams to get guys any real amount of ice time. A guy like Datsyuk, might be a second line guy. Not too much difference in ice time. However, a guy like Rex might not break out of a fourth line role, if he gets that. With expansion, you increase the number of teams, thus decreasing the number of talented guys on each roster. Suddenly a guy like Datsyuk is getting 27 minutes a night instead of 20. A guy like Rex ends up on your second line. In this situation, opposing teams can't always counter with a shutdown counterpart to Datsyuk (i.e. Draper). By expanding the league you spread out the talent, but you also make the competition weaker. This gives the stronger, more talented players an advantage. Regardless of what you think, what really matters is defense wins championships. For those of you who have the pleasure of having a DVR, try this. After a goal is scored, rewind the play. Look for the defensive mistake. I'd say about 80% of goals are scored because someone made a mistake, and his team could recover. Until a team wins a championship by scoring 8 goals a night, you won't see offense take over the mindset of NHL coaches, GM's, and front offices.

If you have any experience fighting, which you claim to have a good deal, then you would know exactly what I was talking about. I wasn't blaming anyone (same with the Downie thread) for anything. Just throwing in my two cents. However, you fail to see things any other way but your own. This is what I said. Lappy should have (and I'm sure he did) known what he was getting himself into. I'm sure it was no real surprise to him. It's Tootoo, that's how he does things. Regardless of what you think, you don't have to be 10 feet away to be ready for a cheap shot. All you have to do is pay attention to the guy you are trying to get to dance. It's common sense.

HUH?! Here is a simple question: When you see the ice cream truck, what do you expect? That's right, ice cream. If you expect anything else, it is your own fault for not seeing and assessing the situation. Just as the ice cream truck brings ice cream, Tootoo the cheap shot artist brings cheap shots. What's so hard to understand?

I'd like to see Rex up there.

I won't argue that Tootoo is a dirty player. I won't argue that he doesn't fight by the code. But here is what I will argue: When you are trying to start a fight, it's for a reason. Either to get your team going, or to even a score, it's something of that nature. Now, for whatever reason Lappy wanted to dance with Tootoo (I don't know, I didn't see the game), he does know who Tootoo is. Tootoo's reputation leaves no need for introduction. My problem is this. Lappy should have been ready for Tootoo to do exactly what he did. Everyone knows he doesn't fight by the code. So you have to be ready for whatever may happen. If you aren't, that's on you. So arguing that Tootoo should have squared up, and fought by the code it moot. That's like asking Alex Trebek if you can buy a vowel. And about the haffie. I could not disagree more with the reasoning for taking the helmet off. Yes, it can hurt the opposing player. But any 'advantage' this creates is moot when you consider the fact that more times that not the haffie does more damage to the guy wearing it, than the guy punching it. A haffie should be taken off to protect yourself. If you try to fight with a haffie on, odds are you are going to get cut pretty badly. Also, I forgot who mentioned it, and who said it was wrong. But there is an extra penalty given for being an instigator when you wear facial protection. Rule 47.6

Any smart player would try to get a haffie off before he fought. The haffie can cause just as much damage, if not more, than it can prevent during a fight. (See Wade Redden's second fight tonight.) How many times have you see a guy get a huge cut after a run of the mill check?

Until he grows the porn 'stach he needs a nickname.

217 isn't right. If memory serves me, that is actuallly on the wrong side of the ice. You want something like 206-210. Those seats right at the top have a few advantages. One being in event of a replay situation, you can look up and see the different angles that are available in the press boxes.

My point about the head shots is simply this, it doesn't matter if it is a clean hit or not. A head shot is a head shot and can do the same amount of damage. So, if the NHL wants to get rid of head shots because they are so dangerous, then all head shots should result in punishment of some sort, as I said, even if it is only a two minute minor. As far as past susensions holding precidence or not, it's my opinon that they do have to hold some weight. I mean, how else is anyone supposed to determine what is 'coming down hard'? You have to look at what was done in the past. If they want to come down hard on head shots, fine, I'm all for that. But you must take into account what suspensions were handed out in the past to help set the bar for future suspensions. About the warning, I'm not lacking the full story. As I said before, the problem I have with this suspension is that no one said the penalty will be at least x amount of games, and will increase from there based on severity. All that was said was,"Here is a DVD of head shots, hits like these will bring down severe punishment." IMO you can't justify the suspension given to Downie based on that. Especially when no one has ever been suspended for nearly as long for VERY SIMILAR hits (Stevens on PK, ect.). Again, if you don't look at past suspensions and draw from them, how are you supposed to determine exactly if the NHL came down hard or not? The longest suspension in NHL history was the 25 games given to Chris Simon for the slash to face he gave Hollweg. What Dowie did is nowhere near that bad. Not even in the same ball park.

My NHL career lasted for only 1 playoff game, I've never won a Cup. But I am one of the most recognizeable hockey figures in all of Canada.

I think it's you who doesn't quite grasp what I'm trying to say here. Your own example is flawed. Is it ok to go 5 mph over the limit? No. Is going 55 mph more wrong than going 5 mph over? No. There is a steeper fine. That is the only difference. There is no way you can say one head shot is ok, but one isn't. If one is wrong, so it the other. It's black and white. Maybe it's you who needs to catch up? When you go 55 mph you know there are more serious penalties to pay than if it were only 5 mph, we all know this. Downie, and for that matter the rest of the NHL, had no idea the fine would be this steep. It's unprecedented, unnecessary, and unfair to lay that kinda of discipline down without proper warning. I'm not trying to say that ignorance is an excuse, rather that there is no past record or warning that the punishment would be this harsh. Let me ask you this. If you were caught going 55 mph over, and you were fined more than anyone else in the past was fined, how would you feel? Especially if there were no real warning about how drastic this fine would increase. Wouldn't you appeal? As for what a defender is supposed to do when an opposing player attempts to stuff the puck in on a wraparound. That is for the powers at be to decide. However, if youv'e ever played you know that any player worth a hill of beans knows better than to do what both Downie and Kariya (I'll get to him shortly) did, and that's watch the play he just tried to set up. People like you will always try to find any small detail that could happen, and try to exploit it. I'll humor you just this once. In that senario, a wraparound, a head shot isn't necessary. If a defender has the time to hit the opposing player before the wraparound attempt is made, then he also has time to simply step in front of the opposing player and block his path. If the defender doesn't have the time, or ability to do that, then it would be a late hit anyhow. There are always going to be head shot. I don't disagree with penalizing them. But it has to be all or none even if it's something as simple as an automatic minor penalty. There is no way you can logistically put it into the referee's hands to make a judgment call like that. It has to be black and white. I'm not really sure what you mean about these clips you are speaking of. As far as I can tell, you haven't posted any to view, so before you tell me I don't have anything to reference to, at least put some clips out there for me to comment on. Again, it doesn't matter how the head shot was laid out. It's still a shot to the head. A concussion is a concussion. If you really want to make a comparison between Downie and Stevens, I'll do it. The hit Stevens laid on Kariya(that's a link to the clip, just so we are clear on the hit) was brutal. He didn't have to destroy PK like he did. It was dirty. It was late, PK took two strides after passing the puck. Stevens blindsided him. He should have been suspended. It's the perfect example of what an arbitrator could use as evidence that the suspension handed to Downie was far too excessive. At any rate, I'm done responding to you on this issue. All you want to do is argue. A wise man one said "Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". So, I'm cutting this off before you get the chance to drag me down, how ever far that is.

doug gilmour

First of all, what you view as arguing, I view as a discussion. I've never won or lost a discussion. You are looking at this all wrong. Second, if they were mentioned, I don't recall teh Umberger or Primeau hits being discussed. The hits I was referring to were ones like the Markov on Stoll. I'm not sure if you read the post I responded to. However, I still stand pat with my responce. There is no difference in head shots. If you are going to rule some out, you have to rule them all out. Do you think Umberger felt any better on the ice knowing it was a clean hit? No. The result was the same. That is why either head shots are in or out. There isn't any room for gray area here. I am not defending Downie. By no means do I think he should walk away from this unpunished. However, 20 games is quite ridiculous. As I said before, no suspension in NHL history was this harsh. The punishment does not fit the crime. By giving Downie 20 games, Campbell and Co. said that the hit he threw was far worse than the hit Lemieux threw on Draper. Remember, Draper doesn't have a real face anymore. Head shots won't be eliminated. It just isn't feasible. There is no way this suspension is justifiable. It should be appealed, and it should be reduced. I think something like 10 games would be sufficient. Again, the NHL never said "Hey, head shots like the ones on this DVD will get you X amount of games", and that is a big problem for me. Especially since we all know that the next time Pronger lays a hit like that he most likely won't get suspended. Finally, if the NHL really wanted to eliminate head shots, the first step would be to eliminate the instigator rule. I know this won't instantly clean things up, but it will go a long way to making guys think twice about what they are doing. Allowing fighting to be a bigger part of the game would reduce the chances of something like this happening. I mean, how many times did you see someone take a run at a Duck last year? Not too often. Why? The Ducks were intimidating, and backed it up. Guys knew the consequences. Guys like Tootoo, and Downie will always push the envelope of the rules further than others. But if the others aren't pressing it as hard, it won't leave as much breathing room for those guys to do the same.

This isn't AA we are talking about here, there aren't steps to making this right. This is a simple question of being in or out. You can't say all head shots are out without drastically effecting the game, in my opinion, in a very bad way. Why? Because you would drastically change the way players can hit, and not in a good way. There have been hits that were much worse than this one. The simple fact of the matter is that Downie is an easy target for Campbell and Co. to make a point with. This hit was no worse than several previous mentioned hits. 20 games for this hit is far too harsh. If the NHL really wants to get ride of head shots, it's as simple as making any head shot an automatic suspension. There is no pussyfooting around it. Who cares if it's Chara hitting Rex. The danger factor for a concussion does not drop simply because a player didn't mean to. If eliminating head shots is the goal, it would have been done by now. That being said, I think it's nearly impossible to outlaw head shots. There will always be the odd match up of your Chara's and Rex's. But what makes it so difficult to restrict head shots is the nature of hockey. Anyone who has enough talent to play in the NHL should know better than to watch the pass he just made. There is no arguing the fact that if McAmmond hadn't decided to watch the play he tried to setup, he wouldn't have gotten smoked like he did.

You can't say some hits to the head are alright, yet say some need to be eliminated. Either they are in or they are out. There is no room for gray areas.

I disagree with both of you. I think it is impossible to say any one player is the best ever. Howe and Gretzky played in different eras. They not only played different styles, but they played in different games. Remember goalies didn't wear masks when Gordie played, and most players used straight sticks. Wayne played with guys who not only had curved sticks, but also helmets. Goalies even dropped down to make a save. A statement I would agree with, and one that I think is more accurate would be, Gordie was the best of his era, and Wayne was the best of his.

Wait, McCabe is a dman?

I'm personally not surprised about Grigs not making the roster. What does surprise me is that there isn't anyone on the boards really complaining about it. I've never really been too impressed with Grigs, I'd take Downey in a heartbeat.

I don't think you can really argue too much with what Melrose had to say there. The Wings really aren't the team to beat any longer. I think you'd have to put the Sharks, Ducks, and Sens before Detroit. You have to face the music as a Wings fan. Melrose was right on with a lot of what he said. The Wings are deep enough to allow anyone to have a bad year. Hank and Pav can't do it alone. Melrose may not like the Wings, but a lot of what he said was true.

If I am correct, this is how it goes. Waivers are full-price, it's re-entry waivers that is half off.

Three guys piling on top of a guy who is pressing on your neck can add the pressure necessary to break it.

Downie did not hit McAmmond with his elbow. It was a shoulder to head hit. Watch the clip. There is no way 20 games is justifiable.

My point was this, it's one thing to say we are going to be stiffer about this, and a completely different thing to say this is what we will do. The difference is say things are going to change, rather than telling you exactly what to expect. This hit wasn't anything the NHL hadn't seen before. It wasn't Steve Moore's neck getting snapped. You expect this to happen in a hand full of games every year. The NHL should have been prepared, and made it public news that if you go out of your way to hit someone in the head, you will be suspended a minimum of X amount of games, potentially more based on x factors.

Dandy would fit great in with the Wings with his speed. However, all the things that make him so attractive to the Wings, also make him attractive to other teams. No way the Wings get him off waivers. If Kenny wants him, he would have to trade for him.

I'm not talking about a DVD. I'm talking about something like a DVD plus something like "Hey guys, hit like this. Yeah, they are going to cost you a minimum of X amount of games." Nothing like that was issued. That is why this suspension is too harsh. There has never been a suspension of this magnitude for a hit like that. For christ's sake, Pronger only got 1 game for intentionally driving Homer's head into the glass! I just don't see how anyone could say this suspension isn't too long.