lets go pavel

I think we're just splitting hairs here and we essentially agree. To me when you say you lose confidence in someone it implies something more than just a temporary dissatisfaction with their performance. But I understand what you mean ...

Apparently you're not going to waste your time actually answering anyone's questions either. You're right ... we're all staring at utter futility.

Giving him a chance to get his head together doesn't equate to a complete loss of confidence by everyone. Conklin's GAA isn't much better, and questions from the media are normal. In the articles I've read the coaches have expressed confidence that he will turn things around. Your personal view I can't argue with ...

What are you basing this on?

The role Kyle Quincey is playing in LA is drastically different than the one he would have been playing here. Playing as a top-pairing defenseman anywhere is likely to inflate someone's statistics, his numbers don't mean he's better than our other defensemen. He had his opportunities to make the team here, and he failed to do it. It's great that he has found a good situation in LA, let's leave it at that ...

Again, all you keep saying it is bad for the league, but you fail to say HOW. HOW is the attention bad for the league? HOW HOW HOW? What harm is it doing? What are the negative consequences? And no, that's not the premise I'm working from. I think there is good attention and bad attention. I don't think this incident makes a bit of difference to the game of hockey. I don't think this particular bit of attention was good or bad for the game, I don't think this incident had anything to do with the game. I think it's bad for Sean Avery.

Having a tough guy on our team isn't going to stop teams like Calgary, Anaheim, SJ from playing physical, it's how they play. Our team isn't tired, we're not even half way through the season yet. And just for the record, we outhit the Flames 23-21 last night.

Nothing you said answered the question. I understand his comments had nothing to do with hockey. I don't disgree that they were unprofessional. I'm not arguing that it was good for the game. But how are his comments BAD FOR THE GAME? You keep saying that they were "bad for the game". What negative consequences have been avoided by this suspension? I don't care about entertainment, wrestling, the UFC ... tell me specifically what negative impact Sean Avery's comments would have had on THE GAME OF HOCKEY had he not been suspended for 6 games.

These things - pushing, shoving, facewashes - happen all the time because they are part of the game. This is hockey, not bowling. None of those things are going to wear our players down, they aren't a bunch of pansies who cry when someone is rough with them. Moreover, having a tough guy to come off the bench isn't going to stop any of that, again it's part of the game. I have no problem with having a tough guy around to stick up for people, but let's not act like our players are helpless without one ...

I see now ... then again, how could Bettman suspend a guy named Noodles for more than 5 games? Noodles. That's so cute, I'm sure he didn't mean to do it. Suspending him longer would send the wrong kind of message, that the NHL is anti-cute nicknames, and we wouldn't want that ...

Once again, I ask ... how are Avery's comments "bad for the game"? How do they make "a mockery of the sport"? Apart from you saying this, exactly what consequences did you expect would arise had the NHL not suspended him? I understand why they are objectionable, offensive, etc ... but what harm is that to the game of hockey???

All the more reason not to play him ... could there be a more blatant conflict of interest???

The things they were doing last night - shoving after the whistle, etc. - were either meant to intimidate or to raise the level of physicality to the game as a whole. I think it's safe to say we weren't intimidated. I think it's also safe to say that we are comfortable with physical play ... we actually outhit them 23-21. I didn't once think to myself during the game that we needed someone tougher on the ice to stand up for our guys, so based on last night, no. That's not to say that there aren't games where I'd like to see Downey or Mac on the ice, but last night I didn't feel that way. As for who else, I think Mac do Downey do just fine when they get the chance ...

Gotta say, I'm not so sure I'd mind if most of our guys don't go to the ASG. I don't think the extra rest would hurt, and the perceived slight might help some of them play with a little more of a chip on their shoulder.

Can someone explain how what Avery did is actually "bad for the game"? I understand why it was a crude comment, but why is it "bad for the game"? What exactly are the supposed ramifications of this incident that necessitated such a severe penalty? Was viewership going to drop? Were current fans going to stop watching hockey? Were people who weren't fans going to be even lesser fans? Would this somehow change the game on the ice? What is the danger here that we avoided by suspending Avery?

Okay, so we're not perfect. Isn't that a no-brainer? Obviously someone we didn't pick at some point is going to be better than someone we did pick. I think we are widely considered to have the best scouting and drafting in the league.

Actually eva suggested it in the Red Wings Shuffle Line Combos, Defense Pairs thread, only with Huddles at center.

Personally, I think it's more exciting if the boundaries of sportsmanship are enforced by Phaneuf's fists rather than Bettman's suspension.

Okay, that may be true, but how is what Avery said bad for the game? It's not positive attention, but do you really think people look at this incident where one guy is a jackass and hold it against all of hockey? And I'm sorry, this may not be a guy the Stars need in the lockerroom, but this IS the kind of entertainment the league needs ... or it would have been, had they let him play. This sport needs rivalries, it needs villains, it needs people to root against. Ovechkin/Semin vs. Malkin is exciting! Claude Lemieux was an ass but he made those series against Colorado all that much better. I like playing Pronger and Tootoo, even though they are dirty SOBs. This is what makes hockey great, and the point others are trying to make is that these storylines that add to the excitement of the game are also likely to attract new fans, and make people more willing to buy a ticket.

No, we pretty much agree. Personally, I think the suspension by the NHL was wrong, and should have been left to Dallas to handle. I don't think his comments besmirched the game of hockey, or his team, or his teammates, and I'd have liked to watch the game that night as well. To be honest, I think someone will give him another chance, he's certainly not the worst thing to come along, but he's got some work to do. He's got a reputation, not just for saying stupid things, but for destroying lockerroom harmony, and that won't be as easy to overcome.

I'm not taking his side, I'm not exactly sure what his side is, but ... While there's no doubt that what Bertuzzi did was more despicable than Avery's, that doesn't (and shouldn't) necessarily mean that Avery should be more welcome in a lockerroom than Bert. Bert's act was a single incident, and, however misguided, was done for a teammate. While surly, he wasn't considered a cancer in the lockerroom. Avery is. It is easy to understand why Bert might be welcomed back to a team sooner than Avery.

Oh yeah? Well I'm sick of posts like this where people complain about people complaining about people who complain. (And for the record, I'm sick of my own post too.)

Actually, Avery reminds me quite a bit of Dennis Rodman. Love him or hate him, he was great publicity for the NBA, he brought crowds in the door (often to hate him, but the world needs villains too), brought energy to games, and he could play the game.

I think the problem with your hypothetical is that it assumes that "this and other stunts" is why he may never play again. But if he doesn't play again, it's because noone wants him. As forgiving as this league is ... as you pointed out with Bertuzzi ... it would be very surprising if that happens, but if it does, it clearly goes well beyond simply this incident and the others like it, and has more to do with Avery as a team/lockerroom presence. Had the league banished him for life over this incident then yes, that would be grossly unfair. However, if teams decide they don't want him, that has everything to do with Sean Avery.

I realize that this particular incident is the one of record, but from everything I've heard this is simply the straw that broke the camel's back for the Stars. It sounds like they had had enough of Avery long before this incident, and perhaps just didn't have the balls to get rid of him on their own. Personally I think the suspension is a bit much, I think the league should have left it to the Stars to deal with. But to answer your hypothetical question, if his career is done and noone will take him after this it will be because of his history of disruptions, on and off the ice, and particularly in the lockerroom, much more so than just this comment.