kipwinger

Bingo. That's because it is.

Is that what I said? Pretty sure I said "Brooklyn is on Long Island". Which is empirically true. And the reason I brought it up was to say that moving to Brooklyn does not imply a name change. They could still be the "Islanders", as they'd still be on the island. Whereas, if they moved to the Bronx (for instance), they'd probably need to change their name as they'd no longer be on an island. The Brooklyn Islanders would still be accurate, and not a geographic anomaly...which was my point.

Brooklyn isn't on Long Island huh? Sure about that? I'll give you a minute to check a map and recant if you'd like?

Because there doesn't have to be a penalty assessed for the league to discipline dirty play. Hence, the term "supplemental discipline".

The league is only allowed to fine him $5K. And there's a pretty good likelihood that it's the NHLPA who placed this restriction on league disciplinarians. It wouldn't make much sense for the league to limit a decision that is theirs to make. It would be a lot like a parent voluntarily putting a legal cap on the number of days they can ground their child (i.e. it would be dumb).

I'm curious about why the maximum fine allowed is only $5,000 bucks and who wants it that way, owner or players? We keep talking about how there needs to be stiffer penalties for cheapshots, but stiffer penalties aren't allowed. So the question seems to be, "who isn't allowing it?". And I'll be a dollar to a doughnut that it's the NHLPA. They're the ones who are losing the money. They're the ones who benefit from curtailing league unilateralism. Why would the owners, league, etc. limit their own power to protect their own investments? Doesn't make sense.

And I don't mind calling a spade a spade. A bad call IS a bad call, no matter who it's for or against. What irritates me is this persistent need to bellyache when a call goes against us, as if none have ever gone in our favor. As far as why we get calls? I don't know. However, I'd venture to guess it's partially because A) we're good, and bad teams (or teams playing badly) tend to take more penalties, and B) we're historically very disciplined (so we get the benefit of the doubt).

Agreed. Bad calls happen all the time. However, I disagree that the number of penalties doesn't matter. If we're taking less penalties, and getting more powerplays, then there is a much lower likelihood that a bad call will effect us negatively. In fact, given how disproportionately we benefit from penalty distribution I'd actually argue that we're SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to benefit from a bad call than be negatively affected by one over the course of a season.

Sure they do. I bet you can't remember a single time in which a bad call disproportionately benefited the Red Wings. Does that mean it's never happened? Or just that it's easily forgotten when it's in your favor?

It wasn't worse. At all. It just happened to a Red Wings so, of course, it must be proof of some league wide conspiracy to let goons injure our stars and get away scot free.

We don't have legitimate gripes about the officiating. That's the problem. We're consistently one of the LEAST PENALIZED teams in the league. AND we're consistently GIVEN THE MOST POWERPLAYS. Very few, if any, teams go to the box less, or go on the man advantage more. Them's the facts. I'd give the theory some credence if we never got a powerplay, or if we were always in the box. But neither of those things are true. But for whatever reason our fans have internalized this belief that everybody is out to get them. Bettman hates us. The refs are throwing games. The media doesn't recognize our star players. It's all bologna. SUPER, duper, annoying bologna.

I know. I really do know.

Read back through our GDT. It's no different. Our insistence that the refs are A) out to get us, B) the reason we're playing bad is EASILY the most annoying thing about our fan base. We'd win the President's Trophy every year if it weren't for the refs and/or Jakub Kindl.

Aha, thanks for the clarification.

Isn't the move to Barclay's only temporary while they build a new arena? I vaguely recall hearing that, though I don't know for sure.

I actually like the whole "Brooklyn" thing. Don't get me wrong, I loathe New York City, and all NYC related things. But I love when sports teams actually embrace and represent the community in which they are located. The Detroit Tigers don't have a Tiger on their hat. They have a "D". And that's become a symbol, not just of the team, but of the city, the heritage, the people, the culture, etc. These teams are first, and foremost, representatives of their city. So who really gives a s*** if somebody else has a hard time identifying with them because it says "Brooklyn" or "Detroit" or whatever? The Islanders will be the team that represents the city of Brooklyn. If you're from Buffalo, or Ontario, or wherever, you've got your own team. If you don't like your team, you're welcome to root for the Brooklyn team. But make no mistake about who it's representing.

It's more likely that they change the name to the Brooklyn Islanders. Brooklyn is ON Long Island for those of you that are geographically challenged.

Dang, sounds like a rough couple of minutes for Reilly's brother. Hope he's alright. That Smith-Dekeyser defensive pairing is too vital to our continued success...err...yeah.

We're not shooting. And we're spending all of our time trying to stop them from shooting. Seems like we're executing Babs' game plan perfectly.

Sooo, if I'm understanding this correctly Eric Lindos wants to prove he's not a douchebag by suing someone? Good plan numb nuts. Lol.

Jonas Gustavsson couldn't push James Reimer out of the #1 spot in Toronto give copious chances. I'm not sure he's going to outplay Jimmy over the long haul.

You're right. We're much better this year, and despite the final outcome of the series looking lopsided (4-1), I actually thought we were in pretty much all those games last season. I think we'd spank the Bruins this year. Healthy Dats, Z, Helm, plus improvements by the kids, Quincey, and Jimmy means we walk away with a series against the B's IMO.

Yeah, I'm really in the same boat here. Now, admittedly, I haven't seen a ton of the guy, but I just don't see him being much more than a right handed Smith. I've heard him described as everything from "much better than he looks" to "much worse than he looks". But to me, the biggest thing is, he doesn't score. He has no offense whatsoever. Why bother "upgrading" the defense if you're not getting more offensive potential? We're already super good at stifling shots and playing defensive defense. That's not really a need for us.

Losing 4-1 is more irritating than trying something creative to address it. 99 times out of 100 if you're losing 4-1 in the third, the game is over. The coaches, fans, and players know it. So why not try? Maybe you get one quick and your boys liven up a little bit? I don't see how losing 5-1 on an empty netter is worse than losing 4-1 because your guys have called it quits for the night.

This game reinforced a worry of mine. I'm hesitant to draw too many conclusions from one game, but I've had this sneaking suspicion that without another big winger capable of playing in the top six we'll be too easy to push outside and forced to play on the perimeter. LA is a hard team to draw conclusions from because they're big, strong, AND fast. I wouldn't worry about this against a team like Boston. They're slow. Our transition game will eat them alive so no need to play in the crease. But LA can stop our transition AND keep us out of the crease. That ain't good. As much as we need a good puck moving d-man, I still think we need a big winger that can play in the crease. Another Abby. Also, kudos to LA for being awesome at puck retrieval. If you go into the boards with a King, he's coming out with the puck. Those are some tough sons of guns. Yet another reason why I want a pit bull like Wisniewski.