kipwinger

No you didn't. Here's what you actually said when Quincey was traded for... "I may be in the minority here, but I think this is a nice deal. Kyle is a big upgrade over Kindl, he is much better (maybe not tougher) than Commodore, he will be a nice addition here. Welcome back Kyle! and for those who think a first was too much, not only is the first gonna be at least in the bottom 4, it may be #30 overall, just like everyone is saying, but consider this, when was the last time Holland even used his first? The first is so low every year he usually trades it away for another 2nd round pick. Which he has done at least the last two season's. This could mean Holland isn't done, he has said Smith will be coming up soon to get some playing time, maybe Kindl is on his way out, who know's. But as minor as this deal was, it is a little exciting. Quincey will make an impression, trust me. Where are all the folks that were complaining just last week about how we lost him to waivers a few years ago. They should be happy!" And here's where you said it...http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/71668-kyle-quincey-traded-to-detroit-in-3-team-trade-tbl-col/page-5?hl=%20trade%20%20quincey You are aware that when you say things on a forum, and then flip flop later, people can look it up right?

To respond to the first part of your argument, I agree. It is fact and situation specific. And the outcome of this lawsuit will determine where we draw the line concerning employer vs. employee responsibility. To respond to the second part. Nobody is talking about separated shoulders, or eye injuries. I agree, those are inherent risks which come with the game. I don't think you can get those out of the game without fundamentally changing the way it's played. But you absolutely can get rid of MOST head trauma without changing the game. Why? Because fighting and hitting the head are already against the rules. Individuals ignore the rules when doing those things. Make the penalties so stiff that players no longer ignore the penalty, and the behavior will stop. Sure, accidental hits to the head and/or concussions resulting from the head hitting the boards or the head hitting the ice will still happen. Nobody is talking in absolutes here. But if those are the only means of getting head trauma, and they're accidental, then it's reasonable to say that they're accepted risks because accidents can't be avoided Fights and head hits are not accidental, they're intentional, and they're a violation of the rules. It's not unrealistic for players to think that they can play hockey without being punched in the face or hit in the head. Just like they can (and should) expect to play hockey without being slew footed, or given a B.C. two-hander.

That's a good post. I didn't know that about Webster. The league needs to get VERY serious about enforcing proper hitting techniques.

Yeah but it's not like I'm talking about something fantastic or utopian. I'll tell you how to reduce concussions to an occasional level so that hockey is as safe as it can be without destroying the game. Make fighting a game misconduct, and give VERY severe suspensions for anyone who hits illegally, graduating upward to a lifetime ban for guys like Raffi Torres and the like. There are literally hundreds of really hard hits every year that are perfectly clean, do not cause concussions, and don't require supplemental discipline. Here's one from last season as an example...

You know, honestly this forum throws a lot of s*** at you most of the time, and most of the time it doesn't really bother me. But for some reason, I'm genuinely dismayed by this one. Irrationally blame Bettman or the refs? I don't care. Claim Howard sucks? Don't care. Argue that Tootoo's name should be in the rafters? Do. Not. Care. But I can't help but get frustrated by the degree of obtuseness it takes to suggest that a person should not do something rather than expect that they can do it safely. Hell, I work on the fifth floor of my office building. If I don't want to die in a building collapse is the onus on me to quite my job, or on my employer to build a safe building?

First of all, the players are arguing that they didn't fully know the risks. Secondly, this "don't take the risk if you're not willing to live with the consequences" argument is friggin' stupid. Just because there's a latent risk inherent in something doesn't mean you shouldn't make it safer. That's like saying, "if you don't want to get smashed by a drunk driver then you shouldn't drive" or "if you don't want to get botulism you should only eat fresh food". You should be able to drive AND avoid drunks, you should be able to eat canned food AND not get poisoned, and you should be able to play hockey AND not have degenerative brain diseases. And here's the kicker...you should be able to do all that without it being a crap shoot. Jesus, you people act like it's got to be an either/or scanario. Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

Literally NOBODY is saying that ALL concussions can be eliminated. Also, NOBODY is saying that clean hits should be eliminated in an effort to ensure nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey game again. The only thing being debated, and in this case adjudicated, is whether or not the NHL should (or has) done everything it possibly could to eliminate concussions (or long term brain injuries) which occur as a result of an illegal hit. Hell, none of the plaintiffs are even calling for fighting to be removed from the game...though IMO they should.

Yeah, or you could just ban fighting (since it's against the rules anyway) and force guys to hit each other in the shoulders and chest like they're supposed to.

What!?! You mean Babs is using a guy in a role he's not suited for? He'd never do that!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish, and if Americans watched hockey like Canadians they would.

Sure, and you've made some reasonable points. But as someone else said, it's kind of a misnomer to suggest that concussions are only the result of elbows and dirty hits. Plenty of concussions are simply the result of how fast the game is, which is something the NHL can control for the safety of the player. Furthermore, the "they know what to expect" argument may or may not be true, but it doesn't really matter. Just because you knew your industry is dangerous doesn't mean your employer doesn't have to do everything necessary to mitigate danger. I was in the Army for a long time, deployed overseas and all that. Pretty dangerous job obviously, and I knew it was. But because I knew it was dangerous doesn't mean the military doesn't have to enforce safety policies, or protect soldiers from each other (e.g. sexual assaults), or conduct investigations into long term side effects of military career (e.g. veteran suicide rates), etc. Saying "you knew what to expect" doesn't matter in the most dangerous industry on earth, and it shouldn't matter in hockey either.

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work. That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey. I don't think it's too much for the players to ask that they be able to have a career in hockey without suffering severe brain injuries as a result.

This isn't bloodsport, it's a business. If your employer doesn't do absolutely everything in their power to keep you safe on the job, they're liable to get sued. Put it this way, just because you work in a coal mine doesn't mean your employer doesn't have to give you a gas mask, or pump clean air into the mine. Have we seriously taken such a step back in terms of labor relations that we think employees have no rights just because they "chose" to work in a particular industry? Would any of you be ok with it if your coworker gave you a concussion at work and your employer said "you knew it was a tough job when you took it"? Obviously not.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Everybody around here is constantly pining for someone to stand up to those "bullying" our guys. Given how we've played this season, is there any bigger bully that the opposition goal? Cleary is a hero for standing up to the one thing that strikes terror into the 2013-14 Detroit Red Wings.

I think my biggest problem with Bab's "system" is his stubborn insistence that every player is a perfect substitute stylistically (or at least could be) to every other player. Because of this, you get specialized players playing in the wrong roles, because "hey, why not". Why not put Datsyuk on Zetterberg's wing with Brunner (beginning of last season)? Why not put Filppula on Zetterberg's wing in spite of the fact that Filppula likes to pass and Z likes to shoot? Why not play Abby on every line from first to fourth? Why not make Smith and Kindl play away from their strengths? Babs' system runs utterly contrary to a couple hundred years worth of evidence that specialization works really well in most facets of life. You'd be a fool to try and grow corn in an area more suited for coffee production. You'd be a fool to build a textile factory in Silicon Valley. You'd be a fool to tell Stamkos to pass more and shoot less. But for some reason Babs disagrees with this logic. He must have skipped Econ 101 for Sports Psych 10...who gives a damn.

I've been saying this for a while, Smith's biggest deficiency is his decision making. He turns the puck over...a lot. So, considering his biggest asset is his wheels, why not skate with the puck a minute to lose the forechecker before making the outlet pass? I actually think Kindl would be money ahead if he did the same thing. Not everybody needs to do it the way Lidstrom or Rafalski did. It's about time some of these young guys were allowed to became their own players instead of trying to mold them into other guys. There were lots of good d-men over the years, with lots of different styles, most of them not named Nick Lidstrom. Maybe the development gurus in the Wings organization should give up trying to make Smith into Nick, and start trying to make him into Coffey (so to speak).

Let's be clear, I never said anything about "soft players". I simply said we don't need more forwards, but better forwards. You've added the part about "softies", which makes it look like I said something I didn't. I don't care how soft the team is if they score goals.

Thank god there's not actually a referee bias against the Wings, because we can't score five on five to save our lives. Without these powerplays we'd be in real trouble.

Dominating win by the Red Wings tonight.

We have no killer instinct...says the guy with the best shot on the team right before chooses to pass to Helm on a 3 on 1 rather than take a shot from the high slot with nobody around.

I agree with you, but even that lineup makes me want to puke.

Generally, I agree that any loss meets with utter doomsday reactions around here. But if you haven't noticed, we're losing an awful lot of games.

I can agree with that.

Wow, nice lines Babs. Ugh.

It obviously was that, you're right. But that doesn't explain all the other losses which had nothing to do with that. Nobody is saying we are a tough team. We're saying that we've got bigger issues than that. We lost exactly one game because of our lack of toughness. We lost seven in a row before that because we don't hold leads, get outplayed in the third, are terrible at moving the puck, and can't score goals when we need to. Why focus on the most recent loss as if it's indicative of something and ignore all the other ones that had nothing to do with team toughness?