kipwinger

Look, you never see so many quality free agents wait this long. The reason for it is not because Brunner's agent screwed up, or he screwed up. It's because the cap decreased, which rarely (or never) has happened since the cap was instituted and thus waiting for teams to straighten out their cap situation is necessary. If the cap had stayed the same (or decreased marginally) Damien Brunner would have signed by now on his terms, though maybe not with the Wings, and we wouldn't be talking. Again, this is a super atypical year for free agents, and drawing conclusions from it is not truly indicative of anything. Last year (and most years before that) Damien Brunner would have made every penny he was asking for based on his stats. Hell, if Ville Leino made what he did then Brunner would surely have cashed in.

I don't know, was the fourth liner a repeat offender? Was someone injured on the play? Raffi Tores was suspended way longer than any of those stars, and he definitely should have been. But that doesn't indicate a "star bias". There are a lot of variables that determine the length of the suspension, but one thing that you absolutely, positively, cannot say is that stars don't get disciplined.

Are you nuts? No they don't. Nobody needs the NHL's permission to determine whether ratings are up, down, or in the middle. The channels which carry these games release this information frequently (Neilson Ratings) and they do it for free. So the NHL has nothing to do with it when some reporter comes along and says the NHL's popularity is way up because the ratings during hockey games are way up. You can make up all the silly b.s. you want to support your fictitious argument, but the fact is that the popularity of the NHL is way up (contrary to what you claim), which has been verified by about 2 billion media types, none of whom needed the NHL's permission to report these numbers (contrary to what you claim). So at the end of the day your argument really boils down to "I want the Wings to be able to buy any team they want regardless of whether or not it's good for the game or the league". If you said just that and didn't use phoney bologna arguments to back it up, I might not be so happy to prove you wrong (there's no joy in shooting down people's opinions, only their made up logic).

The popularity isn't declining. You're arguing against something that's not even factually correct. Both ratings AND profits were up in the NHL again this year, as they have been every year since the 2005 lockout. Type any combination of the words "NHL", "Lockout", "Ratings", and "Profits" into google and you'll be hit smack in the face with the truth. The fact that you believe there's something wrong with the game doesn't make it so. In fact, it's more popular than ever.

Yep, it does. And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently. Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry. All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons. It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment. If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not. Do they miss one occasionally? Sure. But there is no "star bias".

Whether you admit to it or not, promoting a conspiracy theory is EXACTLY what you're doing. It doesn't change the fact just because you say "not a conspiracy theory". If there is no evidence to back up your claims then they don't mean anything, they're conjectures.

Well you may be right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's pretty hard to claim a "star bias" when both the players are stars. If he were suspended, half the people would be complaining that he got suspended ONLY because he hit a star, and if he didn't get the suspension the other half would complaining that he got special treatment because he IS a star. This is a loaded argument without a single shred of evidence to validate it. Which makes it about as meaningful as every other conspiracy theory.

Show me one shred of evidence to back up your conspiracy theory and I'll begin to give it come consideration. Yep and it was a bad call. However, it's not an indication that "star players" get special treatment considering Shea Weber isn't as big of a star as the guy he was hitting. If this "stars get the calls" argument were true, then Weber WOULD have got the suspension considering the guy he hit is about 40 times more respected and accomplished.

Who are Bettman's teams again? I'm having a hard time keeping all of these conspiracy theories straight.

Exactly. Irrelevant dummy.

Agreed. When guys get hit clean, whether it's Crosby or anyone else, then there's no suspension on the play. Which is the point I was trying to make. Lots of people around LGW seem to believe that there's some sort of bias in favor of marquee players, and there isn't. Everybody is just as susceptible to suspension as everyone else, as the 2013 suspensions to Duncan Keith, Corey Perry, Joffrey Lupul, Taylor Hall, and Alex Edler seem to indicate. I'm tired of this old "well if it happened to 'so and so' then there would/wouldn't be a suspension" bulls***. It's simply not true. Star players get suspended all the time, ask Ovechkin. Furthermore, just because you hit a star player hard doesn't mean you'll be suspended, ask Steckel and Hedman. It's just a line of b.s. that dummies keep repeating to make themselves feel relevant.

Better in what regard then? They look flashier? More aerodynamic?

More baseless Crosby bashing. If you recall Crosby WAS hit from behind, into the boards, AND injured on the play. You'll recall he missed about a full year of hockey because of it. Viktor Hedman did it. And he wasn't suspended on the play. Neither was David Steckel when he "blindsided" Crosby and injured him. People keep saying "if it happened to Crosby the NHL would sing a different tune". Well it has, and they haven't.

You've totally nailed it. Guys aren't getting head injuries because the "rats" are taking cheap shots. Guys are getting head injuries because the game is 1,000 times faster and therefore they're getting hit a whole lot harder than that (mass times acceleration or something like that). They wanted a faster game and this is one of the negative side effects. On the whole though, I feel like the game is better for it. At the end of the day it's a contact sport and guys are just going to have to learn to play a safer game than they used to. I don't think suspending is the answer any more than I think getting rid of the instigator rule is. Suspensions don't factor into a guy's mind when he's moving that fast, is largely encouraged by his coaches to hit first and ask questions later, and must commit to contact in a split second. Likewise, gooning it up doesn't work because most of these injuries aren't the result of cheap shots, and so the only thing dressing more tough guys is going to do is cost you games. The only way to stop it is to slow down the game, and in doing so you'll lose the speed that is almost entirely responsible for ensuring that NHL hockey is the most intense, physically demanding sport on earth.

I agree with Axe on Quincey, but not on Tootoo. Quincey started bad and finished strong, but once you're a whipping boy around here (and once you're a hometown hero) there's no changing most people's minds. There was ZERO wrong with Quincey's play down the stretch and into the playoffs. Tootoo is another story in my opinion. He was under utilized. I know Bab's had all sorts of quotes about penalty minutes and this and that. But the truth is, both Boston and Chicago dressed at least one guy who was a penalty machine but still brought enough intangibles that they were worth being on the ice. Hell, Abby had 33 PIMs in 12 games. And he didn't score enough to make that worthwhile. Tootoo isn't Boogaard. He didn't play because Babs likes skill more than he likes aggressiveness (in spite of what he says), and once Babs doesn't like a guy it's awfully hard to change his mind. You're not exactly going out on a limb here. He's the highest rated defensive prospect we've got. He's further along the developmental curve mentally, physically, and skill wise than any of our other prospect d-men. Plus, he's projected to have the much higher upside based on his mix of skill and size. It's a little like "gambling" that Mrazek will be a starting goalie, or Mantha a top line forward. The sky would literally have to fall for this to not be true.

I'd replace Stastny with Dubinsky, Pacioretty with Van Riemsdyk, and put Brown in Oshie's spot and Wheeler in Brown's. Parise-Kesler-Kane Ryan-Pavelski-Kessel Callahan-Backes-Wheeler Van Riemsdyk-Dubinsky-Brown Lots of scoring on top, and lean and mean on the bottom. Also, I'd want my defense to be noticeably bigger than the one you've got because Canada is going to have a GIANT team. So Orpik and Bogosian would definitely be in for me in place of any two of Martin, Yandle, Shattenkirk.

The insane part of Sammy's contract was the term and the NTC. I wouldn't even be all that mad about it if not for those aspects. Two years at the same money wouldn't have been great, but I could have lived with it. Sammy came to this team with a lot of question marks (age, declining production, injury history), and the contract he was given all but ensured that if any of these concerns were legit, the team would be hamstrung by it. 2 years, same money, no NTC and I'd have been ok. Not great, but ok. Anything else and you might as well have rolled the dice and signed Semin. Even if he was a flop (which he wasn't) at six million per year, you'd still have paid him less in the long haul than you are going to pay to Sammy (even if he do buy him out at the end of next season). Ah highsight...

I'm not sure that people in Tennessee have thumbs and know how to use them.

Seems like the Florida teams were added into the Division with us, Toronto, Boston, etc. because they'd get more market exposure, and as such their owners would be more likely to vote for the realignment plan. If I owned the Lightening and the league came along and told me that my team was now going to be in a division with Carolina, Nashville, Washington, Florida, etc. I would never vote for it. You are going to make exactly ZERO money if you aren't any good, and never play anyone who's any good, in markets nobody cares about. But play large market teams four or five times a year is a much better deal for a s***ty team. Tampa and Florida didn't get screwed, they got payed off in order to get their vote for a realignment plan which is good for pretty much everybody else except them.

I'd prefer Sawchuk over Lindsey, just because I want to see this pic carved into 200 ft. of stone. Totally Badass!!!!!

As previously stated when they mentioned "original six" matchups, it wasn't in reference to the pictures, it was in reference to the sentence before when they explicitly discuss Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. Which are, indeed, original six matchups. It's a very poorly put together promo, but you guys are reading a little too much into it. They're hyping the original six matchups specifically in reference to the teams they mentioned, Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. The rest of the ad is an attempt to inform fans that Detroit will host all their main rivals, including the teams pictured, at the Joe this year.

Yeah for sure. But everyone seems gaga over size these days. Anybody with the tiniest amount of skill, so long as they're big, will get a huge contract. I kinda want Montreal to win the Cup just so a little team can ruin that trend. Then again, as soon as it happens everyone will be talking about Rene Bourque like he's the second coming of Christ...err...Bryan Bickell.

If you read the headline, it says "Detroit will host every team at the Joe INCLUDING new Eastern Conference Rivals". It then names Toronto, Montreal, and Boston as examples of these new "rivals". And then concludes by saying "Guarantee your chances of seeing these Original Six Matchups" in reference to the previously mentioned Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. It's a poorly put together ad campaign, but it's pretty easy to see that the whole point is to see tickets to marquee games, and Chicago, Pittsburgh, AND the original six are all considered those types of games. They aren't promoting hockey history, they're trying to sell you tickets. And that's not going to happen if they promote Florida.

Yeah, I mean it's not like the guy's a super star or anything, but considering how everyone else got paid this year I'm a little surprised he didn't hold out for more. Then again, maybe he just likes it in St. Louis. Haha, you've got me all wrong. I genuinely enjoy reading these types of assessments. It's kinda like when people put human clothes on their dogs, or dress their toddlers up in suits. Soooooo close to the real thing, only not. Adorable.

I don't really care about the Pens, or Sidney Crosby, but if I hired a marketing director and he DIDN'T use one of the biggest names in hockey to sell tickets I'd fire him immediately. Sometimes it's hard for us fans to separate hockey the sport we love, from hockey the multi-billion dollar business. The league doesn't post constantly increasing profits by ignoring their bread and butter. Sidney Crosby sells, and until he doesn't, the NHL and each individual team is VERY likely to ride that gravy train. Get used to it.