The Greek

I have no difficulty answering that one. To ban fighting would not have an appreciable effect on the number of cheap shots. What it would do is drastically reduce the number of injuries and long term health effects that result from fighting. That should be enough to justify it when you consider that fighting is not a necessary element to the game itself. Cheap shots and egregious stick work could be reduced if guys were heavily sanctioned by the league for taking part in that stuff. As it is now, there is zero consistency and some of the pubishments are severely lacking. I'm really having trouble understanding this notion that a violent person will be deterred by the threat of more violence.

Again, hockey will still be hockey once fighting is inevitably banned. I am puzzled by your logic. You propose the league gets rid of dangerous hits in order to reduce fights. Couldn't they just reduce both by sanctioning them in a logical and consistent manner? Also, it doesn't matter if anyone is trying to hurt someone else In a fight, because it still happens. It even makes less sense if that's the case. You have guys subjecting themselves to brain trauma with no cathartic benefit or deterrent effect. It's for nothing but entertainment value at this point. You can see it with all the stupid, scripted fights that happen right after the puck drops.

I'm pretty sure that is forbidden.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0DnQVtnRRMQ?autoplay=1 Please watch the video. Most of those incidents occured during a time when enforcers were used regularly. It certainly did not stop these situations from happening. That's because violence begets violence. As much as I hate Cooke, he has actually cleaned up his act quite a bit. Guess what, it was the league's sanctions that caused him to do it, not some enforcer punching his face in. If a hit is dirty, then it should be sanctioned by the league. If one of our star players are crushed with a clean hit there is no reason for an enforcer to fight him.

Nothing but inference. There is ZERO proof that having fighters prevents cheap shots. I watch hockey because I love hockey. I've played the game my whole life. I don't really care about the fighting. If you love fighting so much, why don't you watch MMA?

It's not watering down the game though. Hitting is part of the game, fighting is not. It is ancillary and unnecessary. The GAME stops when two guys start fighting. Haroldnepsts said it, removing fighting would not have major effect on the game itself.

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. I have experience too. I've been in numerous fights, on and off the ice. There were times my head hurt for days due to one solid punch to the head. Some young kid who lacks a proper education should not have to needlessly put his well being on the line just because he feels compelled to impress his coach. Good job leaving out the rest of my post, straw man.

Are these facts substantiated? Even if they are, your reasoning is still fallacious. The fact that essential parts of the game are more dangerous than fighting is not a defense of fighting. I can come back and say hockey is dangerous enough already. It seems unreasonable to subject the players to an additional, unnecessary risk just because we are entertained by it.

No it's not. Fighting is fighting, and hockey is hockey. That's enough semantics for now. If you look at his reasoning you'll see that it's quite sound. They are suspending guys for multiple games for a hit to a (helmeted) head, but it's only five minutes for repeatedly punching someone in the head. It's not like many of the good players even fight anymore. Back in the day you had guys like shanny and dmac who were both very talented, and knew how to throw down. Now, most of the fighting is done by guys who serve no purpose other than to fight and skate around for 6 'minutes per game. There are guys that would not even be playing hockey if they didn't know how to fight. That's very strange to me. These guys are allowed to perform at the highest level of hockey while not actually being skilled at the game. They're just very good at an ancillary, non-essential element of the game. That would be like the tigers keeping a catcher only for his fighting ability, just so he can protect the pitcher in case he is rushed by a batter.

Abby playing with z and pav is by no means an excuse for not producing at all. I expect him to rack up a significant number of assists from feeding the puck to his line mates. If he's dragging the line down I will show him no mercy. My support for Abby is based mostly on the fact that I have a feeling that cleary would be his replacement on the top line.

I disagree. Abby isn't on that line to produce 20 goals. He's there to make space for pav and z so they can score. His job will be to go to the corners and park himself in front of the net.

Apparently he needs to peak, then start to decline.

It's clear, he and Kenny read our posts, and they hate us.

Those guys could all be traded without calling them up. Malik gives a pretty good explanation of what's going on. http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/red-wings-roster-moves-get-weird-emmerton-remains-in-nhl-ouellet-recalled-t

I forgot this was a thread about emmerton until I read your post.

That really bugs me. I don't see how the chl was able to force this standard on AHL/NHL. I can understand why, but it bothers me that they're essentially holding a young kid's career hostage just so they can extract another year of entertainment value out of him. Especially when you consider how much money they make, Meanwhile the kids aren't compensated. It's worse than the NCAA, because you're not even getting a degree out of it.

Nor were you responding to me, but I can still reply. That's how discussion forums work. If you want a reply from only one person, then you can use PM. You claimed, publicly, that mrazek is clearly NHL ready. Therefore, your comments are open to public critique. Crymson made a pretty convincing argument that mrazek is not NHL ready. Don't just dismiss his argument because it doesn't comport with your opinion. It was a valuable contribution to the topic at hand.

Abby has himself to blame. You don't swing at a guy's head when he has a lid on. You grab the collar of the jersey so you can alternate jabs and tugs in order to knock him off kilter, while trying to grab the helmet with your free hand.

I like then better than the USA jerseys, which are an abomination. I would like these more if they had the stripes on both arms, they included the stem of the leaf, and nixed the gold trim and the shiny crap.

I don't think it will ever happen, unless it is a multipurpose arena. It appears the whole sports entertainment industry is under threat by people's entertainment centers. The home viewing experience has surpassed the live experience in many ways.

You're right. I had to look up the precedent. I knew it is difficult for public figures in the U.S. to claim libel damages. But even under that standard, it appears Burke would have a case.

Pretty weak, he wouldn't receive such a judgment in the U.S.

All valid points. The way I see it, pairing smith with lids would be far different from pairing some scrub with chara. At the time,Smith was our most promising defensive prospect, and babs frequently lamented the fact that he was still in the AHL. Since smith is an offensive defenseman, playing with lids as a partner would have afforded him the ability to take risks, and make mistakes while minimizing harm to the team. This would allow smith to learn from his mistakes while receiving pointers from a legend.

I think keeping smith in the AHL for the 11-12 season is shaping up to be a major blunder. A full season of development, with lids as a partner, would have been excellent for smiths development.

Was vokoun's penalty an egregious one? You don't see many goalies called for a high stick.