Dabura

Feel free to read my posts, folks. No, really. They don't bite.

To add to the first part: Avery might, in fact, have some sort of anger management problem. If he does seek help there, and if it does make a difference, then great. It's not like it'll turn him into a puppy; it doesn't work that way.

As I've explained, this is not just about one isolated incident. Avery is a special case; he has a history of pushing buttons, and he's in a high-risk position, what with all the exposure he gets for himself and for the league. Pronger does not get that kind of exposure; no non-NHL fans know or care when Pronger elbows somebody in the face. As I've explained, Bettman wants Avery to do what he does -- as long as he does it without going overboard. Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to get through to Avery is to really shake him up. The hope, I'm sure, is that this will do just that. Moreover, Bettman has to protect and project at least some semblance of class for the league, as that has, I think, always been one of its finer selling points. Slamming Avery with this suspension sends a message not only to Avery, not only to people within the league, but also to "outsiders" looking in. The message is that there's no place for this kind of garbage (and it is garbage) in the NHL, unless it's said on the ice. You see that as bumbling idiocy and borderline paranoia, but it's not, and if we're talking about non-NHL fans who are hearing about this, they are probably generally in agreement with this idea. Overall, the only people who are going to see this suspension as horribly misguided and wrong are those who have a bone to pick with Bettman in the first place. I hate the guy and I'd love to see him him resign, but I'm not going to let that cloud my judgment in this case -- and neither should you.

Oh for crying out loud. This is not V for Vendetta; the league is not a fascist dictatorship, and no one is being or will be black-bagged. I'm sure Bettman understands Avery's value to the league. But the fact is, Avery's been pushing buttons for awhile now and he was really asking for it this time. From a business perspective (since we're all so hung up on the league's viability, or perceived lack thereof), a loose cannon like him is an asset, yes, but also a risk. That's because he gets a lot of press for himself and, vicariously, for the league. If he has trouble keeping himself in line, he's basically a big-ass blowup waiting to happen. But, as I've said before, Bettman does not want to burn Avery at the stake. Rather, he wants Avery to learn how to do what he does without crossing that fine line. If he can reign himself in a little, the league will benefit, and hockey will benefit. But to get him to reign himself in, a strong message needed to be sent. And it was. I know, I know, there are two counterarguments against what I just said. First, there is the argument that Avery can't do what he does without crossing the line, as what he does is inherently a matter of crossing the line. But I don't think that's true. No one's saying he needs to behave like an angel and say please and thank you every time he talks to the media. No one is saying that. Avery just needs to understand -- like a number of people here do -- that 1) the NHL is and will always be a corporate business with corporate considerations and corporate clients; 2) the NHL prides itself on relatively classy, gentlemanly conduct; and 3) we're living in a disgustingly PC era, and a big chunk of the people the NHL is targeting as potential new fans are therefore sure to be disgustingly PC people (not to mention some of those aforementioned corporate clients). Now, the second counterargument -- that this incident has created some sort of Nazi Germany-esque culture of fear and intolerance. Um...gimme a break. Yeah, I do think this suspension sends a message about biting your tongue. But at the same time, people know this is about Sean Avery. He's been looking for an ass-kicking, he's pissed off a lot of people in the process, and now it's all catching up to him. That's the bottom line. But he'll be back, he'll continue to push buttons (within reason), and everyone will forget about this.

Or just reprimanding someone for crossing the line. Is the suspension overlong?--Whoa, deja vu again!

And that worries me.

I feel like this thread would be a lot better if OsGod were to stop posting in it.

We have other forwards who play solid defense. Not as good as Hank, no, but it's not like putting ZDH back together will considerably weaken the forward corps' D game. Not in my opinion, at least. I hear you about there not being a need for any more offense right now. But I 1) would like to see ZDH together for the postseason and 2) am a big believer in the importance of chemistry and cohesion -- so if, say, Mule's going to play with Hossa and Hudler in the playoffs, I think that line should be put together ASAP so that (the hope is) those guys are really clicking come the first round. And like I said, ZDH and something like Mule-Hudler-Hossa is a damn solid top-6. imo

I'm not all that fond of Hudler, but it's hard to argue with his numbers.

Don't be absurd. With this suspension, the league is reprimanding one of its players for crossing the line. Is it an overlong suspension?--Whoa, wait! Deja vu!

We only have two eggs?

This team, but not this play.

You know what I'm saying. Stop being a punk.

Sundin.

It's not like they're going anywhere this season anyway.

I guess my point is that if worst comes to worst, the league will probably play God a little and throw him some rope. He's important to the league, and if his career does end up being cut short, it will be because of something substantially worse than "sloppy seconds." Bank on it.

Agreed. One thing I don't understand is this idea that putting Z and D together is a copout, and that the forward attack is so much deeper and so much more dynamic when they're on separate lines. ZDH was the best line in hockey last season, and Franzen/Hudler/Hossa--Cleary/Filppula/Samuelsson as 2 and 3, respectively, is nothing to sneeze at.

Either way, the league had to react. That's because this is more than "some mini feud," as you described it. While, yes, Avery was only referring to Cuthbert and Phaneuf, the potential implications, ramifications and reverberations of the comment extend beyond that little love triangle. Avery is the face of the league to a number of people. As such, he's basically an ambassador for the league. As such, his words and actions reflect on the league at large and can go a long way in helping or hurting the league's viability. It's like Bush pissing someone off at a UN council meeting; yeah, it's beef between just two people, but that doesn't mean other people -- maybe even entire nations -- won't factor into the equation. It depends on the angle I'm taking. Like I said, on a personal level, I wouldn't miss him; I think it would be a poetically just end. From a more practical point of view, I wouldn't want to see him go, as he's generally good for the league and I want good things for the league. Because I want good things for hockey. From a sympathetic point of view, I acknowledge that there might actually be something physiologically "wrong" with him, possibly stemming from, say, a neurological disorder. Perhaps he'll have a breakthrough in his anger management treatment. As for the question of fairness, I don't think it's even worth getting into because, realistically, this won't break his career. That's sort of what I was getting at with my comments about Bettman's "intervention" -- Avery is important to this league. The league wants to straighten him out, not feed him to the wolves.

edit

double

Actually, Avery brings much more exposure. Like I said earlier in this thread, Avery is generally good for the league in the sense that he -- and, vicariously, the league -- gets exposure in demographics that superstars like Vinny and Crosby and AO have trouble cracking. However, he went over the line this time, whereas Cuthbert has never done so and has only helped the league (albeit, not as much as Avery has). So I think all the trash talk being thrown her way in this thread is ridiculous, immature, and in poor taste overall, especially since some of the people doing the trash-talking are among the people wondering why the league can't seem to earn itself many new fans these days. (Curious, isn't it?) As I've also said already, a lot of you don't seem to understand that just because something doesn't offend you doesn't mean it's not bad business. Many of us grew up in youth hockey locker rooms, calling each other every foul name under the sun and generally being s***ty little bastards. I'm from the East Coast; I've played with Long Island pricks and New England thugs. "Sloppy seconds" doesn't offend me. But again, we're talking about a corporate business. More than that, we're talking about a corporate business model: an outreach initiative designed to crack open some previously untapped demographics and bring in a substantial number of new long-term fans. While it's true that "bad press can be good press," that's only true to a point. If you're a business, and one of your key employees says something foul in the media, you've got to act on it. Whether you agree with acting on it or not, you have to do it. Do I think six games is overlong? Yes and no. The severity of the sentence underscores what's at stake, and I think that's the point. This may sound backwards, but by doling out an overlong punishment, the league is actually acknowledging Avery's importance more than it's slighting or questioning it. Bettman, I'm sure, knows Avery has a nose for the spotlight, and he knows that's a great asset for the NHL. He also knows that Avery's a loose cannon and that that makes him a risky asset. The league wants to remove the risk from the equation and get Avery to realize that he doesn't need to cross the line in order to be an effective representative for the league. And I support that way of thinking. I see some people saying Bettman shouldn't even be intervening in the first place. Consider the alternative -- i.e., letting the Stars organization settle the matter. Judging by the public comments being made by people within that organization, leaving it to the Stars is asking for trouble. And that could ultimately result in the end of Avery's NHL career. Now, on a personal level, I wouldn't shed any tears if he were to be forced into exile. He truly is a ****** bag of epic proportions. But for the league? Like I've said, Avery's generally good for the NHL. If he can reign himself in a little and learn what buttons not to push, everyone will be better off, the NHL will be better off, and hockey will be better off.

The "ANYTHING" that she brings to the sport of hockey is exposure. I've never denied that her looks help her in this capacity (you'll notice I've mentioned her looks at least twice already in this thread). That doesn't mean I think "SHOW US YR ****" is of any worth in this conversation. But GOOD JOB N-E-WAY DOOD! I never said the league "needs" Elisha Cuthbert. Here's a radical new idea, folks: stop being meat heads and read my posts carefully.

This. The problem is defense, not goaltending. The Wings' D, when it's clicking, can make a good goalie look amazing. As much as I love Ozzie, the D helped him look amazing last season. Right now, the D is not clicking and is hanging Ozzie -- and now Conklin -- out to dry.

Like Doggy said, it's a case-by-case thing. A lot of stock was put into Quincey's training camp and preseason because he was fighting for a spot and because the Wings had to lose someone on the back end. The fact that he wasn't playing well and generally looked like he didn't even want to play in Motown anymore was a pretty big red flag, I'm sure. And that's not just taking training camp and the preseason into account; that's looking at his very impressive stint in the playoffs a couple seasons ago and saying, "This guy actually seems to have gotten worse." Which is never a good thing when you're dealing with young prospects who are supposed to be battling for roster spots.

Hossa. I have back problems. It ain't fun.