Crosby Back In Lineup...TONIGHT!?!

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Fair enough. Then let's place the responsibility on him, not Crosby.

Inultus, you're being way too rational about this. You see, this is a Wings board so we should lose our collective s*** about everything, even the most trivial things. If we tried to be objective about anything when it comes to the Wings, we wouldn't have these lovely Crosby hate threads and all of this pseudo whining about nothing.

I guess the bottom line here is that some Wings fans here can be the biggest ******* babies on the planet. And egroen is right. I guess I shouldn't lecture them. Instead I should just sit back quietly and chuckle at how ridiculously petty they're being.

So egroen, go ahead. Get as worked up as you want about this. Go kick a dog or something while your at it. I mean, this is the greatest ******* tragedy ever. EVER! I heard the NHLPA were going to kick Nick and Dats out b/c of all the reports they read from sportswriters around NA about them not caring about the fans or the game of hockey itself.

Those evil bastards. I'm convinced, Dats is no longer my favorite NHLer. He's a communist bastard and hates small children and black people. And Nick is a member of the KKK. I mean, I can't tell you how many articles I've read about how bad these two guys are.

[HockeytownRN 0]

Egroen, I hate to tell you this but outside of our little universe here, people don't give a rat's ass about hockey, let alone 2 players on the Red Wings. For all of your whining and bitching about them having their good names dragged thru the mud, WTF are you talking about. Every sports writer in NA? Prove to me that all of a sudden every sportswriter in NA cares about hockey, let alone about about what transpired this ASG weekend.

My point in all of this, isn't to defend Sidney Crosby. I could care less. Its the rampant, ridiculous conspiracy theories and the inuendos and assumptions being made.

For all your anger, for the OP's displeasure at Crosby's verse, for all of the complaining and insinuations that Crosby wasn't really that hurt b/c he played the other night, you people cannot accept any of the FACTS that I posted.

Primarily, that nobody knows the extent of his injury. He didn't mention either Wings players name. He spoke in generalities, not being specific about anything. But I guess some Wings fans have thin skin. Sorry if you think i'm lecturing you. But you're acted like a ******* baby. Yeah, its a Red Wings forum. But its ******* embarassing that some Wings fans are worse than Vancouver Fanboys. I swear you're just looking to be offended by this.

Nobody gives a crap about this outside of here. Nobody is dragging our guys names through the mud. If that's your argument, then you start proferring up some examples of the sportswriters across the league, touting Crosby and slamming Nick and Dats. I mean, that's the crux of your ***** fest.

You're tired of me lecturing? Well i'm tired of you people acting like spoiled, whiny brats about something so trivial. Grow a pair already.

Wow, if you could care less then why are you posting pages on this subject? I may not post a lot, but I have always respected your opinions on here. This, obviously, is something you just feel strongly about or you woudn't be spending so much time trying to defend it. Why don't you realize that we feel strongly about it too? Get over us acting like "******* babies." Seems like you are more angry about this then any one of us. Excuse me while I go attempt to "grow a pair," i'll let you know how that goes.

[esteef 2,679]

Fair enough. Then let's place the responsibility on him, not Crosby.

Crosby still got the rule changed for his benefit didn't he? The responsibility is on Bettman in this and always has been.

esteef

Edited January 29, 2009 by esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

Crosby still got the rule changed for his benefit didn't he?

Uh, no.

The responsibility is on Bettman in this and always has been.

Yes.

[esteef 2,679]

Uh, no.

Yes.

How no? If Bettman keeps the rule intact none of this s*** storm happens. By all means allow Crosby to attend, but he still sits the next game because of the rule. Everyone was fine with the consequences, until the exception/clarification happened. Once again (for Gordie), Crosby is not to blame here.

esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

How no? If Bettman keeps the rule intact none of this s*** storm happens. By all means allow Crosby to attend, but he still sits the next game because of the rule. Everyone was fine with the consequences, until the exception/clarification happened. Once again (for Gordie), Crosby is not to blame here.

esteef

Because by your logic if Nick and Pav go and Crosby does not, then it's a conspiracy against Crosby and the league is just hating on the pretty boy. All they had to do was show up and participate. They did not. It's a dumb as s*** rule and I never liked it, but just because Crosby showed up and Nick and Pav did not doesn't make it a rule change just for Crosby. The opportunity was there, and they were given at very least warned a few days in advance, while the rule had been in place for much longer than that. Nick and Pav did not adhere to the rule, and very well could have, they rightfully decided they have more important matters to attend to, they got suspended, enjoyed their time off -- nobody lost here. What's the problem? There's no favoritism to Crosby at all. This is only a perception by people who have some problem with Crosby and find it cool to obsess over him.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Shoreline

[esteef 2,679]

Because by your logic if Nick and Pav go and Crosby does not, then it's a conspiracy against Crosby and the league is just hating on the pretty boy. All they had to do was show up and participate. They did not. It's a dumb as s*** rule and I never liked it, but just because Crosby showed up and Nick and Pav did not doesn't make it a rule change just for Crosby. The opportunity was there, and they were given at very least warned a few days in advance, while the rule had been in place for much longer than that. Nick and Pav did not adhere to the rule, and very well could have, they rightfully decided they have more important matters to attend to, they got suspended, enjoyed their time off -- nobody lost here. What's the problem? There's no favoritism to Crosby at all. This is only a perception by people who have some problem with Crosby and find it cool to obsess over him.

Bulls***. I've been through this for two long threads and am not about to start again. Crosby got a rule "ammended" to help him not miss a game. Was the deal offered to Nick and Pavel, yes. Was it offered in enough time for the Wings to reasonably respond, debatable. Should the rule have been changed at all, absolutely not.

Ammend rules in a forum where all teams can be respresented, not when Crosby uses the Bat-phone directly to the commish.

esteef

Edited January 29, 2009 by esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

Bulls***. I've been through this for two long threads and am not about to start again. Crosby got a rule "ammended" to help him not miss a game. Was the deal offered to Nick and Pavel, yes.

Two sentences. Two conflicting statements. If it was offered to others, there can't be any favoritism, and you, yourself, admit there's it's debatable (i.e. ambiguous, i.e. who-*******-knows) either way to suggest it was with enough time. So even with this ambiguity, you still make an assertion that can't be backed up. Not smart.

Obvious premise, given the facts, and ironically enough, your conflicting statement there in bold, there was no favoritism to Crosby.

[esteef 2,679]

Two sentences. Two conflicting statements. If it was offered to others, there can't be any favoritism, and you, yourself, admit there's it's debatable (i.e. ambiguous, i.e. who-*******-knows) either way to suggest it was with enough time. So even with this ambiguity, you still make an assertion that can't be backed up. Not smart.

Obvious premise, given the facts, and ironically enough, your conflicting statement there in bold, there was no favoritism to Crosby.

The favoritism isn't that he was the only one to receive it, the favoritism is in the rule being changed for him, so he can play the next game back when the entire league knew the consequnces and were fine with it. Bettman should have said the rule is not being changed on the fly just so he doesn't have to miss a game. Showing up and being there for the fans is great but he still should've sat, according to the rule.

Like I said before, switch out Avery for Crosby here, do you think the rule would've been ammended then? I think not.

esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

The favoritism isn't that he was the only one to receive it, the favoritism is in the rule being changed for him, so he can play the next game back when the entire league knew the consequnces and were fine with it. Bettman should have said the rule is not being changed on the fly just so he doesn't have to miss a game. Showing up and being there for the fans is great but he still should've sat, according to the rule.

Like I said before, switch out Avery for Crosby here, do you think the rule would've been ammended then? I think not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/allstar2009/...tory?id=3855534

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman imposed the policy, established at last year's general managers meetings, to legitimize injury claims and improve All-Star Weekend attendance. The policy states All-Stars who are injured must have missed at least the last game before the All-Star break in order to be excused; otherwise, they must sit out the first regular-season game after the break.

Favoritism. I think not.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Shoreline

[esteef 2,679]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/allstar2009/...tory?id=3855534

Favoritism. I think not.

What the hell does that prove? Nothing. Everyone knows the rule was in place last year. That's not being contested. Did you read the other threads on this at all? The rule is different now, at least the apparent interpretation of it is, since the Crosby phone call. That's the issue, it went from "play in" to "show up for" the ASG. That's the whole issue. The rule (from February) was changed right before the ASG to allow Crosby to attend, NOT play, AND play in his first game back. Of course that applies to everyone NOW, but that wasn't the agreement in February. That's it.

esteef

[egroen 384]

Egroen, I hate to tell you this but outside of our little universe here, people don't give a rat's ass about hockey, let alone 2 players on the Red Wings. For all of your whining and bitching about them having their good names dragged thru the mud, WTF are you talking about. Every sports writer in NA? Prove to me that all of a sudden every sportswriter in NA cares about hockey, let alone about about what transpired this ASG weekend.

My point in all of this, isn't to defend Sidney Crosby. I could care less. Its the rampant, ridiculous conspiracy theories and the inuendos and assumptions being made.

For all your anger, for the OP's displeasure at Crosby's verse, for all of the complaining and insinuations that Crosby wasn't really that hurt b/c he played the other night, you people cannot accept any of the FACTS that I posted.

Primarily, that nobody knows the extent of his injury. He didn't mention either Wings players name. He spoke in generalities, not being specific about anything. But I guess some Wings fans have thin skin. Sorry if you think i'm lecturing you. But you're acted like a ******* baby. Yeah, its a Red Wings forum. But its ******* embarassing that some Wings fans are worse than Vancouver Fanboys. I swear you're just looking to be offended by this.

Nobody gives a crap about this outside of here. Nobody is dragging our guys names through the mud. If that's your argument, then you start proferring up some examples of the sportswriters across the league, touting Crosby and slamming Nick and Dats. I mean, that's the crux of your ***** fest.

You're tired of me lecturing? Well i'm tired of you people acting like spoiled, whiny brats about something so trivial. Grow a pair already.

For someone who doesn't care to defend Crosby, you sure spend a lot of time doing so. You're like the goddamn PC-Police (with an attitude! snap!) on these boards.

I believe I addressed your FACTS, and showed they had very little to do with my displeasure.

In addition to many major city newspapers (and just about every city paper in Canada), ESPN and SI have reported on it -- all portraying Lidstrom and Datsyuk as getting their well-deserved comeuppance from Bettman while Crosby was there for the fans.

I just grabbed a few:

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/let...68-8728b9fd3a2e

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/star+a...5408/story.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...?eref=si_hockey

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=...s-Darren_Dreger

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=...s-Darren_Dreger

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...maining-content

http://deanbrownblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/...punishment.html

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servle...ry/WBhockeyblog

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/allstar2009/...&id=3859717

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_11547225

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/9125118...'s-the-buzz?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252009/sport...1927.htm?page=0

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/R...ortsHockey/home

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/2269...uspensions.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Sports/Play...2970/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../TPStory/Sports

Oh, and Crosby still doesn't shut his mouth about it:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...s/s_609275.html

Is it really such a "conspiracy theory" to think Bettman shows favortism to Sidney Crosby? Is it, GS&T?

I have been fine with that knowledge for a while, but now that it comes at the expense of Lidstrom's and Datsyuk's character portrayels as well as regular season games, I am pissed.

Grow a pair and just accept everyone who is a Red Wings fan does not just roll over and accept it when the commissioner himself uses our players to "make a point" while excusing another because of poster sales. That is not the entire "crux" of my point, which I outlined quite clearly earlier... perhaps you would care to read it again?

[Guest Shoreline]

What the hell does that prove? Nothing. Everyone knows the rule was in place last year. That's not being contested. Did you read the other threads on this at all? The rule is different now, at least the apparent interpretation of it is, since the Crosby phone call. That's the issue, it went from "play in" to "show up for" the ASG. That's the whole issue. The rule (from February) was changed right before the ASG to allow Crosby to attend, NOT play, AND play in his first game back. Of course that applies to everyone NOW, but that wasn't the agreement in February. That's it.

esteef

In either scenario, Nick and Pav violated the rule. In fact, there would be legitimacy to the claim that there was favoritism to ALL of them with the rules being lightened up, but this is not your claim. Just because Crosby showed up and the others did not, doesn't mean there's any favoritism aimed his way. The claim is unsubstantiated and really all this is, is Crosby haters blowing hot air for no reason at all. So I'll leave it at that. Blow away.

[lets go pavel 2]

Guys, we have hashed, rehashed, overhashed, underhashed, and then hashed this out some more. There is a ton of ambiguity surrounding all of this, and that's part of the problem, both for the players involved and for us arguing about it. The rule doesn't seem to exist in writing, and the specifics seem to change depending on the source, so it's pretty difficult to ascertain who knew what, said what, and when.

When the whole deal first came to light last Friday it certainly sounded like the rule was amended during a phone call between Bettman and Crosby - hence the claims of favoritism. Now it does sound like Holland knew about the changes prior to that.

Ultimately, and what I think most all of us agree on, the problem here was with the league/Bettman. The rule was not clear, and it was not made public. Two players were used as public examples for violating a rule that, from all accounts, they were not fully informed about. The rule was supposedly created to substantiate injury claims, not as a punishment, but the way that the league and subsequently many in the the media painted it was that the 2 players were being punished for skipping the ASG. On the bright side, there were quite a few who stuck up for our guys too. Regardless, it could have been handled better.

In any case, the damage is done. I don't believe either player's reputation will suffer in any lasting way from this. Sounds like both are playing tonight, and hopefully we'll see 2 games worth of beautiful dekes and sublime defense all wrapped up in 60 minutes.

[drwscc 212]

Based on that article where Lids talked about it, he said he knew about the game suspension deal, but that he and Dats decided that the rest/treatment was worth the risk.

What everyone is mad about is the last minute loophole that was added for Crosby, which didn't leave enough time for Lids and Dats to make it there, even if they had wanted to.

They would have both sat out anyway, but it would have been nice to have that option up front, instead of making the Crosby rule at the last minute to avoid having to suspend the posterboy.

[esteef 2,679]

In either scenario, Nick and Pav violated the rule. In fact, there would be legitimacy to the claim that there was favoritism to ALL of them with the rules being lightened up, but this is not your claim. Just because Crosby showed up and the others did not, doesn't mean there's any favoritism aimed his way. The claim is unsubstantiated and really all this is, is Crosby haters blowing hot air for no reason at all. So I'll leave it at that. Blow away.

You keep going back to the fact that Crosby showed up where Lids and Dats didn't. The rule being changed to allow "showing up" is where I have issue. The rule should've been enforced as it was agreed upon in February, if you don't PLAY, you sit a game. No last minute exceptions.

Once again, Crosby not at fault, hence the "Crosby hating" claim is nonsense.

esteef

[egroen 384]

I can not believe I have to defend being pissed off about this on a RED WINGS forum.

Bettman created the rule after being understandably PO'd that 7 stars opted out of not going to the All Star Game last year, including several for non-injury related matters.

This year, when faced with the realization he would have to suspend not only Lidstrom and Datsyuk, but also his cash money encased in the flesh of Sidney Crosby he has the following options:

1) Suspend all 3 as the original intent of the rule entails.

2) Exempt all three, as these particular players have exemplified the NHL in all their dealings.

3) Arbitrarily create an amendment to the amendment at the last minute that inherently favors one of the three (who you just got off the phone with). For added affect, make sure that one favored is exactly the person you have been accused of favoring for three seasons now. Once your poster boy is excused, don't stop there but proceed to publicly act as if the amendment to the amendment was there all along, and that the Red Wings "made their decision" and invited this upon themselves. Also act incredulous that your decision might be called into question at all or that treating an injury could possibly be a valid reason for not showing up to schmooze at the ASG.

If he chooses 1 or 2, we are in a completely different situation. Bettman chose 3, of course... probably the dumbest thing he could have possibly done.

This is even ignoring how ridiculous it is that a player somehow "validates" his injury by attending the ASG, while a player staying home for treatment and rest is "suspect" and deserves a suspension for a REAL game.

Sidney Crosby, recieving a "get out of jail free" card from the commissioner himself has the following options when asked about it:

1) Stay classy and explain your situation but support the right of others to not be there due to injury.

2) Go ahead and praise yourself for being there for the fans, but shut your mouth about others who the commissioner did not go out of his way to help.

3) Praise yourself and go ahead and imply that while you have a serious "injury" and are still there for the fans, state the others not there are merely "resting" and that they made this decision to essentially snub the fans knowing full well all they had to do was show up to avoid the suspension all along, even though you were not aware of it all along either and were not planning on getting there yourself until Saturday or Sunday.

Crosby chose 3. Good move.

Edited January 29, 2009 by egroen

[toby91_ca 620]

How no? If Bettman keeps the rule intact none of this s*** storm happens. By all means allow Crosby to attend, but he still sits the next game because of the rule. Everyone was fine with the consequences, until the exception/clarification happened. Once again (for Gordie), Crosby is not to blame here.

esteef

I think you got it wrong here. The s*** storm you are referring to that wouldn't have happened is the one that is going on between various threads on this board. The s*** storm from the Detroit Red Wings organization is that Dats and Lids had to sit. If Crosby didn't go and had to sit as well, it wouldn't change a damn thing regarding the Wings' reaction to all this.

[lets go pavel 2]

I think you got it wrong here. The s*** storm you are referring to that wouldn't have happened is the one that is going on between various threads on this board. The s*** storm from the Detroit Red Wings organization is that Dats and Lids had to sit. If Crosby didn't go and had to sit as well, it wouldn't change a damn thing regarding the Wings' reaction to all this.

Here I disagree completely. The change in the rule that allowed crosby to go changed the "sit 1 game" deal from a simple "injury verification" to a punishment for skipping the ASG. Had there been a consistent rule I don't think we wouldhave any of this. It also would have helped had the rule been publicized ahead of time.

[egroen 384]

What's funny is that this thread does not take off until certain posters felt the need to chastise other posters for using this thread as an opportunity to vent.

Holland was obviously pissed; Lidstrom and Datsyuk were definitely not happy; several of the players were pissed and even using the term "Crosby Rule"; and Osgood and Chelios even allowed themselves to be quoted about it.

Hey GS&T -- Go lecture them for acting like "babies" too.

Edited January 29, 2009 by egroen

[lets go pavel 2]

What's funny is that this thread does not take off until certain posters felt the need to chastise other posters for using this thread as an opportunity to vent.

That is how the last one made it to 20+ pages!

[esteef 2,679]

I think you got it wrong here. The s*** storm you are referring to that wouldn't have happened is the one that is going on between various threads on this board. The s*** storm from the Detroit Red Wings organization is that Dats and Lids had to sit. If Crosby didn't go and had to sit as well, it wouldn't change a damn thing regarding the Wings' reaction to all this.

To be honest, I think there are a couple s*** storms at play here. Should the rule exist, should it have been changed at the last minute, should Lids and Dats have been portrayed as they were, what constitutes proof of an injury, should it matter that a team wants to "rest" players, etc.

esteef

Edited January 29, 2009 by esteef

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Hey egroen,

you know what's funny about those articles? That pretty much each one states the fact that the players were well aware of the rule for a year now. Not a whole lot of love for our boys in this scenario huh. Just b/c they're getting ripped up by the media, which you have shown with your links (although a number of those were hockey related websites so I don't know if that constitutes "sports writers" all over NA) maybe they deserve to get ripped some. I don't know call me crazy, I don't see the Wings as infallible all the time.

I love that you are incapable, even for a split second of taking off the Red Wings glasses and acknowledging the FACT, that Nick, Dats and the Wings organization openly defied league policy.

It may be a stupid rule to enforce. But seems to me that you're neglecting to even acknowledge that our guys shunned the game of their own free will. And when faced with the consequences, said "so what" essentially and still decided to miss the game.

A little objectivity is really all I'm after in threads like these. Too bad that because you're incapable of coming to grips with the rule, as stupid as the rule may be, we're left with yet another ***** fest.

I particularly like this paragraph from the SI column

(As Red Wings general manager Ken Holland told SI.com, the players had made other plans with their families, booked hotels, purchased tickets for flights and were loathe to change them. Hossa, for example, had agreed to go to Toronto to film a commercial for a Slovakian cell phone company, and there were people from his homeland coming to oversee the project.) (But the ambivalence shown by some Detroit players, if not the organization, merely reinforces the idea that the All-Star Game is a played-out notion.)

It's funny to me that these writers, writers not beholden to the Detroit Redwings or Crosby or the NHL are siding against you and the conspiracy theorists. A little more objective about this than some of our fellow LGWers maybe?

Our guys new about the rule, made other plans and had no intention of appearing at the event at all. If you don't act like a complete homer, from the outside it would appear that our boys blew off the event. Why they blew it off, injuries or not has no bearing.

IMO, it's a stupid rule and players who are hurt shouldn't be punished for not attending.

But the rule was in place, we knew it and we went ahead and broke it anyway. But let's not admit those FACTS. Let's just vent and ***** because the policy got changed, even though our players, given the opportunity to show up, still had "made plans" and were not inclined to change them.

Why get so bent out of shape about the policy being changed for Sid when our guys actions showed they wouldn't have showed up regardless.

Non Wings homers might look at that as blowing off the ASG weekend, injured or not.

Edited January 29, 2009 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

To be honest, I think there are a couple s*** storms at play here. Should the rule exist, should it have been changed at the last minute, should Lids and Dats have been portrayed as they were, what constitutes proof of an injury, should it matter that a team wants to "rest" players, etc.

esteef

I agree.

It would be nice to hear Nick or Dats talk about the policy change and whether or not it would have affected their decision. I think alot of the resentment by LGWers is b/c of the change yet there's no evidence that the players would've taken advantage of it. As was stated by numerous sources, they had "made other plans" for the time off. Sorry, I can't get bent out of shape about this.

[esteef 2,679]

I agree.

It would be nice to hear Nick or Dats talk about the policy change and whether or not it would have affected their decision. I think alot of the resentment by LGWers is b/c of the change yet there's no evidence that the players would've taken advantage of it. As was stated by numerous sources, they had "made other plans" for the time off. Sorry, I can't get bent out of shape about this.

I think it's clear that they were not going, regardless of the rule change. The late rule change just made them "look" worse because apparently a medically proven injury is not a good enough reason to not "attend".

Crosby should've sat a game, and The Wings should've made sure SOMEONE went to the ASG. I'm good.

esteef