Lemieux proposes fines to teams for player suspensions

[sleepwalker 512]

Honestly I think he did. Matt Cooke is not an enforcer. He has 300 points in his career and doesn't really strike fear in the heart of anyone as a fighter. He's just a dirtbag cheapshot artist with some hockey skills.

Agreed.

While Cooke is a scumbag that takes deliberate dirty shots at people, he is definitely not what most people would consider an enforcer. The opposite actually. Cooke is a total *****. He pretty much always refuses to take that visor off and drop the gloves when guys want to go with him, because he knows he'll get his ass handed to him if he does. No players fear Cooke as a fighter or tough guy.

Plus Cooke/the Pens would kind of be exempt from the bulk of this kind of rule anyway, as he plays for the Pens, who as we all know get special treatment from the league. If he were on any other team he would have already had multiple suspensions this year already. Thats probably why Mario is so in favor of it.

Edited March 16, 2011 by sleepwalker

[Vladifan 680]

Hey, Mario, I have a suggestion since all of a sudden you're so concerned about player safety.

Since eight per cent of the concussions in the league this year have been caused by fights, how about we make it so that an instigator penalty in the last minute of a Stanley Cup final game is an automatic one game suspension, no matter how many points that player has in the regular season? I'll hang up and listen.

In all honesty, I like the suggestion. Teams should be accountable for the actions of the players they put on the ice. But I hope Mario is just as committed the next three times Matt Cooke gets suspended, if this system is ever enacted.

Thank you for mentioning that. He is a hypocritical piece of s***. He can't play anymore so he grabs the spotlight however he can.

[Hiei 192]

Here's an Idea.

GET RID OF THE INSTIGATOR RULE AND LET THE PLAYERS HANDLE IT ON THE ICE LIKE THEY DID THE LAST 70 YEARS BEFORE THE INSTIGATOR RULE.

It's glaringly obvious that guys like Boogaard, Godard, Etc are not running down skill players on purpose. There is a modicum of respect out there on the ice, unless your last name is Ott, Avery, or Cooke.

I guaran-damn-tee you that Cooke would think twice about running Gaborik if he knew that Boogaard could step over the boards and handle the issue.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

If only being a whiney hypocrite could be punishable.

[Shady Ultima 40]

I think that instead of an actual fine, the team is docked that amount on the next season's cap space.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Sadly, Lemieux is demonstrating the sudden onset of memory loss. That contract extension for Cooke was for how long? Can a trade with Toronto be right around the corner?

[fivetenandagame 11]

I'll take that. I don't exactly picture Downey getting suspended alot. "Enforcer" was the best word I could come up with at the time to stereotype the type of player. Dirtbag Cheapshot works tho.

Only the rich teams will be able to afford to have dirtbag cheapshots like Cooke.

However, it's just one of several problems I stated with Lemeiux's suggestion.

I don't think it matters which term you use, enforcer or cheap shot artist. I just think your rationale is flawed.

Only rich teams? How do you even begin to ascertain which teams can or cannot afford to pay fines? Sure, some teams are worth more or carry a heftier payroll. But that doesn't necessarily mean a team with a lower payroll can't afford to pay a fine anymore than they can't afford to pay their light bill. I don't know anything about NHL team finances because i've never seen their books and don't have the first clue. If you know more about it please share it.

I also don't think the New York Rangers or Detroit Red Wings are going to employ dirty, cheap shot artists just because they can afford to do it. Maybe I don't understand what point you're trying to make but it almost seems like you're miffed because you think employing a cheap shot artist is good thing and that the rich teams will do it because they can and that's not fair to the "poor teams".

If that's what you're getting at that's what I think is flawed. Nobody is going to employ these guys simply b/c they can afford to pay the fines. They'll employ them if those guys fill a need or role for their organization and hopefully, the fine system will encourage those types of players from crossing the line.

There are plenty of guys I would consider cheap shot artists that would be able to find work on almost any NHL team no matter how wealthy that team is. The specter of fines isn't going to keep a team from signing:

Steve Ott

Steve Downie

Shawn Avery

Scott Hartnell

Ben Eager

Matt Cooke

Daniel Carcillo

Max Lapierre

Jarko Ruutu

etc, etc, etc.........

These guys will find work even on teams that aren't the richest in the league. Potential fines aren't going to deter any GM who has the cap space and need to sign a player like this if he thinks it helps his team.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I don't think it matters which term you use, enforcer or cheap shot artist. I just think your rationale is flawed.

Only rich teams? How do you even begin to ascertain which teams can or cannot afford to pay fines? Sure, some teams are worth more or carry a heftier payroll. But that doesn't necessarily mean a team with a lower payroll can't afford to pay a fine anymore than they can't afford to pay their light bill. I don't know anything about NHL team finances because i've never seen their books and don't have the first clue. If you know more about it please share it.

I also don't think the New York Rangers or Detroit Red Wings are going to employ dirty, cheap shot artists just because they can afford to do it. Maybe I don't understand what point you're trying to make but it almost seems like you're miffed because you think employing a cheap shot artist is good thing and that the rich teams will do it because they can and that's not fair to the "poor teams".

If that's what you're getting at that's what I think is flawed. Nobody is going to employ these guys simply b/c they can afford to pay the fines. They'll employ them if those guys fill a need or role for their organization and hopefully, the fine system will encourage those types of players from crossing the line.

There are plenty of guys I would consider cheap shot artists that would be able to find work on almost any NHL team no matter how wealthy that team is. The specter of fines isn't going to keep a team from signing:

Steve Ott

Steve Downie

Shawn Avery

Scott Hartnell

Ben Eager

Matt Cooke

Daniel Carcillo

Max Lapierre

Jarko Ruutu

etc, etc, etc.........

These guys will find work even on teams that aren't the richest in the league. Potential fines aren't going to deter any GM who has the cap space and need to sign a player like this if he thinks it helps his team.

I'm talking about teams like the Islanders, Thrashers, Avalanche, Blues, Oilers, or Panthers. Teams who are over 10 million below the salary cap. I disagree with you, and believe this rule would make teams like those uninterested in players with a high suspension risk.

[toby91_ca 620]

You didn't answer my question. You had an issue with me saying enforcers would become essentially a luxury for teams with money. Are those not players you would consider enforcers (in general)?

My point was less about fighting and more about players considered enforcers. The term goon might fit as well.

I didn't even know what your question was....I looked for it. I think your original comment was that often suspensions are the result of fighting, which is completely false. Fine, you've clarified what you were talking about. You are talking about goons, enforcers, whatever you want to call them, as being the guys that are responsible for most of the suspensions.

Well, if you want to look up who has been suspended so far this year, you'll find the following:

- Total suspensions = 30

- By enforcers = 11

- By others = 19

If you want to add cheapshot artist into your list, that will only get a couple more (Cooke and Eager) into the list, so it's still only 13 vs. 16.

Slice it however you want, I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. No team purposely wants players on their team to take suspensions, so suggesting only the rich teams can do it is silly. The teams that have players who are prone to suspension probably haven't come down on them as hard as they might if the team had to cough up $$$ when they get suspended, that's the idea.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I didn't even know what your question was....I looked for it. I think your original comment was that often suspensions are the result of fighting, which is completely false. Fine, you've clarified what you were talking about. You are talking about goons, enforcers, whatever you want to call them, as being the guys that are responsible for most of the suspensions.

Well, if you want to look up who has been suspended so far this year, you'll find the following:

- Total suspensions = 30

- By enforcers = 11

- By others = 19

If you want to add cheapshot artist into your list, that will only get a couple more (Cooke and Eager) into the list, so it's still only 13 vs. 16.

Slice it however you want, I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. No team purposely wants players on their team to take suspensions, so suggesting only the rich teams can do it is silly. The teams that have players who are prone to suspension probably haven't come down on them as hard as they might if the team had to cough up $$ when they get suspended, that's the idea.

So are you defending Lemeiux's plan? or just trying to argue with me at this point?

Seems this whole thread is people trying to poke holes in one question of my argument. Do you not agree that certain players would find themselves out of work from these fines? Do you think they would be out of work on every team in the league? Is what I'm saying completely illogical?

[syntax 359]

On the ice, Mario was an extremely talented player. In the owner's box, he's a little b*tch, with little b*tch suggestions, leading a team that includes such upstanding individuals as Matt Cooke. Somehow I doubt Mario has ever ventured down to give Mr. Cooke a good talking-to. He only gets ticked when one of his own players gets hurt; he couldn't care less when a goon on his own team brains someone else.

Piss off, Mario. I'm starting to like the other Lemieux more than I like you.

Rarely have truer words been typed into this message board.

[toby91_ca 620]

In case anyone is interested:

Yzerman Lauds Lemieux's Letter

[toby91_ca 620]

So are you defending Lemeiux's plan? or just trying to argue with me at this point?

Seems this whole thread is people trying to poke holes in one question of my argument. Do you not agree that certain players would find themselves out of work from these fines? Do you think they would be out of work on every team in the league? Is what I'm saying completely illogical?

Yes, I'm defending the plan. I think it's a great idea. Don't just punish the player, punish the teams that employ such players. The hope is that the teams will not come down hard on these players and deter such actions in the future.

I do understand what you are saying, it's not copmletely illogical, but I just don't think you'll have teams not willing to employ such a player, but another team, because they have more money, will be willing to do so.

The issue is that you may have players prone to taking suspensions or are repeat offenders. The idea is to remove that from the game. It's not necessarily removing the player from the game, but changing the player in some respect.

Of course, I think there are some players that simply don't below in the game (Gillies for example). I'm not against enforcers at all, I have no problem with a guy who may play 2-5 minutes a night, who can't really do much well other than fight, but if that player decides he's going to start delivering head shots on the side....well, what's the point?

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

In case anyone is interested:

Yzerman Lauds Lemieux's Letter

Yzerman didn't agree with anything in his quotes there. The quotes are very vague, and don't seem directly pointed at Lemieux's suggestion, just that he was there and contributing. The penguins reporter on the other hand...

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I think that instead of an actual fine, the team is docked that amount on the next season's cap space.

This is a terrible idea. That would force more skilled players to the AHL when a team is suddenly below the cap. The GM and owner have no control over what the players do and sometimes suspensions result from unintentional plays. An example is kneeing- it is one of the dirtiest plays, but sometimes there is a natural reaction to stick your leg out when you're beat on a play. The play should be considered for a suspension, but I think most players on here (and the NHL) can support that kneeing isn't always intentional.

IMO the increasing lengths of suspension are enough deterant.

[edicius 3,269]

Yzerman didn't agree with anything in his quotes there. The quotes are very vague, and don't seem directly pointed at Lemieux's suggestion, just that he was there and contributing. The penguins reporter on the other hand...

I'm starting to wonder if all the media in Pittsburgh are idiots, both print and broadcast. I also didn't see anything in there that qualified as Yzerman "lauding" Baby Mario's letter.

[toby91_ca 620]

Yzerman didn't agree with anything in his quotes there. The quotes are very vague, and don't seem directly pointed at Lemieux's suggestion, just that he was there and contributing. The penguins reporter on the other hand...

This quote doesn't suggest whether Yzerman agrees with what Lemieux is saying or not, but shows the respect Yzerman has for Lemieux and the respect that Lemieux appears to command from most. I've heard almost the same comments from other guys within the NHL. It's because of stuff like this that I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he was a player though, I couldn't stand him.

"He's got great perspective, and I'd encourage him to get more involved ... because he's a bright guy. When he speaks, people listen. They want to hear what he's got to say."

This last quote though, I took as Yzerman "agreeing" with what Lemieux had to say. Now, I guess just because he suggests the points were valid, doesnt mean he agrees completely, but then you are getting into semantics. My whole point was that a lot of letsgowingers are ripping Lemieux apart as a hypocrite, a joke, whatever, while someone like Yzerman is clearly supporting what Lemieux is doing.

"It's great to know that because they were all valid (points)," Yzerman said. "He sent a letter with the intent that these are issues we in hockey should discuss. They're being discussed here, and they're good points."