Posted by kipwinger
on 23 February 2015 - 01:57 AM
I believe the NFL has a much larger issue at hand with brain trauma/debilitating injuries/prescription med abuse/domestic abuse than the NHL.
The HBO special on the Chicago Bears 1985 Super Bowl team is the tip of the iceberg.
I don't feel qualified to say whether one sport is worse than the other with regards to causing brain injuries. They both demonstrably have a serious issue with it. I do, however, feel that ANY sports league should absolutely prioritize the health and safety of their players. One easy way to do that, in hockey, is to take unnecessary (and avoidable) hits to the head out of the game. And one very easy way to do that is to remove fighting by removing the "so called" need for it...increase penalties for serious infractions to the point where players err on the side of caution.
Caution. The operable word. Heaven forbid human beings in the 21st Century learn how to enjoy sports where players must be cautious of one another.
Posted by kipwinger
on 22 February 2015 - 08:21 PM
I'm not sure why we're having this debate again. History has shown that being evermore violent in response to things we don't like ALWAYS works out well. Absolutely tons and tons of examples when punching people has effectively helped folks achieve their objectives. That has got to be the most idiotic thing a person can think.
By comparison it makes GMRwings' "I like fighting because it's entertaining" argument both honest, and sensible.
Can all the fighting people just use that argument? That way we don't have to keep restating how intellectually bankrupt this "fighting deters rats" argument is.
I'll even help. "For as long as I can remember, I (state your name here), have enjoyed fighting in hockey. I find it entertaining and exciting. As such, I am willing to tolerate the short and long term health risks that come along with it and believe players who engage in the sport should too."
At least then your position won't be so demonstrably invalided and your justifications so blatantly post hoc.
Posted by Echolalia
on 22 February 2015 - 09:45 PM
Fighting after a cheap-shot has exactly one purpose: to fulfill a primal sense of revenge for one's team. It doesn't cure the injured player. It doesn't prevent a cheap shot from happening. It doesn't discourage players from doing it again after they've already committed the cheap-shot. In fact, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that teams with more fighting majors actually tend to have more injuries and stick infarction penalties against, which would suggest that fights actually increase the amount of cheap shots you receive, which is the complete opposite of "keeping the opposition honest". This has been repeatedly demonstrated on separate occasions by separate people (a few sources for the curious: http://regressing.de...-don-1442618145, http://www.pensionpl...ness-in-hockey,http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/09/30/the-edmonton-oilers-and-the-new-era-of-the-one-dimensional-fighter/). Its also not that hard to see if you just watch a hockey game. Ericsson fought Benn. Benn still cheap-shotted Zetterberg. Downey was in the lineup when Lapierre injured Lidstrom. Lapierre didn't shy away. In fact, he came back at Downey for more in the third period, looking to crosscheck the guy in the head. Colton Orr was on the ice when Kadri was getting cheap-shotted, and eventually Kadri got into his first fight against Tampa Bay, despite Orr being out there with him. To keep the flies off. And so on, and so on.
So if you're pro-fighting, fine. I understand that it gets the heart racing, and there's a certain primitive sense of satisfaction you get when watching someone get their face beat down after wronging one of our guys. OK. I get that feeling, too, so I understand where the desire to see fights comes from (and keep in mind that I'm not at all pro-fighting. I would rather see fighting removed from the game entirely). But what I won't do is try to justify those emotions by wrongly suggesting that fighting prevents injuries from happening or keeps the rats in line. It just doesn't work that way. And its especially silly to dedicate a roster spot to an enforcer based on this false notion.
Equating his acknowledgement of performance anxiety with "emotional issues" not only grossly simplifies whatever it is that holds Franzen back from dominating the NHL, but it also demonstrates a REMARKABLY narrow understanding of mental health issues. Just stop.
It does nothing of the sort. Anxiety is an emotion. I didn't say he had "mental health issues" because I thought it would be somewhat equivocal.
There is nothing gross, simplistic, remarkable, or narrow about my comment. I think I understand in some way what he described in the early interview, and it could be something that still affects him.
Some people think their observation is infallible and they make statements that are disrespectful. I'm calling for compassion as it is possible there is more to the issue than they see.
I don't. The guy makes me sick... to have all that ability and no desire is such a waste of everything (Ice time, roster spot, and yes...Money too). That money, whether its considered to be alot or not, would be better suited towards a player that gives a s*** and plays.
I think he has emotional issues. Wasn't it mentioned a few years ago that he was struggling with depression? I've had a job that required a lot of travel and I struggled with those issues too. Give the guy some slack.
Fedorov had personal issues too. I remember Bowman snatching a heckler's sign that criticized Fedorov's contract dispute during one of the '90's playoff runs. He didn't want him to lose his confidence.
Think of your own performance at work. Do you always perform at the highest level? Especially when you are down about something? No one has any evidence to suspect him of malfeasance.
Right, but there was no 04-05 season due to the lockout and then the salary cap came into effect starting the next season (05-06). As I mentioned, I am only speculating.... based on the fact that the season he played in Detroit was the final season without a cap and he was not back the following season (the first with a cap).... I'm guessing they couldn't afford him. You are right, though, that his season in Detroit was far from the peak of his career, and that may have played a part as well.
Despite some of the posts here, you are correct. Coming out of the lockout, teams were given a $39 million cap going into the 2005/06 season. As a result, the Wings had to buyout some players. They bought out Whitney, Hatcher, and McCarty.