I'm just flabbergasted by the buffoonery on this one. One team initiates three different trades and ends up with NONE of the best players when all is said and done.
Whenever people complain about Ken Holland they should revisit every single Boston Bruins roster move that resulted from their decision to trade Phil Kessel. Without a doubt the dumbest roster management I've seen in a very long time.
I'm surprised there aren't more people crying,"Why didn't Ken Holland make the trade for Hamilton?!" Or "We could have offered more!!"
As if the Bruins would have any interest in sending one of their guys to a division rival.
Correction, to a division rival for a worse 1st rounder than they got from Calgary.
Boston is on the verge of some tough times. I don't understand what they are doing at all. I get that they have to shed salary, but why Hamilton? I mean, good for us that Boston becomes a weaker team. But I guess firing their previous GM did nothing to change trading away their youth.
No s***. Just take the guy to arbitration, get him signed to a reasonable bridge deal, and shed whatever salary (Chara, Lucic, Eriksson) necessary to keep him around. I don't really get it either. They hamstrung themselves on the return the minute the chose to move him as opposed to a half dozen other cap killers on their s***ty roster.
On the plus side, somewhere in Beantown Jack Edwards is rocking back and forth while crying gently to himself.
I mean, I assume that Ferraro or Callahan will out play him for a spot. But why double down on it? Just sign them all, let them compete for a spot, and waive whoever you don't want at the end of the process. No need to limit your options unnecessarily.
Burke actually did say "green peace folks" once. It was when he sent Franks favorite dumb meathead, Colton Orr, to the minors (cause he sucks) and all 29 other teams acknowledged His suckyness by not claiming him on waivers
That press conference was a master stroke by Brian Burke. He became the champion of "Ye Olde Tyme Hockey" by glorifying Colton Orr at the same time as he was effectively waiving him and ending his pro career.
"Look at Colton Orr here", Burke gestures, "Why he's the prototype of what a hockey player should be. All heart, knuckles, and square jaw. I love this kid as if he were my own son. He a rat killing, penalty box chillin, death tollin, rock and rollin', son of a gun, and he's the kind of guy that wins hockey games..."
..."which is why I'm waiving him and sending him to the minors".
The game may be fast because of less clutching and grabbing, but the lack of comparable star power and the robotic consistency of today's goaltenders has made it less exciting for me. The top players don't put up big numbers anymore as there's more balanced lines and goalies are too good. And yes, the lack of fighting and big hitters hasn't helped it any in my mind.
My guess is the NHL is not as popular for the everyday American sports fan Joe as it was in the 90's. Don't have any stats on that, but that's the way it seems. It's hard to promote a more exciting product but not have the big name power to go with that. Kind of like TNA wrestling.
There is less fighting, there is not less "big hitting". There's just less reckless hitting. I just provided a 15 minute long video of "big hitting" from this season alone. It's still there, regardless of how many times people say otherwise.
Again, I agree that there is less "star power" than in the 90's. But in saying that, you're arguing against the original point that others were making. Namely, that the old game was more exciting because it was "tougher". You're saying it's less exciting because there's not as much scoring, and because the goalies are too good. That has nothing to do with toughness.
As far as the popularity goes, the NHL keeps setting records for attendance, revenue, and TV ratings (despite not being on ESPN). If you accept those measures as proxies for "popularity" then I'd say it's MORE popular than it was, not less.
Because the Wings are so soft that even a women would toughen them up. Hardy Har.
Sports jokes that connect the perception of a weak athlete to a women are soooooooo funny.
You just don't get it. Because you're part of the PC police and also because you want hockey to become the same thing as women's soccer (which is significantly tougher than Men's soccer BTW). Admit it.
The game has all the hitting it ever had, AND it has all the speed and skill that it lacked during the clutch and grab era. Those who romanticize the "good old days" are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They say they want hitting and aggression, but they willfully ignore all the hitting and aggression in the modern game? Why? Because they don't JUST want hitting, they want a PARTICULAR KIND of hitting. The violent kind. The dangerous kind. The kind they hurts people. Many people say they want the reckless hits out of the game, but they don't actually mean it. They all secretly long to see Scott Stevens out there blindside hitting guys in the head, because that was AWSOME!
Except it wasn't...at all.
Here's a "best of" video for the season, showing many of the big hits. Nobody took toughness out of the game, they just took recklessness out of the game. And lots of folks, contrary to what they say, don't actually like that.