Posted by kipwinger
on 03 September 2013 - 08:12 PM
I did if the price was right. What's wrong with that?
Did you think they were going to make less than they did? Or were you pipedreaming? A) Everybody with any sense knew that they were going to get paid what they did. B) Everybody else should have listened to the guys who knew better. C) Anybody who adamantly thought they'd make less than they did, in spite of what more knowledgeable people said, has a woefully inadequate understanding of what physically large, moderately talented, UFAs make in the NHL these days.
But the original point I was trying to make is that most people knew Clarkson and Clowe were going to get paid A LOT, in spite their limited success, but wanted them anyway for some stupid reason. Then these same people have the gall to turn around and jump on Franzen, who's only ever made less and produced WAY more than either of them in their respective careers. Neither of these two are known for their versatility either...so you can't really use the "When Franzen isn't scoring he's not doing anything" argument either.
Bitching about Franzen, while wanting a worse player for more money makes one both foolish and hypocritical. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don't.
In terms of the design, they look like daredevils. Maybe Super Dave Osborne is going to start on defense for the American team. He'll wow the spectators with his steady defensive play and solid first pass, and then wow them again at intermission when he jumps his motorcycle over fifteen zambonis.
In terms of fit, they are the skinny jeans of hockey. They're like football jerseys with long sleaves. Leave it to some godless super corporation like Nike to think it's a good idea to "modernize" hockey sweaters by making them tight.
Nike Marketing Team: "And for this year's Olympic hockey team we thought about a classic design updated with state of the art moisture wicking fabric".
Nike Marketing Team Boss: "I see where your head's at. Hockey is a sport rich with tradition, and their fans are often resistant to even the smallest change in the game. But I've got to be honest with you. I wanna see a bit more zazz. Turn the zazz up to 11. I know they think they like history and tradition, but we're Nike, they'll like whatever we tell them too. Don't let our dwindling market share fool you, we're the kings of public opinion".
Bettman saying he needs the stars playing doesn't sound familiar?
Yep, it does. And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently. Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry.
All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons. It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment. If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not. Do they miss one occasionally? Sure. But there is no "star bias".
I waa starting to give Torres a little credit last year.
He looked like he was cleaning up his game until the hit on Stoll, which honestly I honestly don't believe he intended to be so high.
Stoll was reaching for a bouncing puck, but either way, with his rap sheet how could you not suspend him, he's been a dirty player for so long theres no way to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Cookes infraction list is pretty ridiculous too, it'll be interesting to see what happens next time he's suspended, if memory serves me right he sat out 17 playoff games.
And Weber always struck me as dirtier than anyone ever accredited to him.
Last years playoff when he bounced hanks head off the glass hard enough to break his helmet, and no suspension?
If it were against any other team he would've gotten at least a game, not a conspiracy theory but shanahan can't show any favor to his former team and Imo that was him overcompensating to show that.
Don't get me wrong charas not gonna be a picnic to deal with, but I haven't seen him go out of his way just to try to hurt someone.
Whether you admit to it or not, promoting a conspiracy theory is EXACTLY what you're doing. It doesn't change the fact just because you say "not a conspiracy theory". If there is no evidence to back up your claims then they don't mean anything, they're conjectures.
As long as the nhl is punishing the result and not the intention plus having double standards, nothing is going to change. If you are playing for one of Bettmans teams you can do everything (even cut the achillies of a great defenseman) , if not the nhl will lay down the banhammer immediately.
Who are Bettman's teams again? I'm having a hard time keeping all of these conspiracy theories straight.
Steckel didn't blindside Crosby. They were both looking away from where they were skating. Steckel is just 5 inches taller, hence Crosby's head hit shoulder. Maybe a bit off topic, not that it matters around here, but that one needed correcting. And Hedman braced him into the glass, they just hit a stantion. Crosby was injured on the Steckel hit and from repeated hard hits. If you're a smaller player like Crosby and you're getting hit by guys that are 6'3 all the time, your head gets rattled whether it's the primary point of contact or not. I'm Crosby's size, I know full well.
Agreed. When guys get hit clean, whether it's Crosby or anyone else, then there's no suspension on the play. Which is the point I was trying to make. Lots of people around LGW seem to believe that there's some sort of bias in favor of marquee players, and there isn't. Everybody is just as susceptible to suspension as everyone else, as the 2013 suspensions to Duncan Keith, Corey Perry, Joffrey Lupul, Taylor Hall, and Alex Edler seem to indicate.
I'm tired of this old "well if it happened to 'so and so' then there would/wouldn't be a suspension" bulls***. It's simply not true. Star players get suspended all the time, ask Ovechkin. Furthermore, just because you hit a star player hard doesn't mean you'll be suspended, ask Steckel and Hedman.
It's just a line of b.s. that dummies keep repeating to make themselves feel relevant.
The increase in concussions is the result of several different factors. When the league returned from the 2005 lockout, they made several rule changes to make the game more entertaining and some of them resulted in more collisions and more violent collisions. They need to roll back some of those rules:
1. Two line passes were allowed. This creates more speed through the neutral zone.
2. The trapezoid rule was added that keep the goalies from playing pucks in the corner which results in opposing players racing into the corner for the puck.
3. There was a crack-down on interference. You can no longer hold-up a player racing to the goal.
If the league want to reduce the number of concussions and injuries in general, they need to change these rule back.
Trying to enforce rules against hits to the head as we have seen doesn't work. The rule is to subjective.
LOL. Try skating up and down the ice wearing a NASCAR Hemet.
You've totally nailed it. Guys aren't getting head injuries because the "rats" are taking cheap shots. Guys are getting head injuries because the game is 1,000 times faster and therefore they're getting hit a whole lot harder than that (mass times acceleration or something like that). They wanted a faster game and this is one of the negative side effects. On the whole though, I feel like the game is better for it. At the end of the day it's a contact sport and guys are just going to have to learn to play a safer game than they used to. I don't think suspending is the answer any more than I think getting rid of the instigator rule is. Suspensions don't factor into a guy's mind when he's moving that fast, is largely encouraged by his coaches to hit first and ask questions later, and must commit to contact in a split second. Likewise, gooning it up doesn't work because most of these injuries aren't the result of cheap shots, and so the only thing dressing more tough guys is going to do is cost you games. The only way to stop it is to slow down the game, and in doing so you'll lose the speed that is almost entirely responsible for ensuring that NHL hockey is the most intense, physically demanding sport on earth.
I agree with Axe on Quincey, but not on Tootoo. Quincey started bad and finished strong, but once you're a whipping boy around here (and once you're a hometown hero) there's no changing most people's minds. There was ZERO wrong with Quincey's play down the stretch and into the playoffs. Tootoo is another story in my opinion. He was under utilized. I know Bab's had all sorts of quotes about penalty minutes and this and that. But the truth is, both Boston and Chicago dressed at least one guy who was a penalty machine but still brought enough intangibles that they were worth being on the ice. Hell, Abby had 33 PIMs in 12 games. And he didn't score enough to make that worthwhile. Tootoo isn't Boogaard. He didn't play because Babs likes skill more than he likes aggressiveness (in spite of what he says), and once Babs doesn't like a guy it's awfully hard to change his mind.
Q is signed for thankfully only 1 more year. Just enough time to fast track Sproul, our futurw #1 dman. People can quote me for future reference if anyone thinks I'm out to lunch...but I'm calling it now.
You're not exactly going out on a limb here. He's the highest rated defensive prospect we've got. He's further along the developmental curve mentally, physically, and skill wise than any of our other prospect d-men. Plus, he's projected to have the much higher upside based on his mix of skill and size. It's a little like "gambling" that Mrazek will be a starting goalie, or Mantha a top line forward. The sky would literally have to fall for this to not be true.
The reason this is embarrassing is that it states "Guarantee your chance to see these marquee Original Six matchups" Any other descriptor rather than Original Six would be OK. Maybe even Original Six + Cindy.
As previously stated when they mentioned "original six" matchups, it wasn't in reference to the pictures, it was in reference to the sentence before when they explicitly discuss Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. Which are, indeed, original six matchups.
It's a very poorly put together promo, but you guys are reading a little too much into it. They're hyping the original six matchups specifically in reference to the teams they mentioned, Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. The rest of the ad is an attempt to inform fans that Detroit will host all their main rivals, including the teams pictured, at the Joe this year.
If you read the headline, it says "Detroit will host every team at the Joe INCLUDING new Eastern Conference Rivals". It then names Toronto, Montreal, and Boston as examples of these new "rivals". And then concludes by saying "Guarantee your chances of seeing these Original Six Matchups" in reference to the previously mentioned Toronto, Boston, and Montreal. It's a poorly put together ad campaign, but it's pretty easy to see that the whole point is to see tickets to marquee games, and Chicago, Pittsburgh, AND the original six are all considered those types of games.
They aren't promoting hockey history, they're trying to sell you tickets. And that's not going to happen if they promote Florida.
I don't really care about the Pens, or Sidney Crosby, but if I hired a marketing director and he DIDN'T use one of the biggest names in hockey to sell tickets I'd fire him immediately. Sometimes it's hard for us fans to separate hockey the sport we love, from hockey the multi-billion dollar business. The league doesn't post constantly increasing profits by ignoring their bread and butter. Sidney Crosby sells, and until he doesn't, the NHL and each individual team is VERY likely to ride that gravy train. Get used to it.