Jump to content

Shoreline's Photo


Member Since 03 Aug 2003
Offline Last Active Sep 12 2012 01:02 PM

#2298995 Gary Bettman is the worst thing to happen to hockey

Posted by Shoreline on 03 May 2012 - 04:35 PM

I agree with the blog's premise, but I want to reach through the computer and strangle that writer. He may as well have used Wingdings as his font.

Oops, looks like the OP is the blog writer in their link.

OP, why are you posting us a link of your own blog from 3 years ago?

#2298983 Gary Bettman is the worst thing to happen to hockey

Posted by Shoreline on 03 May 2012 - 04:02 PM

I agree with the blog's premise, but I want to reach through the computer and strangle that writer. He may as well have used Wingdings as his font.

#2298546 #8 Los Angeles Kings vs. #2 St. Louis Blues

Posted by Shoreline on 01 May 2012 - 04:25 PM

Hawks out, Canucks out, Penguins out, Preds and Blues both down 0-2. Were the Wings still playing, these playoffs would be perfect so far.

If the Wings were playing LA and Phoenix the way those two teams are playing the Wings would be getting their asses kicked. Our team was simply not meant to go far in the playoffs this year. I don't think it would be anywhere near perfect. ;)

But it certainly takes the sting off the Wings getting flouted if both Central division teams left eat s*** in the semis. :D

#2298541 Informative article on Nashville's finances

Posted by Shoreline on 01 May 2012 - 04:17 PM

I don't think the problem is inherently subsidization of private enterprise so much as it is unwarranted subsidization. If it were to merely help a franchise get on their feet to help them be self-sustaining, that's one thing. However, what the article in the OP is suggesting is that without this help the franchise is not sustainable.. at all. If I could epitomize something wrong with the US in how it deals with private enterprise and government this would certainly be one huge example.

Look at things in the bigger picture, you have a sports league that's raking in profits, players and owners are fighting at CBA's about who gets what share of profits, but in the end with the subsidization of certain franchises taxpayers are the ones taking it in the ass. Make the friggen league pay for it's own unprofitable teams, especially since it wants to have that slice-of-pie revenue sharing mentality about it. I have a feeling though revenue sharing is more symbolic for keeping unsustainable teams in the league and then the league doing their best to make taxpayers be their franchises' collateral in one hand while reaping profits in the other. This is one thing that really needs to stop. If a franchise cannot be sustained without perpetual help, especially when a government has no money to spend and is forced into reckless bond issuance to come up with money to subsidize it, it needs to do what every other business should do and simply fail. The Nashville issue pales in comparison to the Phoenix Coyotes one, but nonetheless, it's still just yet another one, and the ones are adding up to an insurmountable debt.

#2298287 Informative article on Nashville's finances

Posted by Shoreline on 30 April 2012 - 02:43 PM

The worst part about this is in the article it's admitted by the Nashville government the Preds aren't profitable, and they're concerned about that, but funnel public money to continue running an unprofitable franchise anyways? The f***? Where is Nashville getting the money to throw at the Predators franchise? And how can they afford to keep paying this sum of money? I'm not worried about the NHL's profit sharing concept because it's within the same network of business, but when taxpayers get involved I've long been fed up with failing business (entertainment no less) getting bailed out and subsidized by taxpayers, especially when these local governments know they shouldn't be spending this money and can't afford it.

Anyhow, the NHL will have to do something drastic sometime in the near future (to avoid an inevitable financial meltdown) unless the league can sustain their own teams without taxpayer help, eventually the local governments issuing bonds to borrow money will find no buyer since once the local governments are predictably in over their heads in debt, and there's no confidence they have the means to pay back. The first thing that comes to mind is something that should have been done years ago -- contraction.

#2298282 #4 Nashville Predators vs. #3 Phoenix Coyotes

Posted by Shoreline on 30 April 2012 - 02:09 PM

The Coyotes do what other teams like Florida do when selling tickets, even trying to give them away (just like the Florida Panthers), and still can't sell out. That is pretty pathetic.. no idea why the league decided to move an NHL team out in the desert and furthermore keep them there knowing how unprofitable it had been.

Nonetheless, I'm glad the Coyotes are taking it to the Preds and hope it continues in Nashville. I wouldn't mind.

It's also a double edged sword, because in one hand I don't want to see any central division team win (Blues, Preds), on the other hand, it would feel like Gary Bettman wins if the Coyotes do, and I'd like nothing more than to see that douchewad crying at a presser for the Coyotes moving their franchise to somewhere else like Quebec City.

Like some other people, it's disappointing seeing the Coyotes succeed where the Wings fail but we know where that comes from.. the Wings didn't have that type of goaltending, or that type of effort.

#2226092 Mike Commodore

Posted by Shoreline on 15 November 2011 - 11:24 PM

"We brought him in because.."

He's a pretty convenient whipping boy and following every loss there needs to be someone to hang for it.

#2225965 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 15 November 2011 - 10:07 PM


The league is pretty clear about factoring injury into doling out punishment. If I'm a goalie and someone intentionally runs me like Lucic did and gives me a concussion, I'm sure not going to sit on that information when they're deciding what to do. It's not like Miller was faking it.

And that's on the Sabres team and medical staff for not catching the concussion or making him sit in the quiet room. Every player wants to play. What was he supposed to do when his neck tightened up and he felt weirdly fatigued?

From your link:

If he was so concerned about his health he wouldn't have waited until then to come out with it as if he's tattling to the media about a concussion to try and get Lucic suspended. Throwing a fit like a baby to the media is pretty much on par with his stick swing, and makes me lose some respect for a goalie I had quite a large amount for. He should be above this type of whining.

I do love how, for concussions, unlike every other injury, it's the players who set a timetable for their own return, but doctors are supposedly expected to do something about it? Something isn't right.

#2225572 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 15 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

That's your opinion, which is fine, but the NHL currently disagrees with you and so do I. You can't make the goalies fair game because they are not equiped to absorb the body contact like any other player. It's not because they are wussies or anything like that, it's because of their equipment. They are much more prone to injury through body contact than anyone else....hence the rule. I have no problem at all with the rule, I'm just wondering if they want to consider no allowing goalies to leave their crease to play the puck. Not sure about that though as the limitations recently put on them as to when they can play the puck haven't been overwhelmingly positive.

I'm sure he's aware that the NHL rules disagrees with him, but I do believe that the forum rules still allows for someone to debate if they think Miller should be fair game anyways despite the NHL's rules.

The trapezoid rule is just stupid, and, understandably, no goalie is going to like having any sort of strict limitations placed on where they can stand/move, although it makes it interesting adding this type of rule if they have to leave the crease area for an extra skater and then double back, say, on a turnover. That just seems like a mess in the making.

I would certainly be in favour of tearing up this ridiculous non-"fair game" rule the NHL implements. If a goalie wants to not protect the goal, and wants to make a play on the puck well away from his net, it should be his right to play the puck, and it should be his right to be hit like any other skater playing the puck.

It really sucks that Miller is going to be gone but I hope next time he thinks twice about going that far away from his crease to play the puck.

I also hate this:


Saying he felt fine after the hit, Miller continued playing through the end of the second period when he began experiencing tightness in his neck and fatigue. Backup Jhonas Enroth took over at the start of the third period.

The 2010 Vezina Trophy winner did stick around following the game to speak to the media, during which he called Lucic "gutless."

Miller revealed that he and the team went ahead with announcing he had a concussion in a bid to make a case that Lucic should be suspended.

The fact that he continued to play, then has issues, and suddenly comes out announcing the concussion with the intention of trying to sway the league into suspending Lucic, makes me shake my head in disgust.

#2225493 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 15 November 2011 - 11:14 AM

Haha you don't actually read anything, do you? Quit picking a sentence and applying your own foolish context so that it fits your argument loosely, and address the conversation as a whole. Like I said previously, this does not apply and should not apply to deciding if a clean hit receives a penalty. And to continue to compare this to a skater on skater incident is the most ridiculous thing in this thread. This is intending, and doing a damn good job of achieving a hard open-ice hit on a goaltender without the puck.

By your argument, the Bertuzzi-Moore incident (since apparently we're just making whatever wacky, unrelated, irrelevant references we can since we don't have any hard precedents, right) was a roughing penalty and nothing more, because hey, he got penalized right? And he didn't mean to crumple him like a piece of paper. Sure he meant to hit him, but come on, would he mean to do that? And then all the Avs jumped in on him and Moore, he couldn't control that. That was all just a misunderstanding, he should have served his two and been back out there.

"That's good tough hockey, just like any other hit! Quit being a wimp. There was no intent to injure, therefore he is fine hitting a protected, unhittable player who just so happens to be the most important to the opposition's season. And if he is injured and misses a few games, that's not my fault, I didn't intend for it." - Shoreline (since you did such a good job at putting words in my mouth :))

As far as I'm concerned, you're probably closer if you're comparing it to a hit on a linesman then you are a skater on skater hit. :P

Amongst straw men, I don't think I've seen such a retarded attempt at parodying a rather sincere opinion. The discussion you are replying to had to do with intent. It was obvious as day Bert had the intent of injuring a guy by following him around the ice hitting him in the back of the head, which somehow compares to this incident. I'm only awaiting your trifecta of stupid with an invocation of Godwin's law. :hysterical:

Let me try a b.shanahan14 analogy.

Lucic almost KILLED Miller! He should be sued worse than the fake lawsuit against Chara and the po-po should "charge" his ass in return! Overreaction über alles!

#2225408 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 14 November 2011 - 09:26 PM

^ So Fraser just re-quotes the charging rule and re-translates it into a charging major and two game suspension.

#2225405 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 14 November 2011 - 09:18 PM

Not true. A player hits another player, knowing that said player has proper pads on. As has been noted repeatedly, it is well known that goalie pads are not built to protect from being hit. Not to mention that an injury to a star goalie is just about the worst injury you can have. Therefore, it's hard to imagine a player like Lucic hit Miller without intent to do something. Maybe not a concussion, but tweak a muscle or something. Even something small can really hurt Buffalo's goaltending. And so he didn't get out of the way like he could have.

It's reasonable to assume that Lucic did have intent to injure, and his purposeful hitting on an underprotected goalie is evidence of that.

To the bold, that's why it's a "charging" penalty. If it were anyone other than a goalie that's not even a penalty.

To the underlined, this is made up. You have no basis for concluding he wanted to injure Miller. Try and use this logic to prove someone's intent in a court and see how well that logic holds up. Also, to note, Miller did not just leave the game when the hit happened. He played another 26 minutes of ice time, surely was evaluated at the first intermission, and cleared to keep playing, until leaving after the 2nd. Lucic is not a weak hitter and if this guy wanted to injure Miller with a hit he would have certainly done plenty of damage. Miller's injuries came from the fall, not the hit -- somehow, he was capable enough to swing his stick at Lucic in response, and he's damn lucky he didn't connect or that would have got him a suspension.

It is not reasonable to just say someone had an intent to injure.. prove the intent. Hitting Miller is not proof of an intent to injure without making synonymous hitting someone with intending to injure. An intent t injure is not an intent to hit, it's an intent to injure someone. Seriously, it's hard to fathom what the difficulty in discerning the two is. The only proof here is that it's a charging penalty.

#2225398 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 14 November 2011 - 08:56 PM

The talk of intent is silly, and 99 times out of 100 is completely based on speculation and bias. It is nearly impossible to prove intent, which is why it should only be used when it is damn obvious, like say stomping on a players leg with your skate; black and white, only one outcome, injury. Saying you believe that he didn't mean to do it, like Shanahan did here, shouldn't acquit the player of the act. Likewise, we shouldn't condemn a player on plays like this (not black and white like the stomp) based on the way he looked at him or things he said, though after his reaction, Lucic was looking guilty as sin.

In this case, it has little to do with whether Lucic intended to injure Miller when he hit him like he did. It matters that he did intend to hit him, and Miller did get injured.The rest is for the fans to argue. Lucic made a stupid, reckless, dirty play outside of the bounds of the rules (whether you agree with them or not), and it resulted in injury. Period. It doesn't matter if he knew how stupid it was or if he meant it to be as cheap as it was.

This is a different example than most because this wasn't a goaltender getting hit playing the puck behind the net. I usually defend the skater when a goaltender is behind his goal, sitting on a puck and someone bumps into him. This wasn't behind the net. This wasn't a delayed play. There was no puck anymore. This wasn't a little bump.

Everyone needs to stop comparing this play to plays behind the net, and definitely need to drop the whole "but he didn't mean to" argument. Action trumps intent.

lol.. what? If you can suggest that Lucic intended to hit him therefore it's an intent to injure then that infers every hit is an intent to injure if the hit results in an injury. That sounds quite ridiculous. "Kronwalled" is synonymous with "Intent to injure", sorry Kronner.

An intent to injure penalty cannot 100% without error be called because sometimes the intent isn't as obvious. An intent to injure penalty is one of the more major penalties in the game someone can get, so there had better be some pretty damn clear indication that was intended if one is going to be assessed this penalty and the suspension that inevitably would result. This was not the case even remotely with Lucic. He did intend to hit Miller simply because of the technicality of a charging penalty whereby it states that if he doesn't make any reasonable attempt not to hit the goalie outside the crease it's charging.

It is not only Shanny that saw it that way, it was the officials who were officiating the game, who actually got a call right for a change. Lucic was not smiling like hur hur I made a hit on a goalie /trollface, he had Sabres players in his face and was smiling because every single hit of any sort these days needs a stupid ass reaction by teammates. I would laugh too at those idiots.

#2225382 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 14 November 2011 - 06:27 PM

Okay, if everyone is saying it wasn't intent to injure, then what was it??? He clearly wasn't tryIng to separate the man from the puck (it was already gone), you don't protect your self by throwing all 240 so lbs at Miller when the picks heading to the corner. Then follow through with ur hands. I won't even point out the fact he was laughing about it. Fact is Lucic tried to hit a player, that legally isnt allowed to be hit, and didn't have the puck, while receiving a charging penalty. Its either that or he was trying to avoid hitting him all together and 200+ lucic was trying to protect him self from a goalie who was standing still and defensiveness???

Lucic saw his chance to take a shot at Miller and he did. This isn't whether u feel like goalies should be fair game outside the crease because that isn't in the rules. He CAN'T be hit.

This is also why I had a problem with no call on Thomad for flattening Sedin in the crease. The goalies aren't allowed to be hot, they shouldn't be able to hit back. If thst is legal Hasek flipping Gabby is legal, atleast Hasek attempted at the puck.

These are NHL players they know what they are doing he ran over miller with no other intent but to take him out. If you disagree please explain to me your side and don't just neg me, id love to hear u out...

So the latest conspiracy is that Lucic intended to take Miller out..

I've seen goalies hit behind the net countless times when playing the puck. If they get bowled over, in my opinion it's their fault, the rules often disagree with me here, but still, I don't think you quite understand what any levels of intent are.

First is the situation behind the play. They were going for the puck. Lucic braced himself and made the hit. The only reason this is even a penalty is because contact occurred and Lucic made no effort whatsoever to get out of the way.

Second, intent to injure, might wanna re-watch the Flames/Wings series in the 2004 playoffs of Ville Niemenen skating into the crease and elbowing Curtis Joseph in the head. That is an intent to injure. This hit with Lucic on Miller.. give me an effing break.

#2225368 Ryan Miller's opinion on Milan Lucic

Posted by Shoreline on 14 November 2011 - 05:24 PM

Has there really been a lot of outrage in this thread? To me it reads mostly as confusion.

As I said in my post, I think an argument can be made that it didn't warrant a suspension. But for Shanny to say it's due to lack of intent doesn't make a lot of sense and is a little surprising based on the standard he was using early in the season.

Goalies are not fair game. It's like if Lucic had lined up a player without the puck, didn't go out of his way to avoid contact, and even followed through on the hit like he did with Miller. He may not have intended to injure that player, but when you intentionally hit a guy who's not legally hittable, it's a grey area at best because the intent is pretty clearly to take a shot at someone you shouldn't.

If he wanted to keep in line with how he has been giving out punishment, honestly I think Shanny should've given a fine to Lucic for intentionally running a goalie and concussing Miller.

Outrage yes, statements like wanting the Red Wings to exact retribution for an incident involving other teams, wondering rhetorically why people like Savard get cheap-shotted, calling Lucic trash, I see plenty of outrage. Surprising you don't.

Your analogy though has nothing to do with what occurred.

Goalies are not fair game, the technicality of this wasn't really debated or inferred otherwise.

The charging nature of the penalty was the fact that this was obviously not incidental contact -- the refs had to call that. If it was not a penalty to finish the check on a goalie playing the puck far away from his crease as any other skater playing the puck would be vulnerable to this would have been a non-issue.

It's not anywhere close to an intent to injure call on the ice. It was not a double minor, it was not a major, there was no misconduct, no match penalty, nothing. It isn't just Shanahan that saw it that way. Lucic simply tried to play the puck and when he was too close he decided to just brace himself and deliver a hit.

There's no argument that it's a penalty (if we're arguing by the NHL's rules, my opinion obviously is another issue) but you're not making any sense trying to justify a suspension.