For the life of me I can't understand why the NHL has to babysit players so much about the concussions issue. While they're certainly arguing against the PC wind blowing in the direction of babysitting possible concussions, it's good that they stand up for themselves as responsible adults understanding that with physical play can come consequences.
I don't think it has anything to do with being politically correct. It's not like some group is protesting outside NHL headquarters with signs "what about the players' brains??!"
We know a lot more about concussions than we ever have before, and beyond that there's been a rash of them in the league, especially since the lockout. While the policy may not be dialed in, I think the league is genuinely trying to protect its players and figure out what's going on and how they can reduce brain damage while leaving the game intact.
And from a purely business perspective, they're paying these guys to play, so they also have a financial interest in protecting them. Sidney Crosby is making a lot of money for skating no-contact drills right now. Add to that instances like in the NFL where dozens of former players are suing the league for not protecting them better from concussions during their career.
A younger player may think "I want to get back out on the ice" instead of sitting in the quiet room. But a retired player with chronic headaches, depression, and memory loss may think "why didn't the league who made so much money off of me do a better job protecting me?"
I wasn't trying to kill him officer. I was just shooting my gun through the fence. I didn't see him there.
What if the slashed player lost an eye. Would 2 games be too much still? If it had been an accident, sure, 4 min would be enough. But he was INTENTIONALLY slashing him. Regardless of where the stick ended up, he was WRECKLESS and it needed to be addressed. A fine would have also sufficed instead of games IMO.
I agree with this part.
A fine and the 4 minute major would've been plenty. Calvert initiated the altercation and Bouchard responded in a way that's a fairly common play in hockey. As slashes go it wasn't particularly vicious, just with an unfortunate outcome.
Most fans don't really "invest" in the team. Maybe they invest emotionally, but that's about it. Yes, fans buy tickets, they buy merchandise, etc. But that isn't investment, that's simply purchasing goods and services. If the fans actually want to invest in the team, then send your money in without expecting anything in return except for a small stake in the team.
The sponsors don't invest in the either and they really have no ownership over anything. They pay money, in return they get advertising.
The owners are the ones that actually paid to purchase the team. They need to run their business (i.e. the team) to make money hopefully, otherwise, that team may not last forever (Atlanta). This sponsorship deal actually helps the fans be able to watch their team play. Without such sponsorship deals, the ability for teams to operate would deteriorate.
Without fans, a team wouldn't be able to operate either.
I know what you're saying about investment in the literal sense, but as fans we do invest in the team through all the things you listed. Tickets to games, merchandise, and by watching on television, which increases ratings and brings in more ad revenue. Hockey is entertainment, and we're the audience. Which is crucial.
I'm definitely disappointed that Illitch would sign a sponsorship deal with Amway, as I think the Red Wings (and Mr. I) are a class act. Amway is not, and definitely takes some shine of the organization for me.
Just because you say it's true doesn't make it so. Even if it were true, those players would have to be on the ice to prevent anything, and none of those players would play on the same line as Datsyuk or Zetterberg or anyone decent.
I don't know what to tell ya because it's a concept that's as old as hockey. I guess Babcock and I will have to agree to disagree with you.
I'm not interested in having a goon out there, but the more players you have that will drop the gloves when need be, the less crap that tends to happen to them. As fun as it was to see Datsyuk fighting Perry, he shouldn't have to.
Nystrom cannot score just as well as Miller. Miller has more points and goals in 100 less games played and has 2 straight 10 goal seasons with the Wings while Nystrom hasn't accomplished that feat. Nystrom has never had a positive +/- as a pro as well. So yes smartass, Miller is the better player.
You're talking about two players on six different teams, and basing it on only three or four seasons for each of them. Plus minus isn't a very useful stat for comparing such different situations.
And it's not always about who's the better player on paper, it's about building a team, and Nystrom has qualities Miller doesn't.
I don't think Holland will take a serious look at Nystrom, but it has more to do with the Wings being neck deep in forwards and Nystrom's contract.
How exactly does his punching "keep the flies off"? Fighting doesn't prevent anything for the love of everything that is good. Plus, Miller is a much better player than Nystrom. And Miller is younger. All signs point to Miller being better.
You should ask Babcock to explain it to you.
The simple answer is, if I'm a player around the net in a scrum after the whistle, I'm a lot less likely to take a little cheapshot at the goalie or give a little crosscheck to a star player if I know I will get punched in the face for it. If I only have to answer to Franzen, then it's jab away.
I don't think it prevents guys from hitting players or injuries during the game, but as for crap after whistles and little cheapshots, hell yes it does.