Majsheppard

This is how the world continues to get worse.  Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed.  You know every single rape case is hearsay.  Might as well not try with those.  

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay.  Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around.  You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.  

No big deal.  


These are rules, if you make them you should enforce them.  Sure it is hearsay, maybe it is false and maybe they can't ever prove it.  I don't see why you would not try.  It doesn't hurt anything to look into it.  In the very least if it was a lie and you look into it, we can ignore Nanne for the rest of time.

The only thing that lets some people get away with whatever they want is the indifference of man.  Keep being indifferent, it just makes you look weak and pitiful.  Make all the posts you want about not bothering, I would wonder what you would say to that if you were the victim of some bending of rules.  If a coworker took credit for your work, or you got blamed for something and no one bothered to look into it because it would just be word vs. word.

You really want a world that works that way?!?!?

I have a question about the rules that I cannot lock down.

The Wild owner just let it leak out that he will not be outbid for Parise... while he was still under contract and the Devils have exclusive negotiating rights.

Holland said it himself during an NHL Live interview, that he can't name names before July 1st or it would be tampering.  

Now we know the Lions lost a draft pick recently when former KC coach Cunningham said he would like to get a player that was undercontract with the Chiefs.  I can only assume the same system is in place for all of the sporting leagues.

Now, why hasn't there been any talk about hitting the Wild with a penalty over this?


If the Devils were trying to sign Parise for a hypothetical amount- such as 7 Million- and he was asking for 8 hypothetically, then it is possible by July first they negotiate to somewhere in the middle... such as 7.5.  Saying this can allow the agent of Zach to say, he just said they won't be outbid.  Not only are we going to get 8 there, we are going to get 9 million there, 8 was the hometown discount for you.  We demand 8.  Now the Devils are stuck paying 8 or letting Zach walk and get at least 8 from the Wild.  

See how that should be cheating?  The general feeling seems to be that since the source was a friend who had dinner with him...  At least that is what George Malik thinks.  I think that is a weak defense.  Why doesn't Holland just go out with a Ashar Khan for dinner and give him a list of names and say this is off the record WINK.  Then he could write a story and Holland could deny it and say I wouldn't do that because it would be cheating?  You know why he doesn't do it, because he is classy.

I just want to know, what are the rules and what should happen?  Also, why aren't we more upset about this.  I think we should point this out, because it would piss us off if it happened to us.  It also could inhibit our ability to get him if we choose to bid for his services.

The link to the source is below.

The Skinny.

Doesn't anyone ever read?  Where exactly in your original post do you "clearly state it was second hand"?  In fact, in the bolded piece above, you stated that "The Wild owner just let it leak out".  No, the entire story is about Lou Nanne, who has absolutely no affiliation with the Wild & is not a journalist, taking the story to the press.  By saying "the owner leaked it" you either had to be there to hear the conversation or you're making a "wild" assumption.  Unless the NHL has proof, i.e. they heard Leipold tell Nanne to go to the press with the info OR if Leipold himself had made those comments in public or to a member of the press, they're not going to do anything.  There's absolutely no evidence that Leipold wanted that in the press, again just assumptions.  Bottom line, the NHL isn't going to start handing out fines & taking draft picks away on assumptions.  And btw the Nanne situation in no way, shape, or form would compare to Holland going out to dinner with an Ashar Khan, who is a journalist, and dropping information about the who's & how much's they're going after as UFAs.  There is a much much greater expectation of conversations being private when had among friends when compared to being had with journalists either on or off the record.

All it is at this point is hearsay...

{heer-say}
Noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another & not part of one's direct knowledge
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor

Until it is verified, as in Leipold or Fletcher confirm the conversation went like that, it is 100% NOT tampering & nothing will ever come of it.

Fair enough, I didn't put it in the post... because it is in the link.  Shame on me for that.  I didn't rewrite the article in my post. HOWEVER... I DID suggest Holland do the same thing and used Hasek as proxy illustrating the SAME situation.  I guess I figured you would read the source and then infer I read it as well having linked it and citing it as inspiration for my hypothetical. I guess that is asking a lot, and I should be more clear.

I don't care if it is hearsay, it has the same effect.

The rules say any means, public or private, any medium.  

Is there anyone who is a lawyer?  Let's just subpoena both of them and demand they say under oath if they had dinner together.  Then if they lie we can have a perjury trial that lasts a decade.  You know, like baseball.

I have a question about the rules that I cannot lock down.

The Wild owner just let it leak out that he will not be outbid for Parise... while he was still under contract and the Devils have exclusive negotiating rights.

Holland said it himself during an NHL Live interview, that he can't name names before July 1st or it would be tampering.  

Now we know the Lions lost a draft pick recently when former KC coach Cunningham said he would like to get a player that was undercontract with the Chiefs.  I can only assume the same system is in place for all of the sporting leagues.

Now, why hasn't there been any talk about hitting the Wild with a penalty over this?


If the Devils were trying to sign Parise for a hypothetical amount- such as 7 Million- and he was asking for 8 hypothetically, then it is possible by July first they negotiate to somewhere in the middle... such as 7.5.  Saying this can allow the agent of Zach to say, he just said they won't be outbid.  Not only are we going to get 8 there, we are going to get 9 million there, 8 was the hometown discount for you.  We demand 8.  Now the Devils are stuck paying 8 or letting Zach walk and get at least 8 from the Wild.  

See how that should be cheating?  The general feeling seems to be that since the source was a friend who had dinner with him...  At least that is what George Malik thinks.  I think that is a weak defense.  Why doesn't Holland just go out with a Ashar Khan for dinner and give him a list of names and say this is off the record WINK.  Then he could write a story and Holland could deny it and say I wouldn't do that because it would be cheating?  You know why he doesn't do it, because he is classy.

I just want to know, what are the rules and what should happen?  Also, why aren't we more upset about this.  I think we should point this out, because it would piss us off if it happened to us.  It also could inhibit our ability to get him if we choose to bid for his services.

The link to the source is below.

The Skinny.

Doesn't anyone ever read?  Where exactly in your original post do you "clearly state it was second hand"?  In fact, in the bolded piece above, you stated that "The Wild owner just let it leak out".  No, the entire story is about Lou Nanne, who has absolutely no affiliation with the Wild & is not a journalist, taking the story to the press.  By saying "the owner leaked it" you either had to be there to hear the conversation or you're making a "wild" assumption.  Unless the NHL has proof, i.e. they heard Leipold tell Nanne to go to the press with the info OR if Leipold himself had made those comments in public or to a member of the press, they're not going to do anything.  There's absolutely no evidence that Leipold wanted that in the press, again just assumptions.  Bottom line, the NHL isn't going to start handing out fines & taking draft picks away on assumptions.  And btw the Nanne situation in no way, shape, or form would compare to Holland going out to dinner with an Ashar Khan, who is a journalist, and dropping information about the who's & how much's they're going after as UFAs.  There is a much much greater expectation of conversations being private when had among friends when compared to being had with journalists either on or off the record.

All it is at this point is hearsay...

{heer-say}
Noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another & not part of one's direct knowledge
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor

Until it is verified, as in Leipold or Fletcher confirm the conversation went like that, it is 100% NOT tampering & nothing will ever come of it.

Fair enough, I didn't put it in the post... because it is in the link.  Shame on me for that.  I didn't rewrite the article in my post. HOWEVER... I DID suggest Holland do the same thing and used Hasek as proxy illustrating the SAME situation.  I guess I figured you would read the source and then infer I read it as well having linked it and citing it as inspiration for my hypothetical. I guess that is asking a lot, and I should be more clear.

What isn't fair is the comparison with a journalist was made to illustrate what if a journalist made such hearsay.  If someone tampers with a journalist they can deny it all the same, and the league would investigate.  That is ALL I am asking for...  both could deny it and there would be consequences for both.

Because, per the source, it wasn't anyone from the Wild that actually made the comment public.  The guy who made the comment is the former GM of the Minnesota North Stars and the comments were based on a conversation he supposedly had with the current owner & GM of the Wild.   Minnesota North Stars...Minnesota Wild... See the difference? In fact, Lou Nanne has never been affiliated with the Wild at all.  It wasn't Leipold, Fletcher, or anyone else in the Wild organ-i-zation that made public comments.

To give you an example, that would be the equivalent of former Maple Leaf's GM John Ferguson coming out & saying in an interview that he just played golf with Kenny Holland & they had a long chat on the back 9 about the Wings going after Ryan Suter.  Does he now represent the Wings organ-i-zation by making that comment?  No, it is considered hearsay unless it can be confirmed with Holland & that wouldn't happen.  IF Kenny confirmed it, THEN that would be tampering.

Does anyone ever read?

I clearly stated that it was second hand.  It shouldn't matter, if the person is saying he told me this... then as long as that person is a credible source it is no different than issuing a press release.  If I tell a newspaper reporter I intend to sign someone, he writes his story saying the source told him he was going to sign this person.  That is the basis of journalism.  IF a journalist lies about a source, they lose credibility so it is a bad idea to lie. Based on tampering, saying that to a journalist would be illegal.  I am saying how is this any different?


If the owner tells a former general manager and a friend and he goes and blabs, he is getting the story out the same as if through a journalist. The only difference is he could lie and therefore the Owner has more deniability...  The problem is either way the concept is out there, hence my hypothetical.  If the line is one extra lie??? That doesn't make it something besides cheating, it just makes it cheating AND lying.

He is a former general manager, I take him at face value and I think the owner should have to prove he didn't say this and prove him a liar.  Otherwise it is tampering.  IF they aren't going after him, not only should we all be upset.  But why don't we start just lying about this stuff with credible sources.  Hasek should say that he had dinner with Holland and he said we were really interested in Suter, Parise, Wideman, and Doan and that if he could get those guys he knows we would win a championship.  He could also say that if he could get all of them to take a bit less than we could also swing Moen.  Just a hypothetical mind you, but that would send a signal to all of those players that maybe I should not resign yet, or use it as leverage to get more money.  Hell, I would start saying we were going after RFA players and will pay them 8 million or something, and get them to go overboard.  Why not have Hasek say that we will offer Oshie 7 million a season so he ups the bill on the Blues?

I just feel like he needs to explain this, especially when the Lions lost a pick for a nobody based upon comments that I have never heard the source of...

I have a question about the rules that I cannot lock down.

The Wild owner just let it leak out that he will not be outbid for Parise... while he was still under contract and the Devils have exclusive negotiating rights.

Holland said it himself during an NHL Live interview, that he can't name names before July 1st or it would be tampering.  

Now we know the Lions lost a draft pick recently when former KC coach Cunningham said he would like to get a player that was undercontract with the Chiefs.  I can only assume the same system is in place for all of the sporting leagues.

Now, why hasn't there been any talk about hitting the Wild with a penalty over this?


If the Devils were trying to sign Parise for a hypothetical amount- such as 7 Million- and he was asking for 8 hypothetically, then it is possible by July first they negotiate to somewhere in the middle... such as 7.5.  Saying this can allow the agent of Zach to say, he just said they won't be outbid.  Not only are we going to get 8 there, we are going to get 9 million there, 8 was the hometown discount for you.  We demand 8.  Now the Devils are stuck paying 8 or letting Zach walk and get at least 8 from the Wild.  

See how that should be cheating?  The general feeling seems to be that since the source was a friend who had dinner with him...  At least that is what George Malik thinks.  I think that is a weak defense.  Why doesn't Holland just go out with a Ashar Khan for dinner and give him a list of names and say this is off the record WINK.  Then he could write a story and Holland could deny it and say I wouldn't do that because it would be cheating?  You know why he doesn't do it, because he is classy.

I just want to know, what are the rules and what should happen?  Also, why aren't we more upset about this.  I think we should point this out, because it would piss us off if it happened to us.  It also could inhibit our ability to get him if we choose to bid for his services.

The link to the source is below.

The Skinny.

Look at the last 9 champions....

New Jersey
Tampa Bay
Carolina
Anaheim
Red Wings
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Boston
Los Angeles

So, you are looking at 27% of the league has won a championship over the course of the last 9 seasons.  Remember when Tampa Bay was considered to be a young up and coming team with a veteran goalie?  What about Pittsburgh in 2009 after they won the cup?  Hell, for the last two seasons people thought they had the cup locked up.  Including this season!  Boston had a great chance to repeat and couldn't get it done this year.

In short, the cup hangover is tough.  I think LA is going to be competitive.  Dynasty?  I don't think so.  Not in the new NHL.

I like your counter argument.  

I want to say this though in response.  The Penguins had three superstar forwards, no true superstar defenseman let alone a young one, and an elite goaltender.  It is true that Quick could follow Fleury, but Fleury was never as good as Quick in this run.  None of the superstars were bargins at the time.  The Kings have good rates on Brown, Anze, Carter, Richards... I consider their forward core better.  I think that the Pens are a team that goes as Malkin and Crosby go, while the Kings can have two guys go cold and not be done.  

Then their is the defense... Much better than anything Pit has had.  They have the best dman FROM the Pens run in Scudari.  Then there is Doughty who is locked up a while, and has shown potential to be an offensive powerhouse that only the Bruins and the Wings have had on the back end in your group.   Greene has proven to be a heart and soul dman that is on the rise.

It has been said again and again, that their farm team is solid.  I don't think any of the teams on your list have had better, including the Wings following Kroner. (though I think we will have a great run coming up...)  

Finally, I think discounting the Bruins after one season isn't fair.  Pit can still be a dynasty while Crosby still has a head, and are favored in Las Vegas to win the cup as of right now. Boston has an absurd team and will go as far as Tukka takes them.  They have the deepest stable of centers I have ever seen.  Both of those teams could still be dynasties.

I just feel that you are right that dynasties are not going to be common.  Yet, if anyone had a shot, it is LA.

Furthermore, I think that a dynasty will also have to include how good a team is year in and out.  I would say that the Wings dynasty includes the near win that was stolen by the league/pens.  Same goes for the Pens nearly winning the year prior.

In the end, I don't think the Kings can avoid being a dynasty short of total meltdown.  They will win at least another cup in the next four years.  If they are competitive for at least 7 years and win two cups, I consider that a dynasty.  I wouldn't be surprised if they manage more cups, especially if we end up with the stupid divisional playoff format.

Finally, the competition in the west is shifting towards the central, although the Wings and Preds will take big steps back.  Vancouver is falling apart, San Jose has a closing window, and the division that might be would see them as the clear superpower.  

The Wings are my favourite team, and I love the Kings as well.  I fear the Kings more than any other team, and I did before they managed one of the best seasons ever in terms of acquiring two of the best contracts to be had in Richards and Carter.  I thought so before Quick became the best goaltender in the league and had the best postseason ever.  I thought so before I noticed that they are shedding the two horrible contracts they have in Penner and Gagne.  I thought so on the strength of Anze, Brown, Doughty, and the farm.

They just have everything going for them.  I don't know how anyone didn't see this coming as soon as they made the Carter deal.

I will say they need another puck mover on D in order to stay amazing, but they have some in the pipe and can be aggressive in free agency.

I think Wideman would look good in a Kings uniform and would help balance the defense and offense of the team.

Its gonna take more than a Cindarella story to be a dynasty.  

Look at the Wings whom from 97-09 appeared at and won more cups than any other team in the last 20 years AND arent considered a dynasty by the NHL .  

Of the teams to possibly win it, the Kings, Coyotes and of course the Wings were the only ones Id want to carry it.  That said I dont expect a repeat performance, there are just too many variables that magically fell into place for them.  They peaked at the perfect time, had no injuries to speak of and were unreal on the road.  The road performance may even be hard to replicate as we killed it on the road a year ago and this season it was a complete 180.  

I hope they keep it up but I dont see them as an upper echelon elite team over the long term ie; the next decade.

I just am wondering who doesn't think the Wings are a dynasty... also i don't think the NHL has any dynasty moniker to bestow.

I still think people who think the Kings as elite are ignoring all the signs.

I wouldn't even consider offering him a contract until I have kicked the tires and lost out on every other option.  Stress that even more with Parise and Suter.  I wouldn't sign Hudler until I know where I stand on the big contracts.  Hell, I wouldn't sign him longer than a year because next year is going to be rough as well.

Well, I don't know.  Every other time a player's rights have been traded it netted far more than this... I really would have rather tried to get a bit more from the Ducks or the Kings than just get a 7th.

I thought perhaps we could have gotten at least a 4th.

You know, we talk about plenty of pointless things here on LGW.

Traditionally there’s always a Conn Smyth thread, regardless of how close the race is. Why should this year be any different?

Well, because it is a waste.  Perhaps we should discuss if we need oxygen to breathe, next.  

Do you think we should have a thread about if Lidstrom will make the hall of fame?

Remind me how much Eric Boulton is helping the Devils in the finals or how much Kyle Clifford has made the Kings win the cup.  Goons are for teams that can't fill the stands unless they can play.

I'd take Clarkson for sure from the Devils, but its more because he is a net crasher... all of the things in the world we need, the last is toughness the way this list defines it.  

I just don't see the point.  When you don't have much money, and the cash needs to go to better players.  

I will take an enforcer, if we have all the issues with the team solved.  We don't.

I am not that high on him.  It would depend on how cheap.  I would think of him to be a number four dman, and I think we can fill that and should focus on a top paring or two...

That seems like a high price imo.  I would rather see the rights to Hudler and Quincey traded now for picks.

Id take him over Franzen and He would go nice with Suter. Has a right shot (we need). And put up 70+ points for 2 seasons before getting 3 unrelated injuries (bad luck). If he had a chronic injury I would be concerned (like a recurring shoulder issue) but I think he's just had bad luck. He isn't as terrible as you think (was nominated for norris) and we do need some points from the back end now that lids and rafi are both gone.

You know who would play well with Suter? Anyone.

You know who we don't have? Suter.

You know what wasn't good last year?  Forwards.

You know what won't help? Trading them for defensemen.

Honest to God, any trade for Green will piss me off, but one including Helm is dumb by itself.  Franzen straight for Green would be iffy but could work.  I don't like it really.

I want to point out that Green being nominated for the Norris doesn't make him a good defensemen.  It just says his stats were good that one year.  He scored 30+ goals.  That was absurd, but he isn't good at defending.  I mean, you don't get anything for being good at something else.  It would be like getting a car based on the good sat nav...  while it sucks at driving.

Green is rubbish, no way would I make this deal.   More puck hounds at forward please.  That is what we need.

Your list is rubbish.

Toughness isn't hitting or fighting, or at least the toughness the Wings need.

They need puck hounds, people who fight for the puck, not fight for the fight.  Anyone who has wheels in the corners, wheels to the net.  I'd rather have Dustin Brown or Pavelski than anyone on your list, and neither of them would be considered fighters.  Brown would fit the tough guy mold perhaps due to hits... but it isn't the reason you are going for it.

I really cannot agree with your premise at all.  The Wings would have won if they played the way the Kings do...

I can get behind Doan on your list, Garrison as well... Way to get two people on a list of 50 that are worth signing...  I mean, unless you rather get fighting PIMs than wins.

E impressed at times, but still isn't worth his contract.  This year I think you can expect him to be...