I live in Toronto, so I'd love to see the Wings back in the East, but other than specific reasons like that, why would the fans care if the team is in the East or the West? I know why Management would want the team in the East (specific business reasons), but what about the fans? Is it because you want to see more games against Toronto, Montreal, Boston and New York?
I think part of the problem is going to be the level of interest in the West for games against the Wings. I think there is a good chance that moving the Wings to the East would hurt the league financially.
He wants any flashing women to report to his suite.
What's interesting is a few things.
1) Look at Eager's board on Sedin. He saw Eager coming, and purposely faced the boards. This mirrors the Pavelski board in Game 1 Wings/Sharks. It's a very pathetic and stupidly dangerous method of trying to get a penalty call one's way. I don't think Eager will or should get suspended for that. On the other hand, that hit followed the Marleau/Bieksa fight, Eager went up to the glass toward the Canucks bench following that and started yelling s*** at them something about going after skill guys, so he might have intended to run Sedin as payback. If this is the case, suspension deserved.
"Might" have intended?? I think it was prettey obvious.
In terms of Sedin seeing him coming and turning his back, I'm not so sure about that, he lost the puck in his feet and turned and looked to find it. I could be wrong, but that's what it looked like to me. Either way, I wouldn't lump this into those plays where the guy turns at the last second.....there is a decent amount of time where Eager could have very easily avoided the hit....not only did he not do that, he actually drove through the hit pretty aggressively.
Personally, I'd suspend, but they probably won't. Bob MacKenzie suggested the hit isn't suspendable due to similar hits in the past not being suspended, but he went on to say that the league may look at it closer due to all the other idiotic things he did during the game.
I'm not sure how this is "significantly" different than the Matt Cooke hit that got 4 games. I know one is "Matt Cooke" and that plays into it, but Eager isn't exactly a non-idiot.
I would argue they were in a race for the puck, given that Moore went after THE PUCK instead of Naslund, and then tucked his elbow IN when he realized he was probably going to collide with Naslund.
Calling that an elbow, an intentional knee-on-knee, or an intentional head shot is about the last place I'd go. Moore pulled both his elbow and knee in to try and avoid Naslund; so much so with the knee that he himself went into the boards. He's not lunging towards Naslund. He's trying not to take out Naslund's knee because Naslund is sticking it out to the world saying "wreck my career!"
People say Moore was just another Matt Cooke. Had it been Cooke instead of Moore on that hit, Naslund doesn't get up. And possibly doesn't play another game in the NHL.
His elbow may not have been "tucked" as if he were actually throwing a hit. But the primary point of contact was still not the elbow. Just because his arm wasn't tucked in to his gut doesn't make it an elbow; the elbow never factored into the contact. And the contact wasn't even an intentional hit. Chara on Pacioretty is fifty times worse than Moore on Naslund, even if Max had come up with no injuries.
EDIT: Moore would probably have gotten around 5 games, because his shoulder hit Naslund's head and Naslund was a star player. Even though Moore was trying for the puck and not Naslund, the NHL would have looked at the injury and said "Sorry dude, you get to sit."
It's fascinating how I can see that hit completely differently than you. I could care less about whether it was an elbow or not, that's not the point. It was a hit where the head was targeted. In terms of it being a race for the puck, I truly believe you are fabricating something that doesn't exist. When I watch that, I see Moore as a guy who has absolutely no interest in the puck at all, in fact, in preparation for the hist, he lightly brushes the puck aside with his stick to get it out of the way....he didn't want it, he wanted the hit.
I've been watching for the 50-win season. I believe it would be the 5th season in a row. IIRC, Babcock is one of a few coaches who have had four 50-win seasons (in a row?), but no one has had five. They can do it if they really buckle down on the consistency.
You didn't answer my question. You had an issue with me saying enforcers would become essentially a luxury for teams with money. Are those not players you would consider enforcers (in general)?
My point was less about fighting and more about players considered enforcers. The term goon might fit as well.
I didn't even know what your question was....I looked for it. I think your original comment was that often suspensions are the result of fighting, which is completely false. Fine, you've clarified what you were talking about. You are talking about goons, enforcers, whatever you want to call them, as being the guys that are responsible for most of the suspensions.
Well, if you want to look up who has been suspended so far this year, you'll find the following:
- Total suspensions = 30 - By enforcers = 11 - By others = 19
If you want to add cheapshot artist into your list, that will only get a couple more (Cooke and Eager) into the list, so it's still only 13 vs. 16.
Slice it however you want, I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. No team purposely wants players on their team to take suspensions, so suggesting only the rich teams can do it is silly. The teams that have players who are prone to suspension probably haven't come down on them as hard as they might if the team had to cough up $$$ when they get suspended, that's the idea.
How would you classify these players? Matt Cooke, Trevor Gillies, Jody Shelly, Eric Godard, Rick Rypien, Tom Kostopoulos
They are the worst offenders of the year.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. Let's take those players as examples:
- Cooke - suspended for hitting from behind - Gillies - suspended for head shots, two separate times - Shelley - suspended for hit from behind and for sucker punch - Godard - suspended for leaving the bench to fight - Rypien - suspended for altercation with fan - Kostopoulos - suspended for head shot
I think the idea is that you'd try and get the teams to influence their players not to engage in this type of activity. I doubt you'd have many teams have issue with trying to ensure it's players don't: hit from behind, deliver head shots, sucker punch people or fight with fans. It's a tough sport and sometimes things happen so fast it is tough to avoid, but a lot of the times, it's the matter of making a good decision rather than sucker punching someone or purposely take a shot at someone's head, etc.
"You CAN GLIDE into a guy, but you can't stride into a guy" - Bill Clement in NHL 11.
Brule didn't stride. He glided. That's not a charge.
I'm assuming you are joking, but just in case, did you really just quote NHL 11 to try and explain a rule?
Gliding vs. striding into a guy has nothing to do with charging or not. Almost all hits happen from a guy "gliding" in as he needs to get his balance set. If you don't glide in, it probably won't work out to well for you.
Why is this such a big deal anyway? I equate this to arguing about any other bad penalty call. Bad calls or missed calls happen every game. Plus, I can see where someone would call it charging anyway. It's not like he got 5 and a game for it.
I watched with no sound, so I'm not sure what the announcers were saying. Assuming they were pretty annoying as usual though.
First time I checked, it looked like his right arm and glove was up in the chin area, but it looks okay (pretty close though). Couldn't have been that anyway, if it was, would have been a headshot, more significant penalty.
When looking again and focusing on his skates, he does look to jump into the hit a little. His skates only leave the ice by a very small amount, but it looks like he starting jumping into it before he made contact.
I'll admit, I'm playing devil's advocate and looking for a reason for the call to be legit. My first instinct was that it was clean. After watching it several times, to be honest, I'd be okay with whatever call they made. Since it was only a 2 minute charging call, there's no big deal here.
Because it is an investment company. They are in the business of making investments and then selling them for more than the initial investment. They need to seel at some point in time to monetize their investment.
- no one can know the intent, anyone suggesting Chara purposely put him into the stantion or anyone suggesting it was purely an accident are simply wrong, they really don't know one way or another. There is no way the video can show this.
- if the player did not get hurt like he did, it would be a 2 minute penalty and no one would be talking about this at all. Because he got hurt, I agree that they probably needed to assess a major and game.
My opinion, I think "results", meaning whether the player is hurt and extent of injury should be factored in to any discipline, but I think it is getting too much weight. I would place more weight on the act itself and in this case, it's hard to judge. I'd probably give him 2 games (simply because of the result). If you compare the Bertuzzi incident to what that Islanders player did against the Pens (not Gillies), it's not all that different, but the results were. Bertuzzi got signficant time (some pleaded for life time ban or longer than what he got) and the Islanders player only got 3-4 games I think. In those situations, I agree for longer time for Bertuzzi because of factoring in results, but I wouldn't place as much weight on that as they currently do.
Clutterbucks hit was worse than Gillies. Only difference is Clutterbuck is one of those players that dishes out the cheap hits but when it happens to him he drops like a lemon.
Gillies did what any player sticking up for a rookie who was hit from behind in his 2nd ever NHL game would do.
Wow! I'm not even sure what to say, but I'll try. I'd call a boarding penalty on Clutterbuck, but the hit wasn't that bad at all. The Isles player was skating up the ice when Clutterbuck committed to the hit and then the Isles player lost control of the puck, looked down and turned towards the boards. Clutterbuck even looks to let up on the hit. You have to blame Clutterbuck here, but those are tough hits to avoid at times and happen on the time.
I highly doubt any player sticking up for a rookie woudl decide the best course of action would be to jump into the guy, with elbows up and drive the guy's head into the glass.
Gillies will get extra time because he's a repeat offender and because he was literally 2 minutes into coming back from a 9 game suspension for the same thing, but if a guy like Lidstrom did the same thing, he'd get suspended too. However, that's a mute point because we all know that Lidstrom would never do that.