22
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Mar 6, 2024 9:29:25 GMT -6
I think the damage to a club matters, and the previous gen did plenty of damage. Plus, we are seeing some brilliance of the kids amongst the clusterfuckery. That is a good sign. I agree if we stagnate that KD needs to be thrown out the door, but this is year 1 with the nascent core; we sucked in 2006 as well. I don’t believe this is year 1. It doesn’t matter the last GMs plans. The team has been rebuilding for about 5 years now. The only good news is we’re finally starting to see some fruit from that. Like Kurashev, Vlasic, Entwhistle, etc. not a lot. But there is some from the last regime and also some decent prospects still there. So the rebuild did start a while ago. The tear down is only a year or so old. So KDs plan is in its sophomore year. But by next year, gotta show some type of improvement. Like I said. There’s a lot of leftovers to sift from too. Plus the new stock. If the team finishes last, that’s ok. Just like we seen in 2007–08. Team sucked. But there was some hope on the horizon. Right now, all we have is a list of prospects that haven’t proved anything yet. This is why I’d like to see some outside help. Sign a couple decent guys on 3-4 year deals!!! I disagree for the simple reason that Bowman the Beancounter was not rebuilding. 2019: he was trying to get the old core 1 more cup. 2020: Covid Cup 2021: Lame duck year--no moves were really happening to either clear the roster, nor to try an make a run. Also, shortened year. 2022: Beachgate, Bowman is out on his calculator-jockey ass. 2023: Teardown. No real person on the Nascent core (except maybe Vlassic and Reichel, if Reichel gets out of his funk) were on the roster. Thus because Bowman was not actively rebuilding. We should only count the time that the 'hawks were actively rebuilding. What he was doing absolutely has an impact on what KD has to do and what he doesn't have to do--for good and bad. There are some Bowman picks which might pan out into great players, but on the flipside that albatross deal Jones has (in spite of a great game last night), is something that KD has to work around. Plus, I don't count from the teardown. I count from when the 1st player of the deep-run core was on the roster. Ergo: the 2010 build effectively started in 2006; had 2005 not happened, maybe it would have started then if Keith and/or Seabs would have been on the roster in the lockout year, but before 2006? There was no guarantee that either of them would have panned out. Such is the nature of prospects. So, in my opinion, unless Kurashev, Richel, or Soder become core members (I'm not counting Vlassic's 6 games), the build started this year with the de facto emergence of Vlassic and Bedard. To be fair though, I think Kurashev might end up a core player, so you may be right in that this his soph year of the build, but 5 years? No. Further, as much as we'd like to sign a few decent guys to 3-4 year deals, I think those signings would have to be for guys who would (a) want to come here, and they might not, (b) can't be an albatross deal, (c), be players who are likely core or core support players, not fill-in types, and (d) won't interfere with the home-grown signings (i.e. when Bedard gets his RFA deal--we know it'll be huge). We have some players like that already: Foligno, Mrazek, Dickenson for example. Plus, with the injury decimation we could also count Hall for a couple of years and I'll be honest, given the choose between Megna and Murph...I'd choose Murph. I'm not sure of how many more of those guys we need unless they are guys who can be a core-signing player which would probably be higher price/longer duration. That last one I can see happening since we have a little better idea of where we stand after this season. I'd like to see KD go after someone. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Mar 6, 2024 10:08:00 GMT -6
I’ll tell ya Jack. I played and the game happens faster than you know. Most plays are hockey plays. When it’s not, then I care. MacKinnon is 1 in a million. That’s why he’s that good!!! But, the league can aspire to put a MacKinnon type product on the ice instead of assholes like Manson the Slasher and Reilly the Face Cross-Checker. Those were not hockey plays happening faster than one can recognize. They were pure criminal acts which were not punished sufficiently; and therefore, their recurrence is only encouraged by the lack of discipline for their original occurrence. In case you haven't recognized it, I am big on the elimination of plays designed only to injure someone or to express frustration by striking out like a three year old would. I didn't bitch about Bedard's busted jaw because most people agreed that it was one of those fast occurring hockey plays of which you write and there are others like them. But, when acts occur that would, if they occurred off the ice be punished as criminal acts, the fact that they occur when the perpetrator is wearing a uniform should make no difference. I say throw the book at 'em and jail them for awhile and don't let the time in jail count as part of the suspension of 10 to 40 games. Reilly's five game suspension didn't mean shit and will not deter any such actions in the future. In fact, it will only encourage because the violence can be done without any severe punishment. That ain't no way to run a show, but the nhl does it because, as I said, they want to keep the neanderthal portion of its fan base entertained and coming back for more violence. To press a point I made earlier when I was whining about Manson slashing Bedard, what would the NFL had done if someone kicked Patrick Mahomes in his lower right arm after tackling him. That mfer would have been suspended for more than half the season and fined half his salary, unless there were some agreed rule that would prohibit that because the players were able to negotiate such a rule in order to protect themselves and their wallets from those times when they lose their cool and engage in pure violence. I've asked you this before jack,wasn't hockey an even more violent sport years ago than it is now? Maybe your stomach for violence has changed since you followed the game back then too. Is it the fan's fault? I don't believe so,I think they have a bit less of a stomach for violence these days just like you. Is it the League's or the owner's fault? The truth is,the league CAN'T impose the long suspensions you want because the NHLPA will never go for it and the NHLPA represents the players and their desire of how the game is regulated. The players would have to demand a change and ONLY the players......it's their game. |
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Mar 6, 2024 10:59:43 GMT -6
Jack I agree about some of the stupid shit. I even agreed that Reilly should have been suspended. But not for 40-50 games. I thought 2 games was sufficient. The thing about hockey is that it teaches you that every player has to be accountable for their actions. When you take out fighting and let the rats run free, it gets old fast. If you slash the other teams best player, and think you’re gonna get away with it, you shouldn’t have that luxury. Quick story I heard the other day. Matt Cooke ruined Marc Savards career. The next time they played, Chara, Shawn Thornton and a couple others met with a couple vets on the Pens in a back hallway before the game. They told the Pens guys that there will be an all out Donnybrook if Cooke doesn’t fight Shawn Thornton right off the opening faceoff. And they were gonna target the Pens best players. So, the Pens started Cooke and he got beat up. But it ended a massive fiasco. Good for the players to step up and take control. This is why fighting is necessary. Normally Thornton wouldn’t fight a guy out of their league. But he had to. And Cooke had to so his teammates didn’t face the slayer. I personally don’t think cross checking should be allowed at all. My reasoning is that sticks should not be used as a weapon, ever. If you trip someone, it’s a penalty. If you hook, penalty. If you cross check, not a penalty? Which one is worse? Slashing, same thing. They should stop all stick infractions and get rid of the stupid shit!!! Cross-checking is tricky. If you're a D-man in front of the net, you're pretty much screwed if they outright ban it. I'm not saying it's a bad stance, but I can understand why the league would be hesitant to outright ban it. I think it would change the sport drastically, especially in the playoffs. Board/net battles are a huge part of the game, as you know. I'm fine with banning blatant/dirty cross checks, but an outright ban, I wouldn't be for. I don't know you felt about the playoff officiating last year; I personally thought it was the worst I've ever seen. You implement an outright cross-check ban, it would be even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Mar 6, 2024 12:18:50 GMT -6
But, the league can aspire to put a MacKinnon type product on the ice instead of assholes like Manson the Slasher and Reilly the Face Cross-Checker. Those were not hockey plays happening faster than one can recognize. They were pure criminal acts which were not punished sufficiently; and therefore, their recurrence is only encouraged by the lack of discipline for their original occurrence. In case you haven't recognized it, I am big on the elimination of plays designed only to injure someone or to express frustration by striking out like a three year old would. I didn't bitch about Bedard's busted jaw because most people agreed that it was one of those fast occurring hockey plays of which you write and there are others like them. But, when acts occur that would, if they occurred off the ice be punished as criminal acts, the fact that they occur when the perpetrator is wearing a uniform should make no difference. I say throw the book at 'em and jail them for awhile and don't let the time in jail count as part of the suspension of 10 to 40 games. Reilly's five game suspension didn't mean shit and will not deter any such actions in the future. In fact, it will only encourage because the violence can be done without any severe punishment. That ain't no way to run a show, but the nhl does it because, as I said, they want to keep the neanderthal portion of its fan base entertained and coming back for more violence. To press a point I made earlier when I was whining about Manson slashing Bedard, what would the NFL had done if someone kicked Patrick Mahomes in his lower right arm after tackling him. That mfer would have been suspended for more than half the season and fined half his salary, unless there were some agreed rule that would prohibit that because the players were able to negotiate such a rule in order to protect themselves and their wallets from those times when they lose their cool and engage in pure violence. I've asked you this before jack,wasn't hockey an even more violent sport years ago than it is now? Maybe your stomach for violence has changed since you followed the game back then too. Is it the fan's fault? I don't believe so,I think they have a bit less of a stomach for violence these days just like you. Is it the League's or the owner's fault? The truth is,the league CAN'T impose the long suspensions you want because the NHLPA will never go for it and the NHLPA represents the players and their desire of how the game is regulated. The players would have to demand a change and ONLY the players......it's their game. I believe I've said this before, but I believe that for anything that would be consider a major even after an ex-post facto independent review*, should carry a mandatory suspension as outlined by the NHL proper. So like if you crosscheck a guy in the face, which, after the fact, the league determines should have been a major, it should automatically carry, say, a 2-game suspension, which would be the standard suspension for any crosscheck which qualifies as a major penalty. The same litmus would apply for any penalty which qualifies a major or worse--min suspension. The league from there could add to the mandatory suspension (i.e. egregious, history, injury), but not take away from it. So, it doesn't matter if you're Bedard or Bollig; you're out. The only exception in my opinion would be fighting since it takes 2 to tango, but if the league was serious about removing fighting... *-The reason I say ex post facto is the same reason Jack brings up: Refs don't catch everything and make mistakes. To wit: There was no penalty of the infamous Torres/Hossa incident. After the fact Torres was suspended. I think the same should apply: If a team feels that a call should have been a Major they should be able to appeal after the fact, and the DoPS should have to make a statement as to specifically why a play was or was not a major--add a bit of transparency. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Mar 6, 2024 13:38:50 GMT -6
I've asked you this before jack,wasn't hockey an even more violent sport years ago than it is now? Maybe your stomach for violence has changed since you followed the game back then too. Is it the fan's fault? I don't believe so,I think they have a bit less of a stomach for violence these days just like you. Is it the League's or the owner's fault? The truth is,the league CAN'T impose the long suspensions you want because the NHLPA will never go for it and the NHLPA represents the players and their desire of how the game is regulated. The players would have to demand a change and ONLY the players......it's their game. I believe I've said this before, but I believe that for anything that would be consider a major even after an ex-post facto independent review*, should carry a mandatory suspension as outlined by the NHL proper. So like if you crosscheck a guy in the face, which, after the fact, the league determines should have been a major, it should automatically carry, say, a 2-game suspension, which would be the standard suspension for any crosscheck which qualifies as a major penalty. The same litmus would apply for any penalty which qualifies a major or worse--min suspension. The league from there could add to the mandatory suspension (i.e. egregious, history, injury), but not take away from it. So, it doesn't matter if you're Bedard or Bollig; you're out. The only exception in my opinion would be fighting since it takes 2 to tango, but if the league was serious about removing fighting... *-The reason I say ex post facto is the same reason Jack brings up: Refs don't catch everything and make mistakes. To wit: There was no penalty of the infamous Torres/Hossa incident. After the fact Torres was suspended. I think the same should apply: If a team feels that a call should have been a Major they should be able to appeal after the fact, and the DoPS should have to make a statement as to specifically why a play was or was not a major--add a bit of transparency. I'll agree that there's been many dirty plays that should have seen longer or mandatory suspensions but the DoPS has to work within the framework of the CBA and what it allows. The players through their PA have a lot of say. It's only the players who commit these acts,it's only the players who physically suffer from them and it's only the players who can demand that changes but they still don't. They must still accept violence and retribution as part of the game. Hockey will always have a savage nature. As long as you can legally ram an opponent against a wooden barrier as hard as you can or blast an opponent with a full speed open-ice check as long as you follow a few rules.......things will get messy. Some of the sport's greatest players ever were required to leave their families,live with a strange family in a new town,play against a new group of kids,some 2-3 years older and possibly have to bare-knuckle fight one of em while the officials back-off and say "let em go"........at SIXTEEN! F'ing SAVAGE! |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 6, 2024 13:44:15 GMT -6
Jack I agree about some of the stupid shit. I even agreed that Reilly should have been suspended. But not for 40-50 games. I thought 2 games was sufficient. The thing about hockey is that it teaches you that every player has to be accountable for their actions. When you take out fighting and let the rats run free, it gets old fast. If you slash the other teams best player, and think you’re gonna get away with it, you shouldn’t have that luxury. Quick story I heard the other day. Matt Cooke ruined Marc Savards career. The next time they played, Chara, Shawn Thornton and a couple others met with a couple vets on the Pens in a back hallway before the game. They told the Pens guys that there will be an all out Donnybrook if Cooke doesn’t fight Shawn Thornton right off the opening faceoff. And they were gonna target the Pens best players. So, the Pens started Cooke and he got beat up. But it ended a massive fiasco. Good for the players to step up and take control. This is why fighting is necessary. Normally Thornton wouldn’t fight a guy out of their league. But he had to. And Cooke had to so his teammates didn’t face the slayer. I personally don’t think cross checking should be allowed at all. My reasoning is that sticks should not be used as a weapon, ever. If you trip someone, it’s a penalty. If you hook, penalty. If you cross check, not a penalty? Which one is worse? Slashing, same thing. They should stop all stick infractions and get rid of the stupid shit!!! I totally agree that most cross checking should be outlawed. But, I would allow some as, to some extent, the stick is just an extension of the arms in some situations. I would allow it if the cross check motion doesn't much of an extension of the arms when it is done.. More than that, it is a major penalty. Even tho I generally agree that fighting is necessary in the nhl because it is a way of evening the score, to admit the same is also to admit that the refereeing is inadequate and next to worthless. If fighting is encouraged as a way of evening the score then what is the point of the refs making calls; or the league suspending assholes who commit serious infractions. Enforce the rules in a serious manner, then the need for fighting will fade and perhaps will be punished itself. But, don't enforce the rules and you get players who try to even the score by fighting or engaging in their own stick infractions. It is a problem with a league that has no idea how to enforce its own rules; and is, by definition, incapable of doing so. No other professional sport has a problem like the nhl has in seeing its players intentionally trying to injure other players. Why? Because there is no punishment for doing so; or it is so meaningless, like Reilly's 5 games as to only encourage more of the same. How often do NFL guys kick each other or engage in fights? Not often!!! How often do nhl mfers intentionally try to hurt other players with their sticks? Answer: Every fucking night on multiple occasions. That is not due to the nature of the game. It is due to the league's failure to stop it with appropriately long suspensions. I am not sure why hockey players are so fucking violent and determined to hurt their opponents. Perhaps 40% of them are playing with brain damage? It doesn't happen in other sports, but it is an inherent part of the game of hockey. It should be outlawed. The law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city are equally complicit in condoning the commission of criminal acts. Come to Winnipeg, Chicago, NY, wherever there is a nhl arena and get your agressions out by striking another player as hard you can with your stick. Please, please, please do it. Don't do it in a bar, but please do it on the ice during a nhl game. It's a Canadian/American tradition that should be upheld every single fucking night. Fuck that shit!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Mar 6, 2024 13:57:25 GMT -6
Jack I agree about some of the stupid shit. I even agreed that Reilly should have been suspended. But not for 40-50 games. I thought 2 games was sufficient. The thing about hockey is that it teaches you that every player has to be accountable for their actions. When you take out fighting and let the rats run free, it gets old fast. If you slash the other teams best player, and think you’re gonna get away with it, you shouldn’t have that luxury. Quick story I heard the other day. Matt Cooke ruined Marc Savards career. The next time they played, Chara, Shawn Thornton and a couple others met with a couple vets on the Pens in a back hallway before the game. They told the Pens guys that there will be an all out Donnybrook if Cooke doesn’t fight Shawn Thornton right off the opening faceoff. And they were gonna target the Pens best players. So, the Pens started Cooke and he got beat up. But it ended a massive fiasco. Good for the players to step up and take control. This is why fighting is necessary. Normally Thornton wouldn’t fight a guy out of their league. But he had to. And Cooke had to so his teammates didn’t face the slayer. I personally don’t think cross checking should be allowed at all. My reasoning is that sticks should not be used as a weapon, ever. If you trip someone, it’s a penalty. If you hook, penalty. If you cross check, not a penalty? Which one is worse? Slashing, same thing. They should stop all stick infractions and get rid of the stupid shit!!! I totally agree that most cross checking should be outlawed. But, I would allow some as, to some extent, the stick is just an extension of the arms in some situations. I would allow it if the cross check motion doesn't much of an extension of the arms when it is done.. More than that, it is a major penalty. Even tho I generally agree that fighting is necessary in the nhl because it is a way of evening the score, to admit the same is also to admit that the refereeing is inadequate and next to worthless. If fighting is encouraged as a way of evening the score then what is the point of the refs making calls; or the league suspending assholes who commit serious infractions. Enforce the rules in a serious manner, then the need for fighting will fade and perhaps will be punished itself. But, don't enforce the rules and you get players who try to even the score by fighting or engaging in their own stick infractions. It is a problem with a league that has no idea how to enforce its own rules; and is, by definition, incapable of doing so. No other professional sport has a problem like the nhl has in seeing its players intentionally trying to injure other players. Why? Because there is no punishment for doing so; or it is so meaningless, like Reilly's 5 games as to only encourage more of the same. How often do NFL guys kick each other or engage in fights? Not often!!! How often do nhl mfers intentionally try to hurt other players with their sticks? Answer: Every fucking night on multiple occasions. That is not due to the nature of the game. It is due to the league's failure to stop it with appropriately long suspensions. I am not sure why hockey players are so fucking violent and determined to hurt their opponents. Perhaps 40% of them are playing with brain damage? It doesn't happen in other sports, but it is an inherent part of the game of hockey. It should be outlawed. The law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city are equally complicit in condoning the commission of criminal acts. Come to Winnipeg, Chicago, NY, wherever there is a nhl arena and get your agressions out by striking another player as hard you can with your stick. Please, please, please do it. Don't do it in a bar, but please do it on the ice during a nhl game. It's a Canadian/American tradition that should be upheld every single fucking night. Fuck that shit!!!!! If Dick Butkus would have done the shit he did to guys in bars that he did to opponents on the field,he woulda been on death row. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 6, 2024 13:57:26 GMT -6
But, the league can aspire to put a MacKinnon type product on the ice instead of assholes like Manson the Slasher and Reilly the Face Cross-Checker. Those were not hockey plays happening faster than one can recognize. They were pure criminal acts which were not punished sufficiently; and therefore, their recurrence is only encouraged by the lack of discipline for their original occurrence. In case you haven't recognized it, I am big on the elimination of plays designed only to injure someone or to express frustration by striking out like a three year old would. I didn't bitch about Bedard's busted jaw because most people agreed that it was one of those fast occurring hockey plays of which you write and there are others like them. But, when acts occur that would, if they occurred off the ice be punished as criminal acts, the fact that they occur when the perpetrator is wearing a uniform should make no difference. I say throw the book at 'em and jail them for awhile and don't let the time in jail count as part of the suspension of 10 to 40 games. Reilly's five game suspension didn't mean shit and will not deter any such actions in the future. In fact, it will only encourage because the violence can be done without any severe punishment. That ain't no way to run a show, but the nhl does it because, as I said, they want to keep the neanderthal portion of its fan base entertained and coming back for more violence. To press a point I made earlier when I was whining about Manson slashing Bedard, what would the NFL had done if someone kicked Patrick Mahomes in his lower right arm after tackling him. That mfer would have been suspended for more than half the season and fined half his salary, unless there were some agreed rule that would prohibit that because the players were able to negotiate such a rule in order to protect themselves and their wallets from those times when they lose their cool and engage in pure violence. I've asked you this before jack,wasn't hockey an even more violent sport years ago than it is now? Maybe your stomach for violence has changed since you followed the game back then too. Is it the fan's fault? I don't believe so,I think they have a bit less of a stomach for violence these days just like you. Is it the League's or the owner's fault? The truth is,the league CAN'T impose the long suspensions you want because the NHLPA will never go for it and the NHLPA represents the players and their desire of how the game is regulated. The players would have to demand a change and ONLY the players......it's their game. Yes, there was previously more violence tolerated. My taste for it has not lessened. I have always been against it, altho I do enjoy boxing and MMA. I went to a Portland Winter Hawk game many, many years ago when fighting was encouraged always. In one fight, some kid got his face ripped up and he was bleeding all over the ice. I went up to the owner who was in the stands and ripped him a new asshole and singed his ears with as many mfer appellations as I could use in a 5 minute ream session in telling him how fucked up he was for allowing such violence to continue. He had no response. So, I have always been against that sort of violence. If league officials and owners do not want to change the players' fascination with being able to intentionally hurt their opponents, then I guess the league is left only to apply whatever suspension will be tolerated by the players. On the other hand, they could call their bluff and make them go on strike in order to have as much violence as possible. How will that go over with the population as a whole? The players may well just back down and let the league seriously punish those engaging in the most violent behavior. However, the law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city do not have the problem of mollycoddling the players. They are just common assholes like any other criminal if they have engaged in serious assault with a stick. Those city officials are chicken shit and worthless. I can't break a dinner plate over your head in a diner, but some mfing nhl player can cross check another player in the face with criminal intent and not face any arrest. That is pure bullshit and mollycoddling of the professional athletes by civic asshole law enforcement officials. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Mar 6, 2024 14:01:23 GMT -6
I've asked you this before jack,wasn't hockey an even more violent sport years ago than it is now? Maybe your stomach for violence has changed since you followed the game back then too. Is it the fan's fault? I don't believe so,I think they have a bit less of a stomach for violence these days just like you. Is it the League's or the owner's fault? The truth is,the league CAN'T impose the long suspensions you want because the NHLPA will never go for it and the NHLPA represents the players and their desire of how the game is regulated. The players would have to demand a change and ONLY the players......it's their game. Yes, there was previously more violence tolerated. My taste for it has not lessened. I have always been against it, altho I do enjoy boxing and MMA. I went to a Portland Winter Hawk game many, many years when fighting was encouraged always. In one fight, some kid got his face ripped up and he was bleeding all over the ice. I went up to the owner who was in the stands and ripped him a new asshole and singed his ears with as many mfer appellations as I could use in a 5 minute ream session in telling him how fucked up he was for allowing such violence to continue. He had no response. So, I have always been against that sort of violence. If league officials and owners do not want to change the players' fascination with being able to intentionally hurt their opponents, then I guess the league is left only to apply whatever suspension will be tolerated by the players. On the other hand, they could call their bluff and make them go on strike in order to have as much violence as possible. How will that go over with the population as a whole? The players may well just back down and let the league seriously punish those engaging in the most violent behavior. However, the law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city do not have the problem of mollycoddling the players. They are just common assholes like any other criminal if they have engaged in serious assault with a stick. Those city officials are chicken shit and worthless. I can't break a dinner plate over your head in a diner, but some mfing nhl player can cross check another player in the face with criminal intent and not face any arrest. That is pure bullshit and mollycoddling of the professional athletes by civic asshole law enforcement officials. There are less violent sports to follow. |
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Mar 6, 2024 14:07:51 GMT -6
Yes, there was previously more violence tolerated. My taste for it has not lessened. I have always been against it, altho I do enjoy boxing and MMA. I went to a Portland Winter Hawk game many, many years when fighting was encouraged always. In one fight, some kid got his face ripped up and he was bleeding all over the ice. I went up to the owner who was in the stands and ripped him a new asshole and singed his ears with as many mfer appellations as I could use in a 5 minute ream session in telling him how fucked up he was for allowing such violence to continue. He had no response. So, I have always been against that sort of violence. If league officials and owners do not want to change the players' fascination with being able to intentionally hurt their opponents, then I guess the league is left only to apply whatever suspension will be tolerated by the players. On the other hand, they could call their bluff and make them go on strike in order to have as much violence as possible. How will that go over with the population as a whole? The players may well just back down and let the league seriously punish those engaging in the most violent behavior. However, the law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city do not have the problem of mollycoddling the players. They are just common assholes like any other criminal if they have engaged in serious assault with a stick. Those city officials are chicken shit and worthless. I can't break a dinner plate over your head in a diner, but some mfing nhl player can cross check another player in the face with criminal intent and not face any arrest. That is pure bullshit and mollycoddling of the professional athletes by civic asshole law enforcement officials. There are less violent sports to follow. Seriously. If it upsets someone this much, why not just go watch Lacrosse or something. Or Peaknuckle. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 6, 2024 16:49:35 GMT -6
There are less violent sports to follow. Seriously. If it upsets someone this much, why not just go watch Lacrosse or something. Or Peaknuckle. Because I enjoy watching guys like McDavid, MacKinnon, Bedard, Kane and others who played a tight game without intentionally trying to hurt other players on a regular basis. I am making suggestions that I believe will make the game better, not worse. Do you like to watch snuff videos? I am sure you don't, so why would you tolerate some asshole using his stick to intentionally inflict injuries on other athletes? Is it necessary? Is it even conducive to a good product? I guess if one likes watching people get fucked up with sticks then it is a good product. I don't like it, but I do like the game otherwise. If you enjoy the intentional violence, then we got nothing to talk about. If you don't and can't see the point of trying to make the game better by eliminating that type of violence and the players who engage in it, then we got nothing to discuss either. If you just want to tell me to go watch ballet because you can't handle my dislike of intentionally trying to hurt an opponent, then keep your shit to your yourself, unless you want to get into a personal battle over this shit. You may like the violence, or tolerate it. I don't. It is real simple. I'll continue to post how fucked up this league is as are the law enforcement authorities in the cities where the violence occurs (i.e. every nhl city). You can tell me how great it is and how much it adds to the game. I'll ignore you and you can tell me I can go watch butterflies in a nature park. We can then simply ignore each other. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 6, 2024 16:53:14 GMT -6
Yes, there was previously more violence tolerated. My taste for it has not lessened. I have always been against it, altho I do enjoy boxing and MMA. I went to a Portland Winter Hawk game many, many years when fighting was encouraged always. In one fight, some kid got his face ripped up and he was bleeding all over the ice. I went up to the owner who was in the stands and ripped him a new asshole and singed his ears with as many mfer appellations as I could use in a 5 minute ream session in telling him how fucked up he was for allowing such violence to continue. He had no response. So, I have always been against that sort of violence. If league officials and owners do not want to change the players' fascination with being able to intentionally hurt their opponents, then I guess the league is left only to apply whatever suspension will be tolerated by the players. On the other hand, they could call their bluff and make them go on strike in order to have as much violence as possible. How will that go over with the population as a whole? The players may well just back down and let the league seriously punish those engaging in the most violent behavior. However, the law enforcement officials in every fucking nhl city do not have the problem of mollycoddling the players. They are just common assholes like any other criminal if they have engaged in serious assault with a stick. Those city officials are chicken shit and worthless. I can't break a dinner plate over your head in a diner, but some mfing nhl player can cross check another player in the face with criminal intent and not face any arrest. That is pure bullshit and mollycoddling of the professional athletes by civic asshole law enforcement officials. There are less violent sports to follow. And I do. I guess I am not going to win any fans here by posting about the negativity of a sport where one player tries to seriously injure another on a regular basis by the use of a deadly weapon. Maybe the thing to do is not to post about it because there is little support here for the idea of seriously punishing such players. Just wait until Bedard gets fucked up by some moronic asshole, then you all will be screaming to the high heavens. But, until that happens, I guess it is ok and just another facet of a great sport. I guess we can agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Mar 6, 2024 19:50:31 GMT -6
There are less violent sports to follow. And I do. I guess I am not going to win any fans here by posting about the negativity of a sport where one player tries to seriously injure another on a regular basis by the use of a deadly weapon. Maybe the thing to do is not to post about it because there is little support here for the idea of seriously punishing such players. Just wait until Bedard gets fucked up by some moronic asshole, then you all will be screaming to the high heavens. But, until that happens, I guess it is ok and just another facet of a great sport. I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm a fan my friend and you make some good points,but we can overcook those points sometimes........specially us old fucks! |
|
|
|
Post by 2old4this on Mar 6, 2024 21:50:46 GMT -6
And I do. I guess I am not going to win any fans here by posting about the negativity of a sport where one player tries to seriously injure another on a regular basis by the use of a deadly weapon. Maybe the thing to do is not to post about it because there is little support here for the idea of seriously punishing such players. Just wait until Bedard gets fucked up by some moronic asshole, then you all will be screaming to the high heavens. But, until that happens, I guess it is ok and just another facet of a great sport. I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm a fan my friend and you make some good points,but we can overcook those points sometimes........specially us old fucks! I'm with you on this one. First offence, 6 game suspension. Second offence, full season suspension. Third offence, lifetime ban. You would need to spell out exactly what penalties qualify as intent to injure. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 7, 2024 8:31:09 GMT -6
And I do. I guess I am not going to win any fans here by posting about the negativity of a sport where one player tries to seriously injure another on a regular basis by the use of a deadly weapon. Maybe the thing to do is not to post about it because there is little support here for the idea of seriously punishing such players. Just wait until Bedard gets fucked up by some moronic asshole, then you all will be screaming to the high heavens. But, until that happens, I guess it is ok and just another facet of a great sport. I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm a fan my friend and you make some good points,but we can overcook those points sometimes........specially us old fucks! I totally agree that sometimes I can get too wound up about this violence thing and never shut up. Too bad Reilly isn't around when that happens so he can cross check me in the face and shut me up. |
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Mar 7, 2024 10:48:42 GMT -6
Seriously. If it upsets someone this much, why not just go watch Lacrosse or something. Or Peaknuckle. Because I enjoy watching guys like McDavid, MacKinnon, Bedard, Kane and others who played a tight game without intentionally trying to hurt other players on a regular basis. I am making suggestions that I believe will make the game better, not worse. Do you like to watch snuff videos? I am sure you don't, so why would you tolerate some asshole using his stick to intentionally inflict injuries on other athletes? Is it necessary? Is it even conducive to a good product? I guess if one likes watching people get fucked up with sticks then it is a good product. I don't like it, but I do like the game otherwise. If you enjoy the intentional violence, then we got nothing to talk about. If you don't and can't see the point of trying to make the game better by eliminating that type of violence and the players who engage in it, then we got nothing to discuss either. If you just want to tell me to go watch ballet because you can't handle my dislike of intentionally trying to hurt an opponent, then keep your shit to your yourself, unless you want to get into a personal battle over this shit. You may like the violence, or tolerate it. I don't. It is real simple. I'll continue to post how fucked up this league is as are the law enforcement authorities in the cities where the violence occurs (i.e. every nhl city). You can tell me how great it is and how much it adds to the game. I'll ignore you and you can tell me I can go watch butterflies in a nature park. We can then simply ignore each other. Funny you initiated a conversation with me, when I didn't even reply to you, yet you're saying we have nothing to talk about... Listen, the Peaknuckle crack was just a little ribbing man, just having some fun (it's a message board). But I do seriously wonder, if you are this upset on a regular basis, if it's even worth the constant aggravation for you. And I wonder this about a lot of fans, particularly the ones who get overly upset over everything regarding the team of any sport -- it's like every loss is the end of the world, they constantly flame-away on call-in shows and/or message boards, etc. I don't ignore anyone, ever. I never felt the need; hell, I was on the CCS message board for like 4 fucking years, lol -- if I didn't need to do it there, I don't need to do it anywhere. If that's your jam, have at it, but it's not mine. Like you said, you can continue to complain about it, and I have that same right to continue to respond. I'll end with this and it's real simple: I accept it as a part of the game. The world isn't perfect, and sports can't be perfect. I also accept that there are degrees of "violence," and that conflating every infraction under one umbrella is disingenuous. I hated what happened to Bedard, but to suggest that Manson should be banned for 50 games or whatever the amount was is absurd. There's a difference between what Manson did and what a guy like Raffi Torres does, conflating the two is just silly. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 8, 2024 9:58:28 GMT -6
Because I enjoy watching guys like McDavid, MacKinnon, Bedard, Kane and others who played a tight game without intentionally trying to hurt other players on a regular basis. I am making suggestions that I believe will make the game better, not worse. Do you like to watch snuff videos? I am sure you don't, so why would you tolerate some asshole using his stick to intentionally inflict injuries on other athletes? Is it necessary? Is it even conducive to a good product? I guess if one likes watching people get fucked up with sticks then it is a good product. I don't like it, but I do like the game otherwise. If you enjoy the intentional violence, then we got nothing to talk about. If you don't and can't see the point of trying to make the game better by eliminating that type of violence and the players who engage in it, then we got nothing to discuss either. If you just want to tell me to go watch ballet because you can't handle my dislike of intentionally trying to hurt an opponent, then keep your shit to your yourself, unless you want to get into a personal battle over this shit. You may like the violence, or tolerate it. I don't. It is real simple. I'll continue to post how fucked up this league is as are the law enforcement authorities in the cities where the violence occurs (i.e. every nhl city). You can tell me how great it is and how much it adds to the game. I'll ignore you and you can tell me I can go watch butterflies in a nature park. We can then simply ignore each other. Funny you initiated a conversation with me, when I didn't even reply to you, yet you're saying we have nothing to talk about... Listen, the Peaknuckle crack was just a little ribbing man, just having some fun (it's a message board). But I do seriously wonder, if you are this upset on a regular basis, if it's even worth the constant aggravation for you. And I wonder this about a lot of fans, particularly the ones who get overly upset over everything regarding the team of any sport -- it's like every loss is the end of the world, they constantly flame-away on call-in shows and/or message boards, etc. I don't ignore anyone, ever. I never felt the need; hell, I was on the CCS message board for like 4 fucking years, lol -- if I didn't need to do it there, I don't need to do it anywhere. If that's your jam, have at it, but it's not mine. Like you said, you can continue to complain about it, and I have that same right to continue to respond. I'll end with this and it's real simple: I accept it as a part of the game. The world isn't perfect, and sports can't be perfect. I also accept that there are degrees of "violence," and that conflating every infraction under one umbrella is disingenuous. I hated what happened to Bedard, but to suggest that Manson should be banned for 50 games or whatever the amount was is absurd. There's a difference between what Manson did and what a guy like Raffi Torres does, conflating the two is just silly. I totally agree that there are degrees of violence just like there should be "degrees" of suspension. There is a big difference between what Manson and Torres did. Yet, for Manson to go untouched by the fucked up league officials for what he did is fucked up in my opinion. The only way that unnecessary violence designed only to hurt people can be curbed in the league is to punish those acts severely. To not do so is to condone them and I see no reason to condone violence that can result in serious injury to players. Both the NFL and the nhl are contact sports. Yet, the violent acts of which I complain happen far more frequently and with greater severity in the fucked up nhl, mostly because sticks are used to inflict the pain/injury. If done off the ice, the use of a stick would result in some type of charge in which one of the elements would include "using a deadly weapon". Please tell me why I get criminally chargedf if I break a dinner plate over a diner's head in a restaurant, but I can cross check someone in the face or slash them in the neck or arm on the ice and skate away untouched by the law. I don't give a shit what anyone says, there is no reason not to criminally charge them in either case. It is pretty easy to distinguish a hockey play that results in injury from an intentional act which is only done to inflict injury. I enjoy boxing and MMA a lot. But, there are rules and the purpose of the sports is to hurt, so I am not immune to the joys of whacking someone. But, cross checking someone in the face is not part of the game of hockey. It is an extraneous act that should be outlawed, punished and extinguished. If Reilly can only get his jollies by cross checking someone in the face, let him participate in MMA, but before he does so, he should be told that he can't use a stick inside the octagon. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Mar 10, 2024 12:07:53 GMT -6
Even Bedard said it wasn't bad, it just hit him in the wrong spot. It's not like Manson McSorley'd him.
|
|
Granada
4th Liner
Posts: 160
Likes: 182
|
Post by Granada on Mar 11, 2024 9:13:22 GMT -6
Even Bedard said it wasn't bad, it just hit him in the wrong spot. It's not like Manson McSorley'd him. Exactly. Suspending him for that would be an example of the punishment not fitting the crime. It should have been a two-minute penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Mar 11, 2024 11:28:44 GMT -6
Even Bedard said it wasn't bad, it just hit him in the wrong spot. It's not like Manson McSorley'd him. Exactly. Suspending him for that would be an example of the punishment not fitting the crime. It should have been a two-minute penalty. Maybe a double minor for injury or intent to. |
|
|
|
Post by jacksalmon on Mar 11, 2024 12:47:56 GMT -6
Even Bedard said it wasn't bad, it just hit him in the wrong spot. It's not like Manson McSorley'd him. Maybe Bedard said that so he wouldn't raise the ire of the other neanderthals in the league who might want to hit him harder so they can test his mettle the next time he is on the ice. Also, maybe you can explain what was the point/intent of Manson's action. Just to let Bedard know he was on the ice? Testing the strength of his stick/blade connection? Calculating the extent of his reach with the end of his stick? You can say all you want about how it was a love tap, not a hatchet chop designed to relieve Bedard of the burden of carrying his lower right arm around on and off the ice, but the indisputable point is that there was no hockey play/honorable intent behind the action. That is what needs to be eliminated in this game. But, I realize that I am just a butterfly chaser in a dream world and not hardened to the real facts of life in the man's world of "real hockey". I guess all you guys grew up with trying to chop off your opponent's head/forearm as an integral part of the game without which hockey would not be the same. No one else took a shot at answering a question I posed earlier. What happens in the NFL if someone tackles Mahomes and then kicks him in the lower right arm (his passing arm in case you don't follow American football)? Why don't we see more intentional attempts to injure other players in the other professional sports league than we see in the nhl? Americans are far more violent and insane, in general, than Canadians, so why do the Canadians show their their violent ways when they put on some ice skates? |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Mar 12, 2024 1:45:29 GMT -6
No one else took a shot at answering a question I posed earlier. What happens in the NFL if someone tackles Mahomes and then kicks him in the lower right arm (his passing arm in case you don't follow American football)? Why don't we see more intentional attempts to injure other players in the other professional sports league than we see in the nhl? Americans are far more violent and insane, in general, than Canadians, so why do the Canadians show their their violent ways when they put on some ice skates?
|
|
