How to get useless plugs/goons out of the NHL

[patty59]

I find it a little weird that everyone seems to be talking about getting fighting out of the game when the real problem is these head hits. And in reality, it's not the 'fighters' committing these fouls.

I don't think Scott has a place in this league, not because he fights, but because he's a terrible hockey player. He's absolute garbage and there isn't many guys like him in the league.

I really have no problem with staged fights, Lucic and Gaustad was a staged fight and I loved that one and there are many more is a long list of good staged fights.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I find it a little weird that everyone seems to be talking about getting fighting out of the game when the real problem is these head hits. And in reality, it's not the 'fighters' committing these fouls.

I don't think Scott has a place in this league, not because he fights, but because he's a terrible hockey player. He's absolute garbage and there isn't many guys like him in the league.

I really have no problem with staged fights, Lucic and Gaustad was a staged fight and I loved that one and there are many more is a long list of good staged fights.

you might like staged fights... alot of people dont and the nhl needs to grow its popularity if it wants long term success. fighting is a reason people give in non traditional markets as to why they dont give hockey a chance... and also mainstream media jokes about hockey because of fighting

to be fair they joke about baseball/basketball fighting too

overall... fighting doesnt help the sport become more popular.

as for headshots being a problem... the league is addressing that issue with 5-10-and more game suspensions now... its going to get dealt with

 

[Neely08]

I find it a little weird that everyone seems to be talking about getting fighting out of the game when the real problem is these head hits. And in reality, it's not the 'fighters' committing these fouls.

I don't think Scott has a place in this league, not because he fights, but because he's a terrible hockey player. He's absolute garbage and there isn't many guys like him in the league.

I really have no problem with staged fights, Lucic and Gaustad was a staged fight and I loved that one and there are many more is a long list of good staged fights.

Lucic and Gaustad was a lamb being led to slaughter. Why? Because the Sabers, Miller, and Mushmouth made a bigger deal out of something than they should have. Then kept stepping in even more dog ****, until that's all that remained. Being a complete laughing stock. Then acquiring Scott and others in order to feign toughness.

You look kind of stupid going, "Oh yeah? Just try beating us up NOW!". Meanwhile you can't beat a well motivated high school team. Not to mention Lucic scoring two goals on Miller. Someone is missing the plot here.

But, Gaustad is closer to Lucic as a peer than Scott is. I don't have a problem w/ someone having to answer for something, and seeing the sentence carried out. That's what I see there.

When I hear staged, I think of BGL asking to go w/ another 4th liner when there's no reason for it whatsoever.

"Wanna go? Ok. Square off? Ok. So how are your wife and kids? Cool, yeah, me too. Ok, good luck, man."

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I don't care if teams want a goon on there to fight, but it's the dirty hits like John Scott that hurts the game. They're in there to hurt other players, no one cares if they get suspended because they're useless anyway, meanwhile, the team they play for will have easier opponents to play because their players are hurt.

I think for every suspension, regardless of the player that gets suspended, the team itself should take on a hefty fine. Let's see teams employ useless players that cost them out of their own wallets.

 

[missingchicklet]

I have zero problems with goons as long as they are playing with some semblance of honor. The best way to get rid of them, though, is for the NHL to punish clearly intentional hits to the head with stiff punishments. I don't think they are going far enough in punishing dirty head shots. Taking star players out for a long period of time needs very long suspensions and hefty fines to the players and the team. If the NHL severely punished intentional head shots then goons would really not have much place in the league because they would be a detriment to the team more than anything.

 

[howaryuh]

Each player dressed for the game has to play for a minimum amount of time, say 6 minutes a game.
Terrible hockey players become a liability

 

[Dr Quincy]

I don't know the logistics of it all, but I think there has to be a solution out there where players are suspended for 10 games per fight if their average ice time-per-game is not over 10 minutes (your average, average player).

This means that players like Iggy, Lucic, McQuaid (just examples on Boston) are not effected by the new rule at all, but talentless 4th line plugs are completely run out of the league.

This would be easy to implement. We are seeing all kinds of rules out there right now to try and limit fighting in an attempt to hurt the goons. We don't need to limit fighting, we need to limit it to players who can fight and not UFC level players like Scott (these are the guys who will kill someone one day).

Thoughts?
Is there a better solution?

I don't understand the point of this. If a fight is wrong, does it really matter who does it? If a fight isn't wrong, should anyone be suspended?

 

[patty59]

you might like staged fights... alot of people dont and the nhl needs to grow its popularity if it wants long term success. fighting is a reason people give in non traditional markets as to why they dont give hockey a chance... and also mainstream media jokes about hockey because of fighting

to be fair they joke about baseball/basketball fighting too

overall... fighting doesnt help the sport become more popular.

as for headshots being a problem... the league is addressing that issue with 5-10-and more game suspensions now... its going to get dealt with

long term? The NHL has been around for almost 100 years. And the mainstream media jokes about hockey fights? Who cares?

DO you really think that if they remove fighting that fans will flock to the NHL? Highly unlikely, there are lots of casual fans that only watch for the prospect of a fight.

 

[patty59]

Lucic and Gaustad was a lamb being led to slaughter. Why? Because the Sabres, Miller, and Mushmouth made a bigger deal out of something than they should have. Then kept stepping in even more dog ****, until that's all that remained. Being a complete laughing stock. Then acquiring Scott and others in order to feign toughness.

You look kind of stupid going, "Oh yeah? Just try beating us up NOW!". Meanwhile you can't beat a well motivated high school team. Not to mention Lucic scoring two goals on Miller. Someone is missing the plot here.

But, Gaustad is closer to Lucic as a peer than Scott is. I don't have a problem w/ someone having to answer for something, and seeing the sentence carried out. That's what I see there.

When I hear staged, I think of BGL asking to go w/ another 4th liner when there's no reason for it whatsoever.

"Wanna go? Ok. Square off? Ok. So how are your wife and kids? Cool, yeah, me too. Ok, good luck, man."

How many of them guys in the league right now? 3 or 4? They're already being weeded out.

It's just odd to me that a hit to the head happens and everyones ***** on fighting, but I guess that is those people's agenda so they'll use pretty much anything.

 

[Neely08]

long term? The NHL has been around for almost 100 years. And the mainstream media jokes about hockey fights? Who cares?

DO you really think that if they remove fighting that fans will flock to the NHL? Highly unlikely, there are lots of casual fans that only watch for the prospect of a fight.

One of the dumbest arguments out there. I thought the shoot out was supposed to bring all those fans in.

The issue in these threads is getting convoluted b/c we had a worthless 4th line plug forget his place, and throw a headshot on a top 6 player. Majority of the head picking isn't coming from career fighters specifically. Fighting, and those only out there to fight. And, head shots. Two separate issues.

Unprecedented chance for Shanny to send a huge message to plugs, their coaches, and GM's. Unfortunately, no precedence for doing so, either.

Anyone catch Grapes tonight? Curious what he had to say.

 

[Dr Quincy]

One of the dumbest arguments out there. I thought the shoot out was supposed to bring all those fans in.

The issue in these threads is getting convoluted b/c we had a worthless 4th line plug forget his place, and throw a headshot on a top 6 player. Majority of the head picking isn't coming from career fighters specifically. Fighting, and those only out there to fight. And, head shots. Two separate issues.

Unprecedented chance for Shanny to send a huge message to plugs, their coaches, and GM's. Unfortunately, no precedence for doing so, either.

Anyone catch Grapes tonight? Curious what he had to say.

He blamed Rolston. Said that a fighter who is forced to sit on the bench and then put in late is going to do SOMETHING in order to keep his job. His suggestion was to play Scott 8 minutes a game so he'd be comfortable and wouldn't have to do something drastic in order to feel needed. He praised the way Carlisle used Orr in the 1st period of the Leafs game as an example.

 

[Neely08]

How many of them guys in the league right now? 3 or 4? They're already being weeded out.

It's just odd to me that a hit to the head happens and everyones ***** on fighting, but I guess that is those people's agenda so they'll use pretty much anything.

I agree, it's going the way of guys like Thornton, or say Lucic and Clarkson. Unfortunately, guys like Lucic and Clarkson are even more rare. Have your enforcers, but they have to be able to play. Or know they have no business going after a player like Eriksson.

You can't take fighting out the game. But you can't let it become a freak show either. And, that's exactly what Scott is. You either get more freaks. Or you make it too costly for GM's to have them. I just don't know how you effectively do that.

 

[Neely08]

He blamed Rolston. Said that a fighter who is forced to sit on the bench and then put in late is going to do SOMETHING in order to keep his job. His suggestion was to play Scott 8 minutes a game so he'd be comfortable and wouldn't have to do something drastic in order to feel needed. He praised the way Carlisle used Orr in the 1st period of the Leafs game as an example.

That's just it. Comparing a guy like Scott to the Orrs, Neils' and Thornton's out there is doing those guys a huge injustice. They're valuable b/c, yeah, they can fight and play that enforcer role. But they don't hurt you taking a regular 4th line shift, either.

Scott is practically out there on double runners. No one wants to fight him b/c he's the size of Chara. Making him even more useless. And, he's chasing around players like Siedenberg and Eriksson. Rolston should be blamed. He sent him out there for one thing. Difference is Thornton doesn't have to fight to "feel useful" (i.e. being in on goals in the playoffs vs NY).

 

[Dr Quincy]

Yeah but here's the issue: A lot of people say fighting serves a purpose. They think it can help a team win. If that is true, then a guy who fights is useful, whether he can do anything else or not. A guy who just plays defense, just scores goals or even just wins faceoffs can have a role. IF you think fighting can have a positive effect on a team, then Scott isn't "useless".

I just don't happen to think fighting does much at all for a team, so in that case, yeah a guy who just fights won't help a team win, and a guy who scores and fights doesn't bring anything more than a guy who scores but doesn't fight.

The arbitrary distinction between some fights being good and some bad, or some fighters being useless and some being useful seems pretty silly to me.

 

[Nightslyr]

The issue isn't fighting, it's hits to the head. IMO, penalties should be a combination of suspensions and salary cap hits. Your guy has a history of being dirty? He carries a salary cap penalty, up to 100% of his existing salary hit if he's someone like Cooke or Kaleta. And if they injure someone, that player's team incurs another salary cap penalty in proportion (not 1:1, obviously) to the injured player's salary for as long as the player is injured.

 

[JOKER 192]

1) 5 game suspension for any staged fight
2) 2 game suspension for any instigated fight
3) for every game a player is suspended his team loses the same amount of points in the standings
4) if a team loses more than ten points they forfeit their first round draft pick
5) to prevent teams from using deducted points as a way of getting into the draft lottery when they see they aren't going to make the playoffs, all you do is disqualify them from a lottery pick.
6) $25,000 fine to both player and the team per point lost

When what your players do start to cost you playoff appearances and draft choices, I think we'll see the game clean up real fast.

What baffles me is that the NHLPA would defend a player like Kaleta, it's time for the players to rise up. If I was a star player, I would be speaking out to the PA, telling them to ****. When a goof like Kaleta does what he does, he should be on his own. I wouldn't want the union staning up for the guy who eventually is gonna rip my head off. By defending this type of player the union is endangering the majority of it's players who will someday be subject to his BS.

 

[Artemis]

1) 5 game suspension for any staged fight
2) 2 game suspension for any instigated fight
3) for every game a player is suspended his team loses the same amount of points in the standings
4) if a team loses more than ten points they forfeit their first round draft pick
5) to prevent teams from using deducted points as a way of getting into the draft lottery when they see they aren't going to make the playoffs, all you do is disqualify them from a lottery pick.
6) $25,000 fine to both player and the team per point lost

When what your players do start to cost you playoff appearances and draft choices, I think we'll see the game clean up real fast.

What baffles me is that the NHLPA would defend a player like Kaleta, it's time for the players to rise up. If I was a star player, I would be speaking out to the PA, telling them to ****. When a goof like Kaleta does what he does, he should be on his own. I wouldn't want the union staning up for the guy who eventually is gonna rip my head off. By defending this type of player the union is endangering the majority of it's players who will someday be subject to his BS.

I hate Kaleta and players of his ilk, but union rights apply to everyone. Just as criminals have the right to legal representation, NHLPA members - no matter who they are - have the right to appeal. You can't tell someone like, say, Dan Paille (who has also been suspended for a head shot) that he can appeal, and deny someone like Kaleta.

 

[DominicT]

1)

What baffles me is that the NHLPA would defend a player like Kaleta, it's time for the players to rise up. If I was a star player, I would be speaking out to the PA, telling them to ****. When a goof like Kaleta does what he does, he should be on his own. I wouldn't want the union staning up for the guy who eventually is gonna rip my head off. By defending this type of player the union is endangering the majority of it's players who will someday be subject to his BS.

And herein lies the problem. Not much is being said about the PA's role. And supplementary discipline is very much a part of the CBA ( page 116 http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf ).

Supplemental discipline was also a big negotiating issue in the last CBA, hence the changes that came to it. But through all the major negotiations (including players/owners own meeting) it was mostly the big names in the game taking part, and that would have been the time for the big names to state their case.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on where you sit, we are lucky enough to have unions to protect workers. And that means all workers, including those that have done wrong. So it is the unions responsibility/right to defend the Kaleta's of the world despite how much we despise it - and how much the stars of the game despise it - after all, they did negotiate it as part of a deal. And each player in the league also had to sign off on Article 18 - supplemental discipline - the only such part of the CBA that required all players to sign. Right or wrong - its hard for them to complain about it now.

The good thing is the CBA allows supplemental discipline to be amended. So now, its up to the NHL whether they want to make an example out of Scott and go into a mini battle with the PA. Ultimately, the PA will have to decide whether they want to shed their responsibility and not defend Scott and listen to the stars of the game, or stay the course and do what they are suppose to do - defend their membership - including the wrong doers.

 

[Artemis]

And herein lies the problem. Not much is being said about the PA's role. And supplementary discipline is very much a part of the CBA ( page 116 http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf ).

Supplemental discipline was also a big negotiating issue in the last CBA, hence the changes that came to it. But through all the major negotiations (including players/owners own meeting) it was mostly the big names in the game taking part, and that would have been the time for the big names to state their case.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on where you sit, we are lucky enough to have unions to protect workers. And that means all workers, including those that have done wrong. So it is the unions responsibility/right to defend the Kaleta's of the world despite how much we despise it - and how much the stars of the game despise it - after all, they did negotiate it as part of a deal. And each player in the league also had to sign off on Article 18 - supplemental discipline - the only such part of the CBA that required all players to sign. Right or wrong - its hard for them to complain about it now.

The good thing is the CBA allows supplemental discipline to be amended. So now, its up to the NHL whether they want to make an example out of Scott and go into a mini battle with the PA. Ultimately, the PA will have to decide whether they want to shed their responsibility and not defend Scott and listen to the stars of the game, or stay the course and do what they are suppose to do - defend their membership - including the wrong doers.

Defending, however, does not translate into "condoning." If the NHLPA denies someone like Kaleta the right of appeal, where does it end? Do they draw up a list of who has rights, and who doesn't? Who decides who's on that list?

What they have to do IMHO is trust the appeals procress. An appeal is not an automatic sentence-reducer. If someone is guilty of a crime, so to speak, he's guilty, and an appeal will confirm it.

 

[DominicT]

Defending, however, does not translate into "condoning." If the NHLPA denies someone like Kaleta the right of appeal, where does it end? Do they draw up a list of who has rights, and who doesn't? Who decides who's on that list?

What they have to do IMHO is trust the appeals procress. An appeal is not an automatic sentence-reducer. If someone is guilty of a crime, so to speak, he's guilty, and an appeal will confirm it.

Right. Except the PA can not deny Kaleta the right of appeal.

Ultimately, it's the player who decides whether they want to appeal or not. The PA can make a recommendation. And if the player decides he wants to appeal, the PA has no choice but to file the appeal. However, they DO NOT have to be present during the appeal. They could hang player/agent out to dry.

The league could decide to dish out a 10 game suspension to Scott. But there are grounds for appeal - legitimate grounds based on the deal - first offense, not in line with previous/similar suspensions handed out.

If the league wants to go that route and push the envelope so to speak, then Scott will have to decide whether to appeal or not. The PA will have no choice but to file the appeal, and they will, if those are his wishes. But then they have to decide (or the membership will have to decide) do we fight it on his behalf along with him, or do we accept the fact that there needs to be a change to a 10 year deal that was just agreed to only months ago?

 

[Dr Quincy]

1) 5 game suspension for any staged fight
2) 2 game suspension for any instigated fight

Why the difference? What makes a stage fright worth 3 games more than an instigated fight, and 5 games worth some other form of fight? Who decides what a "staged" fight is? What happens when a player on your team is suspended for 5 games for a "staged" fight that you don't think was staged? Kaboom goes this board.

A fight is either ok or not ok. You can't have the league drawing random distinctions just because some fans find some fights have merit and some don't. It would be a crazy way to run a league.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Right. Except the PA can not deny Kaleta the right of appeal.

Ultimately, it's the player who decides whether they want to appeal or not. The PA can make a recommendation. And if the player decides he wants to appeal, the PA has no choice but to file the appeal. However, they DO NOT have to be present during the appeal. They could hang player/agent out to dry.

The league could decide to dish out a 10 game suspension to Scott. But there are grounds for appeal - legitimate grounds based on the deal - first offense, not in line with previous/similar suspensions handed out.

If the league wants to go that route and push the envelope so to speak, then Scott will have to decide whether to appeal or not. The PA will have no choice but to file the appeal, and they will, if those are his wishes. But then they have to decide (or the membership will have to decide) do we fight it on his behalf along with him, or do we accept the fact that there needs to be a change to a 10 year deal that was just agreed to only months ago?

I agree in theory, but the PA has to defend its members and represent them. Choosing not to do so opens up a big can of worms that I don't think the PA would like. It sucks when basically you have a situation where one union member hurts another, and maybe in an extreme case of on-ice violence (Hunter vs. Turgeon maybe) I can see a case for what you say, but Scott's hit, while dirty and suspendable, wasn't SO bad that it should mean the PA should stand aside and not represent him.

 

[DominicT]

I agree in theory, but the PA has to defend its members and represent them. Choosing not to do so opens up a big can of worms that I don't think the PA would like. It sucks when basically you have a situation where one union member hurts another, and maybe in an extreme case of on-ice violence (Hunter vs. Turgeon maybe) I can see a case for what you say, but Scott's hit, while dirty and suspendable, wasn't SO bad that it should mean the PA should stand aside and not represent him.

I think you'd be surprised to find that the PA doesn't sit in on the vast majority of player discipline hearings. It's usually the player involved, someone (usually the GM) from the team, and the players agent. If you want to make the argument that Agents are sanctioned by the NHLPA and thus represent them, that's a different argument. But the agent is there in the best interest of the player not the union.

In the case of Scott, I'm talking about the NHL setting an example. Going far beyond what similar cases, as a first time offender, what the NHLPA would do. They don't have to be present, and probably won't be. I'll be curious to see how involved they do get if the leagues hands Scott a 10 gamer.

 

[cat400]

Larry Brooks at the bottom of his regular Sunday column in the NY Post has an interesting take that would apply to this discussion thread.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/26/rick-dipietro-gets-tryout-with-hurricanes/


"Commissioner Gary Bettman’s opinion upholding the 10-game suspension assessed Patrick Kaleta for his head shot against Jack Johnson, in which the commissioner cites and quotes liberally from the NHLPA’s appeal of the sentence may prove a tipping point in the way the union responds in such matters.".....................

 

[JOKER 192]

In the case of John Scott I fail to see what the union could rightfully do for him other than to sight precedence . His actions are a clear violation of the rules, how can one defend one member of the union (SCOTT) while not defending another (ERIKSSON). To defend Scott is to offend Eriksson and how other members of the union stand for it baffles me. I get that the union has to defend all members but if your guilty your guilty and that is a fact that can not be changed.

I have never been a fan of unions for just this reason, it defends what should not be defended.