Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency VIII - 2014 Free Agency Edition

[tomthestone*]

The Cooke mention was apt.

Colorado has a few players that can throw them. Certainly didn't stop Cooke from removing one of their better players from the equation. I don't know, I don't see how there's any argument that supports the threat of a fight as an actual deterant.

Who did the Avs have that might scare Matt Cooke? Colorado iced a very soft team last year. It's easy to say "there's no place for fighting, just play hockey" but that's just not how it works. Even the best power plays score less than 30% of the time, so the threat of getting burned on the scoreboard after a cheapshot just isn't enough.

Fighting might not act as a deterrent the way it once did, but teams need to be able return the favor if one of their guys is on the wrong end of a dirty hit -- especially if some duster takes out a skill player. Players have to own up to their actions in hockey more than any other sport and the threat of a fight taking place is a huge part of that. Again, take away the ability to throw bombs at the right time, and guys are going to start swinging their sticks like baseball bats a lot more often.

Ever played in an intense adult league game where fighting isn't allowed? The lack of respect for opponents and disregard for keeping twigs low is downright scary.

 

[Minnesota]

The Avs don't have any heavyweights, but they have McLeod whom I'd argue is one of the dirtiest players in the league. Pretty sure he'll fight, too.

Edit: Nevermind, they have Patrick Bordeleau. He fights.

 

[this providence]

The Avs iced McLeod and Bordeleau. On top of a few other players who all fought in games last year. Had no effect on actions or outcomes.

Asking me whether I've played in this or that is silly. I've played for higher levels that allowed fighting. On top of family members' experience to base an opinion on. I've seen zero correlation between a threat of a kerfuffle on what players are willing to do and not do.

 

[tomthestone*]

The Avs don't have any heavyweights, but they have McLeod whom I'd argue is one of the dirtiest players in the league. Pretty sure he'll fight, too.

Edit: Nevermind, they have Patrick Bordeleau. He fights.

McLeod is dirty, but likes to get in those face-washing scrums. More often than not he runs and hides like the punk that he is when it's time to drop mitts. And if Cooke does that during the regular season, they would have retaliated in short order. They didn't forget about that shot on Barrie, and I'm sure Cooke will have to answer for that at some point this year -- as he should.

But if the Avs had to wait to line Cooke up with a shoulder check in order to get even without playing short-handed for two minutes or more, you'd see a lot more knees being stuck out and sticks up near the eyes. What I mean to say there is, there would be no reason not to throw cheapshots whenever possible if the ability to retaliate was fully taken away. Like I said before the "take your power-play and score" after your team gets done dirty philosophy just doesn't work out often enough to deter dirty plays by itself.

 

[freeboy]

Who did the Avs have that might scare Matt Cooke? Colorado iced a very soft team last year. It's easy to say "there's no place for fighting, just play hockey" but that's just not how it works. Even the best power plays score less than 30% of the time, so the threat of getting burned on the scoreboard after a cheapshot just isn't enough.

Fighting might not act as a deterrent the way it once did, but teams need to be able return the favor if one of their guys is on the wrong end of a dirty hit -- especially if some duster takes out a skill player. Players have to own up to their actions in hockey more than any other sport and the threat of a fight taking place is a huge part of that. Again, take away the ability to throw bombs at the right time, and guys are going to start swinging their sticks like baseball bats a lot more often.

Ever played in an intense adult league game where fighting isn't allowed? The lack of respect for opponents and disregard for keeping twigs low is downright scary.

Not against fighting but I am against intentional injuring other teams guys, for the entire league. I'm not even saying Cooke was intending this, just his blatant knee is an example of culture of intimidation in NHL

 

[Puhis]

As long as we can get away with it, we should do it. Playoffs is win or lose, and if taking out a player can turn a loss into a win, we should do it. No question about it. Ends should always justify the means. Always.

 

[Minnesota]

As long as we can get away with it, we should do it. Playoffs is win or lose, and if taking out a player can turn a loss into a win, we should do it. No question about it. Ends should always justify the means. Always.

Intentionally "Taking someone out" goes against the nature of sport. It's immoral and negates the legitimacy of victory. I'll always prefer a fair-and-square win over one soiled by shenanigans.

 

[Puhis]

Intentionally "Taking someone out" goes against the nature of sport. It's immoral and negates the legitimacy of victory. I'll always prefer a fair-and-square win over one soiled by shenanigans.

I prefer a fair victory too. But I also prefer victory over defeat, by any means necessary. When you're playing in the NHL playoffs, and the situation looks dire, you SHOULD try and shake the other team. It's the nature of competitive sports, not only to improve your own performance but also decrease the competitors' performance. Does it go against everything good sportsmanship stands for? Arguably, yes. But every professional athlete in top level is paid to win or help his/her team win. And if that means taking out another player, then so be it.

 

[tomthestone*]

I prefer a fair victory too. But I also prefer victory over defeat, by any means necessary. When you're playing in the NHL playoffs, and the situation looks dire, you SHOULD try and shake the other team. It's the nature of competitive sports, not only to improve your own performance but also decrease the competitors' performance. Does it go against everything good sportsmanship stands for? Arguably, yes. But every professional athlete in top level is paid to win or help his/her team win. And if that means taking out another player, then so be it.

I'm with you all the way until it comes to things like sticking a knee out (as Cooke did) or ultra dangerous hits like checking from behind or leaving one's feet to make a hit. Those kinds of things can be career-enders, and I'm 100 percent against playing that way. That's why Cooke should have been handed a permanent ban back when he was way out of control, but since that didn't happen, I'm glad our guys don't have to play against him.

I get what you're saying though, and I agree that things like hacking guys behind the play, throwing the occasional cross-check and stirring up extra curricular activities after the whistle absolutely need to be done. Like you say, trying to shake the other team and get them off their game is absolutely necessary. Be the bully or get bullied. Love that about hockey. There's no reward for playing a squeaky clean game and being a nice guy out there.

 

[Minnesota]

I prefer a fair victory too. But I also prefer victory over defeat, by any means necessary. When you're playing in the NHL playoffs, and the situation looks dire, you SHOULD try and shake the other team. It's the nature of competitive sports, not only to improve your own performance but also decrease the competitors' performance. Does it go against everything good sportsmanship stands for? Arguably, yes. But every professional athlete in top level is paid to win or help his/her team win. And if that means taking out another player, then so be it.

I think if you ask any athlete, they'll tell you they help their team win in many ways... but injuring the other team's players won't be one of those answers.

Maybe I'd rather remain ignorant, but I prefer to believe athletes never intentionally injure other players. It's wrong, and it's not worth the win when looking at the big picture. Ultimately, I don't see how winning a game becomes priority over another human's health. I don't think many athletes share your mindset about winning at any cost. If every athlete only cared about winning, there wouldn't be sport anymore because players would be getting injured left and right - to the point where the sport ceased to exist.

 

[Avder]

I'm with you all the way until it comes to things like sticking a knee out (as Cooke did) or ultra dangerous hits like checking from behind or leaving one's feet to make a hit. Those kinds of things can be career-enders, and I'm 100 percent against playing that way. That's why Cooke should have been handed a permanent ban back when he was way out of control, but since that didn't happen, I'm glad our guys don't have to play against him.

I get what you're saying though, and I agree that things like hacking guys behind the play, throwing the occasional cross-check and stirring up extra curricular activities after the whistle absolutely need to be done. Like you say, trying to shake the other team and get them off their game is absolutely necessary. Be the bully or get bullied. Love that about hockey. There's no reward for playing a squeaky clean game and being a nice guy out there.

The NHL doesn't have the cahones for a permanent ban. It backed off of Bertuzzi's ban and he almost killed a guy. No way they'd have the stomach to ban someone for less than that, no matter how chronic.

Besides, Cooke seems to have turned it around in a big way. Yeah the thing with Barrie was regrettable, but other than that he's a perfect example of how any goon can turn himself around and just play hockey without habitually cheapshotting everything in sight.

IMO, you wanna reduce cheap shots, you get rid of the instigator.

 

[rynryn]

The NHL doesn't have the cahones for a permanent ban. It backed off of Bertuzzi's ban and he almost killed a guy. No way they'd have the stomach to ban someone for less than that, no matter how chronic.

Besides, Cooke seems to have turned it around in a big way. Yeah the thing with Barrie was regrettable, but other than that he's a perfect example of how any goon can turn himself around and just play hockey without habitually cheapshotting everything in sight.

IMO, you wanna reduce cheap shots, you get rid of the instigator.

but there would probably have to be some sort of replacement penalty to keep things from spiraling way out of control. an anti one-upsmanship sort of thing that's punished more severely. like how they take into account (probably pretty subjectively, but still) the retaliation factor in suspensions. You know, if cooke scrambles Duschene and Bordeleau grabs him and goes nuts, then with Bordy off the ice Gabriel grabs Tyson Barrie for no apparent reason and pummels away. etc etc.

 

[tomthestone*]

The NHL doesn't have the cahones for a permanent ban. It backed off of Bertuzzi's ban and he almost killed a guy. No way they'd have the stomach to ban someone for less than that, no matter how chronic.

Besides, Cooke seems to have turned it around in a big way. Yeah the thing with Barrie was regrettable, but other than that he's a perfect example of how any goon can turn himself around and just play hockey without habitually cheapshotting everything in sight.

IMO, you wanna reduce cheap shots, you get rid of the instigator.

As much as that sucks, you're so right. Once the league decided a record suspension was enough punishment for what Bertuzzi did to Moore, it's tough to justify a lifetime ban on anyone else.

I also agree Cooke has cleaned up his game significantly. I've been a fan of bringing him in to replace Clutterbuck since the minute it happened. Even so, the guy is still a pretty dirty player when it comes down to it. Prior to the Barrie hit, he pulled a similar Captain Morgan on Nichushkin from Dallas during the regular season. The year before, he got a free pass on shredding Erik Karlsson's Achilles -- maybe rightfully so, maybe not. It's impossible to definitively say he did that intentionally, but I personally think Cooke was and is capable of doing such a thing on purpose. I'll never make up my mind either way as to whether he tried to injure a defender nobody can contain.

 

[Avder]

but there would probably have to be some sort of replacement penalty to keep things from spiraling way out of control. an anti one-upsmanship sort of thing that's punished more severely. like how they take into account (probably pretty subjectively, but still) the retaliation factor in suspensions. You know, if cooke scrambles Duschene and Bordeleau grabs him and goes nuts, then with Bordy off the ice Gabriel grabs Tyson Barrie for no apparent reason and pummels away. etc etc.

I don't see stuff like that happening very often unless there's a very good reason, and even then, when something big happens and everything blows up there are going to be line brawls, suspension or no suspension.

I suppose you could fine the organization for line brawls and suspend the coach. But coaches more often than not have nothing to do with that emotional stuff breaking out.

As much as that sucks, you're so right. Once the league decided a record suspension was enough punishment for what Bertuzzi did to Moore, it's tough to justify a lifetime ban on anyone else.

I also agree Cooke has cleaned up his game significantly. I've been a fan of bringing him in to replace Clutterbuck since the minute it happened. Even so, the guy is still a pretty dirty player when it comes down to it. Prior to the Barrie hit, he pulled a similar Captain Morgan on Nichushkin from Dallas during the regular season. The year before, he got a free pass on shredding Erik Karlsson's Achilles -- maybe rightfully so, maybe not. It's impossible to definitively say he did that intentionally, but I personally think Cooke was and is capable of doing such a thing on purpose. I'll never make up my mind either way as to whether he tried to injure a defender nobody can contain.

I'll agree that Cooke still has some questionable incidents here and there, but it's still night and day.

I'm undecided about the whole Karlsson thing as well. I've looked at it and tried to picture things from both players point of view and the only thing I can come up with is it happened too fast for me to decide one way or another if it were intentional or not.

 

[Slow Motion]

As we are all pointing out - this is all very subjective.... never a fan of Cooke's play, but the knee put him in as much risk as Barrie, so intent may depend on clarity of thought... a Lucic shot to the groin really puts him at no risk of injury, so I consider that more detestable. With regards to Coaches culpability - depends - in most cases no, but responses to a situation post whistle (or Calgary/Vancouver starting line-ups) is all on the Coach... I do not agree with "the end justifies the means" as far as dirty play, but I do agree that hockey can be self-policing as far as that goes if you have players who will fight for the other guy in the foxhole and the instigator rule does complicate that.

 

[tomthestone*]

As we are all pointing out - this is all very subjective.... never a fan of Cooke's play, but the knee put him in as much risk as Barrie, so intent may depend on clarity of thought... a Lucic shot to the groin really puts him at no risk of injury, so I consider that more detestable. With regards to Coaches culpability - depends - in most cases no, but responses to a situation post whistle (or Calgary/Vancouver starting line-ups) is all on the Coach... I do not agree with "the end justifies the means" as far as dirty play, but I do agree that hockey can be self-policing as far as that goes if you have players who will fight for the other guy in the foxhole and the instigator rule does complicate that.

Hmmm. Cooke had no chance to get Barrie with a shoulder and lunged with his knee at the last second. The odds of getting hurt by a guy trying to skate past him and looking up ice is extremely low.

Thinking back to the playoffs I can't believe how clouded my vision became. I remember hoping Cooke wouldn't miss the rest of that series or the remainder of the postseason. Now seeing TSN's version of the hit and ensuing replay (somehow for the first time) I really wonder how hard Colorado is going to after Cooke this year. Actually, it would be hard to blame them if a goon like McLeod tried to clip Brodin somehow. This is why a plug like BizNasty would be alright to dress once every four nights, you guys.

 

[MNWILDFAN001]

I am not for anyone trying injure an opponent on purpose. But I do like having someone on the team that plays on a bit of the edge. If that makes sense. I would prefer just having a couple more players that hit, often and hard. The Wild have a few a guys that hit, but not many that really put their weight into it.

 

[rynryn]

people who hit other guys often as their primary purpose (checkers, mostly) often get edgy or dirty labels. look how many people called clutterbuck a dirty player...he's safely off the team and i still don't think he was remotely dirty. not even edgy.

 

[Wild48]

Hmmm. Cooke had no chance to get Barrie with a shoulder and lunged with his knee at the last second. The odds of getting hurt by a guy trying to skate past him and looking up ice is extremely low.

Thinking back to the playoffs I can't believe how clouded my vision became. I remember hoping Cooke wouldn't miss the rest of that series or the remainder of the postseason. Now seeing TSN's version of the hit and ensuing replay (somehow for the first time) I really wonder how hard Colorado is going to after Cooke this year. Actually, it would be hard to blame them if a goon like McLeod tried to clip Brodin somehow. This is why a plug like BizNasty would be alright to dress once every four nights, you guys.

Yeah, Basically only dress him for the Colorado games & pay him close to the Vet minimum to build the fanbase on twitter.

Roy is old-school hockey. There will be a revenge message from that team when they play the Wild next... need someone on this roster to make them think twice about it.

 

[Slow Motion]

I am going to retract my earlier comment... while in theory, a knee on knee puts both players at risk, the reality is that the initiator seldom gets injured - it is typically the player receiving the hit (or attempting to avoid it). I really don't want to be an apologist for the type of hit Cooke made on Barrie. While it is not the only type of dirty play in hockey, it certainly has the potential for resulting in a serious injury and really has to be dealt with seriously. Suspensions for plays like that should be at least as long as the injured player is out.

Having said that, I agree that having a player or players who can respond to questionable hits aggressively... although I feel that Cooke does need to deal with another Shawn Thorton type encounter as a result of his action himself.

 

[tomthestone*]

I am going to retract my earlier comment... while in theory, a knee on knee puts both players at risk, the reality is that the initiator seldom gets injured - it is typically the player receiving the hit (or attempting to avoid it). I really don't want to be an apologist for the type of hit Cooke made on Barrie. While it is not the only type of dirty play in hockey, it certainly has the potential for resulting in a serious injury and really has to be dealt with seriously. Suspensions for plays like that should be at least as long as the injured player is out.

Having said that, I agree that having a player or players who can respond to questionable hits aggressively... although I feel that Cooke does need to deal with another Shawn Thorton type encounter as a result of his action himself.

Couldn't agree more. I mean if letting Colorado smoke Cooke with a dirty hit or two would make everything even, I'd say let them have at it. Problem is, even if they ended Cooke's season right away I doubt they'd be satisfied. That still wouldn't be "an eye for an eye" because Barrie is a more skilled player, and missed out on playoff hockey, which obviously can never compare to the regular season in terms of game value.

Brodin, Granlund, and even Haula are the guys I fear they'll target instead. Not only because they're on the softer side, but because Cooke knows how to use his body and his axe to defend himself out there -- so he won't be an easy target at all.

At least this new divisional/playoff setup might actually be working to re-create some massive tension among teams.

 

[DeuceMN]

A number of the games we played with Colorado were pretty edgy all-around. Let's not forget how many bs liberties Lendeskog got away with.

Cookes resulting knee was bad, but the Avs weren't squeaky clean either. Some of the crap they pulled could just have easily injured one of our guys.

That said, the games with them this year are going to be good

But I hope there is no intential injury plans at all.

 

[Slow Motion]

I would expect that the next Wild/Avs game will be watched carefully. I also expect that Cooke and likely Bordeleau (much like Boogard and May after the Johnsson cheap shot against the Ducks a few years ago) will "resolve" the Barrie hit.

I do expect the rivalry to be more intense and we'll likely see more of McCleod playing the CO version of Cooke (and CO fans would be a bit disingenuous to suggest he is any more responsible with his actions than Cooke was) ... which hopefully does not result in serious injury to anyone.

Maybe Yeo and Roy square off to settle it?

 

[Minnesota]

I would expect that the next Wild/Avs game will be watched carefully. I also expect that Cooke and likely Bordeleau (much like Boogard and May after the Johnsson cheap shot against the Ducks a few years ago) will "resolve" the Barrie hit.

I do expect the rivalry to be more intense and we'll likely see more of McCleod playing the CO version of Cooke (and CO fans would be a bit disingenuous to suggest he is any more responsible with his actions than Cooke was) ... which hopefully does not result in serious injury to anyone.

Maybe Yeo and Roy square off to settle it?

I hope Cooke isn't that dumb.

Matt Cooke - 5'11" - 208lbs
Patrick Bordeleau - 6'6" - 225lbs

 

[Puhis]

letting Colorado smoke Cooke

Gateway theory confirmed.