Welcome to the Hotstove! As always, I'm your host, Travis Yost.

On Saturday, the roundtable once again convened to discuss perhaps the most polarizing topic of this off-season - the early reign of one Brendan Shanahan.

As many of you know, Shanahan currently serves as the head disciplinarian of the National Hockey League. Shanahan stepped into the position once Colin Campbell removed himself from power during the Boston Bruins run at the Stanley Cup.

A long tenured player, Shanahan has now committed his hockey focus to cleaning up the game of hockey, enforcing the rules and handing out stiff suspensions when necessary. We've already seen some incredibly harsh punishment in the pre-season, a welcomed change for many who feel player safety has been put on the proverbial backburner.

Yet, others think Shanahan's heading down a slippery slope, one that's sure to put him in a tough position during the regular seasons. Are these harsh penalties good for the game? How does the league benefit from a lengthy removal of superstars? And, are these suspensions justified in terms of dollars lost?

It's a tough topic, one that the following will weigh in on: Bill Meltzer of the Philadelphia Flyers, John Jaeckel of the Chicago Blackhawks, Aaron Musick of the Colorado Avalanche, Peter Tessier of the Vancouver Canucks, Adam French of the Phoenix Coyotes,

--


Bill Meltzer: The NHL is in a damned-if-it-does-and-damned-if-it-doesn't position when it comes to handing out stiff suspensions for dangerous hits. There is ALWAYS a slippery slope in either direction, and I applaud what Brendan Shanahan has done so far.

All that I really ask for when it comes to meting out discipline is some transparency: How and why did the league arrive at a particular conclusion about a potential suspension? How was it different than a seemingly similar situation in which a greater or lesser punishment was issued?

That's why I love the videos that Shanahan has released. I may agree or disagree with the conclusions but as long as I can follow the line of logic behind it, I can understand the ruling.

As far as whether the suspensions (especially Wisniewski) have been a tad harsh, so be it. People have been saying for years that there needs to be some real deterrents. I'd rather see the suspensions be a little heavyhanded -- especially for repeat offenders -- than a little too lenient.

Shanahan played the game at a high level for a long, long time and he was as hard-nosed as they come. I don't he wants to see hitting taken out of the game -- but it's inevitably going to be lessened a bit because of the speed of play and the thin line between aggressive and illegal play. I will say, though, that he does have an innate sense of the difference between physical play and recklessness.

There is no perfect system for discipline where everything can be strictly objective. There will also be subjectivity involved, but I think Shanahan will (and already has) make the right decisions more often than not.


John Jaeckel: I blogged on this in the wake of the Smith-Smith controversy, and at the risk of repeating myself, some of that applies here.

I go back to the 1960s. Hockey, especially with regard to this issue, has changed. It isn't because the players don't suck it up like they used to. Sure, there's more awareness of concussions and their effects and maybe players and teams are a bit more prudent about recovery from concussions.

The larger issues are these. The advent of helmets and visors has made players more likely to go for one another's heads versus a bygone era. Just as sticks now routinely come up above the shoulders due to helmets and especially visors, big hits to the head seem much more prevalent now than they did when all players had their heads exposed.

That, and the use of harder "space age" equipment on bigger, faster players, is resulting in a lot more head injuries.

When the best player, and many other top players, in the game lose portions of seasons, full seasons and sometimes careers, it's something the league must address.

I fully support more rigid penalties for head shots and I like the way Brendan Shanahan is going about it. His job is not to make the rules, but to enforce them. And he is doing that. Further, there is no backroom, "the boys will solve it in Toronto" mystery about it anymore, as there was in the God Forsaken Colin Campbell Era.

I'm sure Campbell is a nice man; but he was an utter failure in that job and exemplified all that was, and to some extent still is, wrong with NHL leadership.

I like James Wisniewski, but he's a repeat offender, and a bad one at that. Yes, prior track record, as well as the player safety office' determination of intent, by all means should be considered.

I also believe that intent can be inferred in 98% of these cases based on prior record, time the player had to pull up, raised elbows, leaving the feet and other body language before and after the hit— as well as the context of what was going on in the game, ie a recent hit or a goal.

8 games is deserved for Wisniewski— especially if you're going to be serious about enforcement and more importantly, deterrence. As was 5 games for Smith.

Personally, I believe longer suspensions and match penalties in game will, sooner or later, bring about an improvement in behavior. Just as helmets and visors caused behavior to change for the worse over the years.


Peter Tessier: The reign of Brendan Shanahan will be marked not by suspensions, fines and the severity of each but more by whether his strict hand forces the inevitable paradigm shift the NHL needs. What's that, a 'paradigm shift'?

Yes, the NHL needs to shift the game from a explosive contact sport to a skill based performance. That does not mean contact is removed but 'explosive' contact. The kind that sends bodies to the 'quiet room'. The kind that causes injuries. The same kind which makes the difference between being a marginal NHL grinder or a career minor leaguer.

The players are in a tough position as they must face demands from coaches and GMs along with agents for performance. As Raffi Torres said last year after a hit and suspension 'if I don't make that hit I don't have a job'. Herein lies the predicament the NHL is in and most importantly the people who give and receive the hits.

Shanahan has to foster the change through a punitive method, it's really his only available option. The question that needs to be answered is this: is this his view of how the game should be played or has the direction come from higher powers? Knowing where the impetus for change lies would perhaps reveal how much change we should expect.

The pre-season has certainly be indicative if not outright revealing of what lies ahead this season in terms of discipline but can we expect the same level of recklessness once meaningful games begin? The media, mainstream and new, have become weary of watching try out games with players who will only see NHL games in the event of injuries during the regular season. Therein lies the reason for looking far more pragmatically at what Shanahan is doing in the preseason with discipline.

The same media who groan about lack of stars playing the game have yet to connect the dots. With the abuse of respect seen thus far coaches may be guilty of hiding stars but they should be commended for protecting them too. The only dots connected so far are the ones between ticket prices and value of the product on the ice.

So what happens if the value of product on the ice decreases more? No Crosby or Savard to start the season but what if that extended to Sedin, Perry, Nash, Staal, Richards, Iginla(who may be doubtful anyway) and more? Will the same media moaning about a full ticket price complain again for the right reasons?

Shanahan's actions may be hard for many to comprehend but unlike the mainstream media who tend to operate in the 'here and now' I can take a different approach and look further down the road. The game has no merit, let alone interest without the stars of the game and I believe Shanahan sees that. He has taken the proverbial 'warning shot across the bow' of Crosby's concussion and seen what it can do to the game. He's acting in the here and now but his modus operandi is to protect the game far into the future. He is ready to make the paradigm shift of change but discipline alone is not the only solution to adjusting behaviour, just ask any parent. If you want the future to succeed you needs all stakeholders invested. Time will tell if Shanahan's lead will gather any followers we should all hope his leadership off the ice is as good as it was on it.


Travis Yost: When Colin Campbell stepped down from the head disciplinarian position last year, I remember a concerted sigh of relief. Regardless of who stepped into the position, there's no way it could be as vague and ambiguous as the rule of 'Coley', and honestly, there was only room for improvement.

We have yet to play one meaningful regular season game, yet Brendan Shanahan already made his mark as the new sheriff of hockey. He's handed out incredibly long suspensions to players like James Wisniewski, repeat offenders who have no choice but to clean up their act. He's reprimanded first-time offenders guilty of headhunting in a similar manner, albeit with a reduced sentence courtesy of the sliding scale.

I entered into a pretty lengthy discussion about the aforementioned sliding scale of punishment this past week, and I'll be the first to admit I'm a big fan of it. In the court of law, an individual is absolutely judged on his track record and punished accordingly. It's the only way to fairly penalize the offender. Of course, there will always be exceptions (e.g. murder), and the same can be said for hockey. In no way, shape, or form, does anyone expect a sliding scale of punishment for an act like the one committed by Chris Simon on Ryan Hollweg back in March of 2007.

Shanahan's highly-regarded videos are another welcomed change, giving us insight as to how and why a player was fined and/or suspended. With Colin Campbell, it seemed like a game of roulette, with outcomes seemingly at random. Shanahan, on the other hand, takes Rule 48 incredibly serious, and will not bend the legalese in favor of one player or another.

My lone concern regarding Shanahan - at least so far - was whether or not he'd penalize big hits that were either controversial or largely unavoidable. Chris Neil's hit on Mikhail Grabovski this past week was a perfect example of both. Although Neil's not considered the cleanest of players in hockey, his hit on Grabovski left far too many questions to warrant a suspension. Intent and/or malice wasn't clear through replay, and as much as it looked like Neil 'leaned' into Grabovski's lane, the opposite (Grabovski skating through Neil) also appeared to be true.

It was an incredibly tough call, but Shanahan gave himself a ton of future outs by not suspending Neil. Now, he's established precedence and can rule on each 'gray area' hit accordingly. If Neil was suspended, Shanahan would've been forced to rule in a similar or equal manner on every single questionable hit.

Overall, I'm thrilled with the change. But, let's see if Shanahan continues down the welcomed path of fining and suspending the avoidable, and dismissing reviews on the unavoidable.


Aaron Musick: Be warned all goons, thugs and players who intend to injure other players. There's a new sheriff in town and his name is Brendan Shanahan.

After a regime in which the only consistency was its inconsistencies, Shanhan has come in and laid down the law in a consistent form.

If you hit a players' head, if you try to injure him, if the play is unwarranted, expect yourself to be Shanabanned.

Players like Matt Cooke, who for too long have affected players' careers, will not get the same treatment.

In a short time, Shanahan has been clear and consistent. Shanahan isn't just suspending people, he is changing the reckless culture of the game. Players play the game recklessly right now. They keep their elbows up as opposed to tucked when they hit. They blindside players.

Shanahan is making sure the players learn that this kind of play will not be acceptable and if the player doesn't learn, he'll get a longer time to think about it.

Brendan Shanahan isn't just banning players, he is changing the reckless culture that the game has taken on.


Adam French: Shanahan needs to be scaled, back plain and simple. My biggest concern about the previous administration was the incongruities and inconsistencies of the crimes vs punishments, now suddenly any contact to the head fairly, accidentally or brutally on purpose equates to a big suspension. Longer suspensions will never clean up the game, just like suspending kids at school will never stop them from smoking/skipping class/fighting. To end these hits to the head you need to attack the mentality of the player, they do the act and they alone are responsible. Take their money away, fine these players that break the rules.

I can say that if somebody took me off work for two days for indecent behaviour with pay, I would laugh it off. If I’m fined financially speaking, I would be become more careful, as money is the most important thing in life. Start with bigger fines not bigger suspensions, suspensions can piss off or please owners, GM’s, coaches and fans but for the most part not the guy doing the dirty hit.


Shaune Vetter: Suspensions need to be a deterrent. If the punishment doesn't serve to keep that player, and others, from stepping over the line or breaking the rules with similar actions then the punishment truly serves no purpose.

What people need to remember is that the league hasn't been properly punishing infractions in the eyes of the majority of those who have an opinion about the matter. Since implementing what most people would agree are more appropriate punishments for rules infractions is essentially a "new" idea, it will take time for players attitudes to change regarding breaking the rules.

It's not like there isn't precedence. When the league resumed after the lockout, the new emphasis on halting the players learned behavior to constantly interfere with each other caused games where it seemed that there was an endless stream of players going to the box and games where it felt like more time was spent on special-teams than at even strength which people complained was ruining the integrity of the game.

Ironically, these were most often the same people who had been so vocal about the clutch and grab game that preceded the lockout in the first place. Change doesn't come instantly. There's a transition period that occurs in any change. The number and length of suspensions is simply a natural progression of the philosophy change that the NHL is undergoing. To complain about Colin Campbell before and then complain about the suspensions now simply makes one a hypocrite.

This is a transition that is not only necessary, but long overdue, and I for one am fully in support of the decisions Brendan Shanahan has made.

--

Thanks for reading!

Join the Discussion: » Comments » Post New Comment

» Las Vegas and Seattle Expansion Close?

» Hotstove: Thinking Pacific

» Hotstove: Thinking Atlantic

» Hotstove: Thinking Central

» Hotstove: Thinking Metropolitan