they don't have to make it into a conspiracy... that makes it seem planned and well thought out...

merely have to keep pointing out the inconsistencies - and there are plenty of those.

the conspiracies - if there are any - have more to do with franchise "allocation" and Gary's baiting of the respective cities and their fanbase - such as Quebec - and prior to the return of the Jefs, the folks in WInnipeg - and all the related nonsense of keeping a team in Pheonix.
- BorjeFan4Ever

Teams should be able to request Shanahan give them an explanation as to why a player WASN'T suspended. A challenge if you will that they can use for one play a game.

He only received two games AND was a repeat offender.
- markmark

that would be frame I would wrap around an article in the media... TooToo gets two games as repeat offender... for a much greater collision than Kadri's recent adventure.

the inconsistencies make Shanaban and his approach a farce.... they try to repeat that they want to take the dangerous hits and play out of the game.... so what's next ... no slapshots because someone might get hit in the face?

there's no way to honestly look at Kronwall projecting his ass off the ice into the air to try and hit someone at speed and not deem it dangerous... and then turn around and suspend a guy like Kadri going one mile per hour into the goalie.

they don't have to make it into a conspiracy... that makes it seem planned and well thought out...

merely have to keep pointing out the inconsistencies - and there are plenty of those.

the conspiracies - if there are any - have more to do with franchise "allocation" and Gary's baiting of the respective cities and their fanbase - such as Quebec - and prior to the return of the Jefs, the folks in WInnipeg - and all the related nonsense of keeping a team in Pheonix.
- BorjeFan4Ever

My entire point is that leaf fans should flat out expect more scrutiny from league office when it comes to player suspensions.

2 reasons:

1: the league wants to lower the violent physical play, their flag ship franchise is playing a style that flies directly in the face of that. I dont imagine the league is overly happy about this.

2: do the leafs feel any financial damage if a player gets suspended? no. they dont. if anything it generates more money from the coverage. this is not the case for most of the rest of the league.

the leafs get more suspensions because they can assume the burden of it. dont expect that to ever change.

that would be frame I would wrap around an article in the media... TooToo gets two games as repeat offender... for a much greater collision than Kadri's recent adventure.

the inconsistencies make Shanaban and his approach a farce.... they try to repeat that they want to take the dangerous hits and play out of the game.... so what's next ... no slapshots because someone might get hit in the face?

there's no way to honestly look at Kronwall projecting his ass off the ice into the air to try and hit someone at speed and not deem it dangerous... and then turn around and suspend a guy like Kadri going one mile per hour into the goalie.
- BorjeFan4Ever

If a Leaf player deserves a suspension then they should get one but don't (frank)ing telling me that the Bruins have not gotten away with many egregious hits to the head and hits from behind. That is where I get really mad and I don't understand why there is not a big deal being made of it, is the league that afraid of Jacobs?

My entire point is that leaf fans should flat out expect more scrutiny from league office when it comes to player suspensions.

2 reasons:

1: the league wants to lower the violent physical play, their flag ship franchise is playing a style that flies directly in the face of that. I dont imagine the league is overly happy about this.

2: do the leafs feel any financial damage if a player gets suspended? no. they dont. if anything it generates more money from the coverage. this is not the case for most of the rest of the league.

the leafs get more suspensions because they can assume the burden of it. dont expect that to ever change.
- Dozzer

Financially yes. But it is outrageous to essentially give other teams a competitive advantage solely for the sake of optics.

If a Leaf player deserves a suspension then they should get one but don't (frank)ing telling me that the Bruins have not gotten away with many egregious hits to the hit and hits from behind. That is where I get really mad and I don't understand why there is not a big deal being made of it, is the league that afraid of Jacobs?
- LeafMan

Lou, the leafs ownership is on board with how they are handling things.

think about it, if the teams south of the border dont make as much money (and having to pay a player under suspension will do this) it cuts into their profits as well.

the bottom line comes before the game.. dont have to like it, but its true.

My entire point is that leaf fans should flat out expect more scrutiny from league office when it comes to player suspensions.

2 reasons:

1: the league wants to lower the violent physical play, their flag ship franchise is playing a style that flies directly in the face of that. I dont imagine the league is overly happy about this.

2: do the leafs feel any financial damage if a player gets suspended? no. they dont. if anything it generates more money from the coverage. this is not the case for most of the rest of the league.

the leafs get more suspensions because they can assume the burden of it. dont expect that to ever change.
- Dozzer

Leaf fans should not expect a double-standard from the NHL.

Martins are that much better?
- Garnie

The best - some worth in the $1000's

Financially yes. But it is outrageous to essentially give other teams a competitive advantage solely for the sake of optics.
- markmark

its not optics.

its the bottom line.

if the bruins have to pay someone under suspension that decreases generated revenue because they would have to pay the player replacing him.

this creates a drop in the bruins revenue.

revenue sharing is what is keeping a ton of teams afloat.. the leafs i think are the only team that has their portion capped out. so they can afford to take the loss without damaging the total being shared league wide.

pretty certain thats the way it is anyways. fact is, it doesnt make sense on the hockey side of things so what else matters? money.

Leaf fans should not expect a double-standard from the NHL.
- RogerRoeper

well i got two words for ya

too bad.

My entire point is that leaf fans should flat out expect more scrutiny from league office when it comes to player suspensions.

2 reasons:

1: the league wants to lower the violent physical play, their flag ship franchise is playing a style that flies directly in the face of that. I dont imagine the league is overly happy about this.

2: do the leafs feel any financial damage if a player gets suspended? no. they dont. if anything it generates more money from the coverage. this is not the case for most of the rest of the league.

the leafs get more suspensions because they can assume the burden of it. dont expect that to ever change.
- Dozzer

I don't expect it to change. But, because it won't change doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it to light.

Bad officiating or "infuenced" officiating should be identified and called out. What the Bruins got away with in the series with the Leafs last spring most likely wouldn't not have changed the outcome... but there was really very little after the fact reporting by the media.... and because the games were on Hockey Night in Canada most of the media seem reluctant to say anything that could be positive to the Leafs situation. Chara smacking Lupul and later JVR... those are penalties to Phaneuf every time.

I take exception to the comment about the style of play... the Leafs do have fighters, no question, but how much have they actually fought this season? And why did Carlyle chose to use them last year... to protect this skill players - because - quite frankly - the league has done a REALLY poor job of handling the Avery, Kaleta, Cooke, Burrows type players for years now.

The league refuses to make changes, such as the icing rule, because guys like Cherry call them out on it. Bluntly stated, how many injuries from icing plays versus from fights?

The league has resisted taking the instigator penalty out of the rule book - which it should... why? This rule, like the rules put in to avoid bench clearing brawls were put in at a time when they were needed... but like everything else, goalie pad size for example, should be up for review.... and it simply shouldn't require years of debate. Instead we get rules about appearance of the sweater.

Like the sweater rule, all the stuff coming from the league office is about the "appearance of doing something", as opposed to actually doing something.

they spend their time legislating items that don't require it... for example helmets... big whoop.

which NHLer in their right mind would chose to not play with a helmet nowadays? right - none.

The best - some worth in the $1000's
- BingoLady

yes most of them are.....ebay is a wonderful thing

its not optics.

its the bottom line.

if the bruins have to pay someone under suspension that decreases generated revenue because they would have to pay the player replacing him.

this creates a drop in the bruins revenue.

revenue sharing is what is keeping a ton of teams afloat.. the leafs i think are the only team that has their portion capped out. so they can afford to take the loss without damaging the total being shared league wide.

pretty certain thats the way it is anyways. fact is, it doesnt make sense on the hockey side of things so what else matters? money.
- Dozzer

If it really is that transparent then "player safety" is clearly not a concern of the league and the ones who should be pissed are the NHLPA.

truth is folks.. the NHL is a business first and a sport second.

so decisions will be based on $$ over competitive fairness.

the NHL is reaching a NFL like scenario where the pro game simply isnt all that pure anymore.

you want to watch hockey? watch the CHL, if you want to watch entertainment, watch the NHL.

trust me.. the sooner you accept this the better off you'll be

I don't expect it to change. But, because it won't change doesn't mean you shouldn't bring it to light.

Bad officiating or "infuenced" officiating should be identified and called out. What the Bruins got away with in the series with the Leafs last spring most likely wouldn't not have changed the outcome... but there was really very little after the fact reporting by the media.... and because the games were on Hockey Night in Canada most of the media seem reluctant to say anything that could be positive to the Leafs situation. Chara smacking Lupul and later JVR... those are penalties to Phaneuf every time.

I take exception to the comment about the style of play... the Leafs do have fighters, no question, but how much have they actually fought this season? And why did Carlyle chose to use them last year... to protect this skill players - because - quite frankly - the league has done a REALLY poor job of handling the Avery, Kaleta, Cooke, Burrows type players for years now.

The league refuses to make changes, such as the icing rule, because guys like Cherry call them out on it. Bluntly stated, how many injuries from icing plays versus from fights?

The league has resisted taking the instigator penalty out of the rule book - which it should... why? This rule, like the rules put in to avoid bench clearing brawls were put in at a time when they were needed... but like everything else, goalie pad size for example, should be up for review.... and it simply shouldn't require years of debate. Instead we get rules about appearance of the sweater.

Like the sweater rule, all the stuff coming from the league office is about the "appearance of doing something", as opposed to actually doing something.

they spend their time legislating items that don't require it... for example helmets... big whoop.

which NHLer in their right mind would chose to not play with a helmet nowadays? right - none.
- BorjeFan4Ever

here is why it doesnt get called out

who stands to lose money if smaller market teams or teams with less of the sporting market share lose big names to suspension?

answer: every owner in the league

who owns the local media in toronto?

answer: the owners of the leafs

its not that hard to figure out.

you need to stop expecting it to be about fairness.. it has nothing to do with being fair.

If it really is that transparent then "player safety" is clearly not a concern of the league and the ones who should be pissed are the NHLPA.
- markmark

why? their part of the revenue sharing.. they dont want to lose money either.

the NHL is a pro sports league.. and there isnt one pro sports league in existence thats purely about the sport.

truth is folks.. the NHL is a business first and a sport second.

so decisions will be based on $$ over competitive fairness.

the NHL is reaching a NFL like scenario where the pro game simply isnt all that pure anymore.

you want to watch hockey? watch the CHL, if you want to watch entertainment, watch the NHL.

trust me.. the sooner you accept this the better off you'll be
- Dozzer

Problem is, I don't accept incompetence and neither should anyone else.

Problem is, I don't accept incompetence and neither should anyone else.
- LeafMan

i dont think it is incompetence LM, quite the opposite. I think this is very very deliberate.

why? their part of the revenue sharing.. they dont want to lose money either.

the NHL is a pro sports league.. and there isnt one pro sports league in existence thats purely about the sport.
- Dozzer

Well, when it's the NHL's turn for the NFLPA like law-suit, then we will see what tune they sing.

Personally I think you are over-valuing the financial loss to a franchise due suspending a player. Even a star player. I don't think those who are going to watch a game will decide against it because Ekman-Larsson is suspended.

I understand that pro sports are a business first, but I personally disagree with the rationale for the apparent bias here.

i dont think it is incompetence LM, quite the opposite. I think this is very very deliberate.
- Dozzer

I would like to see a person who has no affiliation (current or former) with any team or player become the voice of player safety.

Problem is, I don't accept incompetence and neither should anyone else.
- LeafMan

agreed.

and while I can understand that what Dozzer is saying may be bang on for the league, the media should have enough credibility to at least call it out to the fans, rather than criticizing the players for being victimized for or by it.

what irks me most, is not that the league operates this way... I expect that kind of back-door behavior from large businesses.... rather its the doinks in the media who gloss over it ...

in the latter part of the 90s, when the Leafs ownership ( I believe it was still Stavro at that time) were selling off high priced players such as Andreychuk, Gilmour and the media ripped on the incoming players rather than simply calling out the situation for what it was.... and at that time, the media was the source for what was going on with the team... now, with the web and broader exposure we can more readily make our own conclusions.

i dont think it is incompetence LM, quite the opposite. I think this is very very deliberate.
- Dozzer

here's where I think you may be over stating their 'control' or management.

if this is all true and clear, why would a team like Philly be able to offer sheet Shea Webber like they did? ended up costing Nashville huge dollars - and they clearly are supported by the league financial heavyweights.

or am I missing something?

I'm probably late with this, but I would guess the reason Francis was at the Ricoh was because, well, the Canes AHL team was playing. Probably had nothing to do with Liles lol

Well, when it's the NHL's turn for the NFLPA like law-suit, then we will see what tune they sing.

Personally I think you are over-valuing the financial loss to a franchise due suspending a player. Even a star player. I don't think those who are going to watch a game will decide against it because Ekman-Larsson is suspended.

I understand that pro sports are a business first, but I personally disagree with the rationale for the apparent bias here.
- markmark

fair enough, but how else do you explain away the obvious bias?

its not just occasional either.. if the team is a team that doesnt have a large portion of their market share or is financially tight.. their players rarely see suspensions. for teams who have the majority of their market share and make huge amounts of money see a ton of them.

shanny is no fool... but the inconsistency of suspensions during his tenure and before his tenure can only mean one thing. league and ownership interference because certain bans to certain players on certain teams hurt the bottom line.

I would like to see a person who has no affiliation (current or former) with any team or player become the voice of player safety.
- markmark

wouldn't it be useful to put a guy like Lindros in that spot?

he had his career cut short by the concussions. he played for some of the leagues most financially preferred clubs, but probably doesn't have much love for them.

I would think that Shanahan's role should be shared between three people, ideally all with different playing histories and club affiliations - so as to allow for a bit more of an appearance of non-favoritism.