2013-14 NHL Season Discussion

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="210163" data-time="1380745739">
<div>


The logic is there but the Wild are not the Northstars.  The only way a rivalry with Minnesota, or Colorado, Or Winnipeg, or Dallas, or Nashville happens is if there are a few hard-fought knock-down-drag-out playoff series between the teams where it could literally go either way.  Minnesota's series against us last year doesn't cut it--sure, they were missing some guys but they were as outclassed as Gary Coleman trying to fight Ken Norton.   Now, if the series with Minnesota followed the same pattern as the series against Detroit, then yes, that would be the start of a good rivalry.</p>


 </p>


Much like the 'hawks with Minny or Colorado, and much to Bettman's chagrin, plopping two teams on Wed. Night on Vs. is not going to create a rivalry.  Ditto with Det. and Buffalo.  If the NHL wants a rivalry with Buffalo and Detroit, there' going to have to hope both teams enter the playoffs on equal footing.  For now, they should be milking Det. and Toronto for the history, but the slugfest between Montreal and Toronto might eclipse it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Except that Minn has always been a natural rival with Chicago. North Stars - Hawks yes... but Bears-Viqueens, Twins-Sox... and recently there has already been some renewed vengeance with the wild. So They are a natural emerging rival. Much like detroit chicago is a very natural location for Minnesotans to flock to. I have several of my best friends from there.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="210160" data-time="1380742935">


Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford all said to Darren Dreger of TSN that they want to see fighting gone.


Unfortunately if that were truly the case they wouldn't be rostering the likes of Pierre-Cedric Labrie, BJ Crombeen, Kevin Westgarth or have rostered Stevie Mac, Laraque.</p></blockquote>
Still when someone like Yzerman starts calling for it to end, it's time to start paying attention. Scotty Bowman agreed with them as well.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="210176" data-time="1380748014">


Still when someone like Yzerman starts calling for it to end, it's time to start paying attention. Scotty Bowman agreed with them as well.</p></blockquote>


Not gonna happen. Fighting in hockey will never be voted away by the PA. Stiffer rules? Sure. But fighting will never be outlawed.


Say you outlaw fights, well clean hits cause concussions too, do you outlaw that next?


The players don't need anyone to "save them from themselves". These are grown men who have been playing the game this way for ever and see no problem with it. When the players start asking for it to be banned, then take it out. Till then, try and rid the staged fights and be done with it.

Every time this is discussed I hope I hear something new, anything.  And almost every time I'm disappointed, because people on the pro fighting side of it  always have to go to the extreme with their examples in order to justify it because, frankly, that's all that is left for them. It reminds me of  those old commercials , "Would you download a car?" Outlaw clean hits? Seriously, that's what you're going with? </p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="210197" data-time="1380771108">
<div>


Not gonna happen. Fighting in hockey will never be voted away by the PA. Stiffer rules? Sure. But fighting will never be outlawed.

Say you outlaw fights, well clean hits cause concussions too, do you outlaw that next?


The players don't need anyone to "save them from themselves". These are grown men who have been playing the game this way for ever and see no problem with it. When the players start asking for it to be banned, then take it out. Till then, try and rid the staged fights and be done with it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Unlike fighting, hits are a part of the game of hockey. Fighting is not, no matter how much you wish it to be.</p>

Stay classy, Patrick Roy... 

 </p>


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2OOc6WTrg[/youtube]</p>

I thought he would go at least 10 games before the first blow-out.   Bravo Patrick, Bravo!</p>

Maintenance needs to reinforce that partition between the benches before it falls and hits somebody. :tools-hammer:  :violence-stickwhack:  :violence-smack:  :violence-hammer:  :angry-banghead:  </p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="210203" data-time="1380776030">


Every time this is discussed I hope I hear something new, anything. And almost every time I'm disappointed, because people on the pro fighting side of it always have to go to the extreme with their examples in order to justify it because, frankly, that's all that is left for them. It reminds me of those old commercials , "Would you download a car?" Outlaw clean hits? Seriously, that's what you're going with?</p></blockquote>


Well if we are going with safety issues that can be removed why not?


You can keep complaining about fighting in hockey and I know you will but it's not going anywhere. Not when 98% of the league wants to keep it.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="210212" data-time="1380804430">
<div>


Maintenance needs to reinforce that partition between the benches before it falls and hits somebody. :tools-hammer:  :violence-stickwhack:  :violence-smack:  :violence-hammer:  :angry-banghead:  </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Colorado vs Philadelphia or Boston might be interesting...</p>


 </p>


But yeah, one of my friends said after the game.... "My 2-yr old is more mature than Patrick Roy." </p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="210166" data-time="1380746265">
<div>


Except that Minn has always been a natural rival with Chicago. North Stars - Hawks yes... but Bears-Viqueens, Twins-Sox... and recently there has already been some renewed vengeance with the wild. So They are a natural emerging rival. Much like detroit chicago is a very natural location for Minnesotans to flock to. I have several of my best friends from there.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Even so, if there's a disparity betweeen the strength of the teams, a rivalry will not happen or will go cold.  To wit:  the "Dead Wings" era was by my take a huge reason that the Northstar rivalry grew as brutal as it did, and in recent years when Detroit was winning everything in sight, the rivalry with Detroit colled while St. Louis, like us stuck in the cellar, kept hot.</p>


 </p>


I'm not saying that one won't happen, or won't happen in the near future, but either Chicago has to get weaker, Minnesota stronger, or both.  Right now conditions are just not right for it to get anywhere near "rivalry" status, and there's no real history with the wild like there is with St. Louis.</p>


 </p>


IMHO.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="210203" data-time="1380776030">

Every time this is discussed I hope I hear something new, anything.  And almost every time I'm disappointed, because people on the pro fighting side of it  always have to go to the extreme with their examples in order to justify it because, frankly, that's all that is left for them. It reminds me of  those old commercials , "Would you download a car?" Outlaw clean hits? Seriously, that's what you're going with?</p></blockquote>
go with extreme examples.... like that freak incident with parros, which coulda happened whether tangled at the end of a fight or not, SHOUOD BAN FIGHTING ONCE AND FOR ALL

ok.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="210197" data-time="1380771108">
<div>


Not gonna happen. Fighting in hockey will never be voted away by the PA. Stiffer rules? Sure. But fighting will never be outlawed.

Say you outlaw fights, well clean hits cause concussions too, do you outlaw that next?


The players don't need anyone to "save them from themselves". These are grown men who have been playing the game this way for ever and see no problem with it. When the players start asking for it to be banned, then take it out. Till then, try and rid the staged fights and be done with it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Apple to oranges.</p>


 </p>


Getting rid of fighting would not change the game one bit.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="210234" data-time="1380816444">
<div>


Even so, if there's a disparity betweeen the strength of the teams, a rivalry will not happen or will go cold.  To wit:  the "Dead Wings" era was by my take a huge reason that the Northstar rivalry grew as brutal as it did, and in recent years when Detroit was winning everything in sight, the rivalry with Detroit colled while St. Louis, like us stuck in the cellar, kept hot.</p>


 </p>


I'm not saying that one won't happen, or won't happen in the near future, but either Chicago has to get weaker, Minnesota stronger, or both.  Right now conditions are just not right for it to get anywhere near "rivalry" status, and there's no real history with the wild like there is with St. Louis.</p>


 </p>


IMHO.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


What disparity? Wild were arguably the biggest winners in free agency last year and made it to the playoffs. It's not like they are bottom dwellers. As mentioned we've already had very competitive and spirited games with them. So teams have to have parity to be a rival... that's news to me, we would have lost the red wings as a rival in the beginning part of this century then... The wild finished 1 point behind Detroit last year, was Detroit not our rival last year either?</p>


 </p>


A rivalry has to do with a lot of basic commonalities most of which Minny and Chicago have. As proven by the fact that the Stars and Hawks were once rivals, and the other teams in this town already have counterparts. The only exception being Timberpups and Bulls, and that is because I don't believe they have ever been in the same division or conference.And of course the timberpups have never had a spirited game... ever. with anyone.</p>

Rivalries ebb and flow.  The intense hatred of Detroit cooled in the Deadwings era when the Northstars rose.  Futher, near the turn of the Millenium a lot of Red Wing fans didn't feel there was a rivalry at all--they focused more on Colorado.  Parity plays a lot on that.  If a team is going to be beaten like a pinata it's only going to foster animosity in the losing team.</p>


 </p>


Regardless of point totals, we beat Minnesota handily, Detroit's series was more epic and more conducive to building up a rivalry, or maintaining an existing one.  Ditto with Vancouver in 09/10/11.  Minnesota I don't hate, i respect them as an up-and-comer.  Detroit i hate, but respect with how they built their organization.  Vancouver I just hate.</p>


 </p>


I just personally think the Wild is not quite there just yet.  This might be the year like 2009 was for (re) building the Vancouver one.</p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="xatruio" data-cid="210240" data-time="1380817587">
<div>


go with extreme examples.... like that freak incident with parros, which coulda happened whether tangled at the end of a fight or not, SHOUOD BAN FIGHTING ONCE AND FOR ALL


ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


The circumstances. The circumstances under which that happened was a fight. If it were to happen just skating, or in the middle of winding up  a shot or a blow out/losing an edge or whatever else part of the game, there's no reason to have to say "Well now we gotta take skating out of the game because he fell down" etc,etc.  This is what fans like you have to do in order to defend it. You have to make up something extreme and ridiculous in an attempt to make the argument against fighting look extreme and ridiculous. That if we outlaw this, then we'll be outlawing this. And then this, and then this and then that. Common logical fallacy that people loooove to use in all types of arguments, the slippery slope.</p>


 </p>


But I don't think what happened to Parros should be the thing to end fighting or is the best example of why it should be. If it is so be it , but there's plenty of other reasons, much better more articulate reasons which show fighting to be as pointless as it is than Parros falling down in a fight.</p>

In today's news ---</p>


 </p>


- Patrick Roy gets fined $10,000... Anyone want to start the collection plate?</p>


 </p>


- Hello Carter Hutton!! He's Pekka Rinne's backup as Rinne got tossed out for giving up 3 goals early tonight. </p>


 </p>


- Dallas' new jerseys on the ice look like I'm staring at the old Whaler unis in color.... Heaven forbid... </p>

Rangers defense are making Lundqvist look bad... Watch Stu bitch about the game shortly... 2-1 Coyotes lol


3rd period now... 4-1 Yotes, LOL</p>


 </p>


These pipe dimensions are really making good goaltending obsolete.... </p>

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="210283" data-time="1380844584">


The circumstances. The circumstances under which that happened was a fight. If it were to happen just skating, or in the middle of winding up a shot or a blow out/losing an edge or whatever else part of the game, there's no reason to have to say "Well now we gotta take skating out of the game because he fell down" etc,etc. This is what fans like you have to do in order to defend it. You have to make up something extreme and ridiculous in an attempt to make the argument against fighting look extreme and ridiculous. That if we outlaw this, then we'll be outlawing this. And then this, and then this and then that. Common logical fallacy that people loooove to use in all types of arguments, the slippery slope.


But I don't think what happened to Parros should be the thing to end fighting or is the best example of why it should be. If it is so be it , but there's plenty of other reasons, much better more articulate reasons which show fighting to be as pointless as it is than Parros falling down in a fight.</p></blockquote>
Why do you want fighting out of hockey? Is it ruining the game? No. I've never heard one person say they don't watch BECAUSE of the fighting.


Player safety? Again, when 98% of the players want to keep it in, and another 48% want the instigator gone what does that tell you the players want?


We've used extreme circumstances because that's where your argument and every anti-fighting advocate goes. "What happens when someone dies on the ice"? You've got a better chance of ruining your life taking the puck through the neutral zone.


You may want it gone as you think it's a sideshow, but many fans and obviously the players themselves want to keep it in the game.


I'll say one thing for sure, you ban fighting, you might as well say good bye to your star players cause teams will draft big guys who can skate and their only job will be to line skaters up every shift.

Marty Hanzal vs Rick Nash??? 


I see the circus in New York took its show to Phoenix tonight, LOL!!!!!</p>


 </p>


Speaking of circuses, Vancouver brought theirs to San Jose tonight..... 4-1 Sharks, LMAO!!!!</p>