Mario Lemieux's Letter Regarding Team Punishments for Suspensions

[Darkstone42]

lol I love reading these threads so I can see people make points and Penguins fans whine about why everybody hates them. Wash rinse repeat..

Mikko Koivu returned to the ice tonight but I didnt see any threads about that, but I did see 2 threads about Sid "skating" and another beating a dead horse Mario thread.

If you dont want the attention, positive or negative, then stop feeding it.

Oh yeah, Mikko had a goal and an assist tonight and it was sexy!

I don't think anyone's being unreasonable about coming to Lemieux's defense in this thread. Valid points have been made on both sides. All I care about is that his proposal makes sense for the end the league wants to achieve. Regardless of what people think of him as a person and the timing of his opinions, if the idea is good, it should be considered.

One of the threads made about Sid was made by a Capitals fan, and that was the second thread made. Given how long he's been out and the type of season he's had to this point, it's noteworthy news. If you wanted Mikko's return to the ice to have a thread about it, you could have started it. I was personally unaware of the event.

 

[Darkstone42]

Best. Smiley. Ever.

 

[loki604]

I am not sure what the big deal is. The criticisms against his rant were valid. Being a famous and iconic hockey player is a double edged sword. Yes, the whole hockey nation will pay attention to you when you decide to speak up. But you will also be critisized by the whole hockey nation if what you say is not up to snuff.

Good for him though for "proposing a system that would have been punitive to his own team," as Loki said. Here he is using his fame and power as a owner to help make hockey a better and safer sport.

I don't mind the level-headed comments on this thread (our favorite for-some-reason-accepted-troll, aside), but yeah it irritates me that after Gillies second suspension, Scott Burnside wrote an article basically saying that Lemieux had a point, but he hated agreeing with him.

Uh...why?

Say what you will about Lemieux taking ownership of the team, but pretty sure no one held a gun to his head to make him finance the building of playrooms for children in hospitals and donate a shitload of money to other various causes.

 

[dboy97]

I for once agree with what Mario said. In the past I have been critical of him other issues like when he threatened to retire because the NHL had too much clutching and grabbing, and of course his recent outburst with the Crosby incident. This time though he is right teams should be held acountable for actions of their players. If I have any disagreement with him it would be fining a team for a first offence. I think it is way to difficult to control what may or may not happen on the ice, so give the player the fine and suspension and a warning to the team. Any subsequence offence by that player would result in a fine to the team along with a double fine and suspension to player. I think anything after that should only increase both fines and suspensions to all involved. Also I think that the penalties should be with a player for his career not a year to year thing, basically you do not get one offence per player per year.

 

[pixburgher66]

A few comments after reading the whole thread:
Darkstone, don't believe the mouthguard prevents concussions stuff, it has very little validity from the research I've read (that didn't involve the mouthguard company doing it). On the idea of mandatory suspension time for specific hits, I think that's the best idea. There needs to be consistency, and if something like that is in place than we have it.

 

[SLY]

While consistency in discipline is extremely important, they need to reconstruct the helmets and mandate that they wear them correctly like they do the straps on jerseys. I do believe that most concussions are the result of normal, "legal" hockey hits. If players had better head protection and wore them correctly I believe it would definitely lessen the amount of concussions and take a lot of impact off of the head decreasing the severity of hard routine hits.

 

[pixburgher66]

A big part of the helmet issue in hockey is just the actual device. It's not just being worn improperly, it's just not a good helmet. They do need to be worn snuggly and the strap should be, well, on the players chins too. But when it comes down to it, those helmets will prevent little to nothing when it comes to concussions.

 

[SLY]

It def helps, perhaps some sort of neck guard should be implemented.

 

[pixburgher66]

It def helps, perhaps some sort of neck guard should be implemented.

I know that a lot of guys used to wear neck rolls back in the day, and that gives some help with hyperextension of the neck, but hockey is tough to prevent these type of things, because unlike football, players like to have 100% mobility in the neck and in general just hate having restrictions.

 

[SLY]

True, and I am with them... But if it helps, and the league mandates it then, oh well deal with it.

 

[beantownmaniac]

you are going to disagree, because of your perspective, and that's OK. however, consider:

as a junior - refused to play for his country in the 1984 World Junior Championship (he was far and away the best player in junior) because he didn't like the coach (Dave King).
drafted - refused to shake Eddie Johnson's hand, or put on the Penguin's jersey. He has apparently since called it a mistake, but it showed his character. and of course he's going to call it a mistake from his position now.
as a player - most vocal about clutching and grabbing. he may well have been right, but you never heard someone like Yzerman (50 lbs lighter?) complain.
as an owner - became an owner as it was the only way the Penguins could possibly square up on his $30 mill deferred salary.
on rules - the whole recent hypocrisy thing with Cooke on the roster

and I'm not really a 'hater' - in my opinion, he was the most purely talented player ever to lace 'em up.
He has done some amazing things for charity and for Pittsbugh (I firmly believe that the Pens would have moved or folded if he didn't step in), but I hope you understand why when he comes down from the mountain to say something profound about the game, at this point I mostly shrug my shoulders.

*cough* Bobby Orr *cough*

 

[Curtrain]

Scott Burnside wrote an article basically saying that Lemieux had a point, but he hated agreeing with him.

Burnside is an idiot. I think we have a thread somewhere devoted to making fun of him.

 

[KillerVee]

A few comments after reading the whole thread:
Darkstone, don't believe the mouthguard prevents concussions stuff, it has very little validity from the research I've read (that didn't involve the mouthguard company doing it). On the idea of mandatory suspension time for specific hits, I think that's the best idea. There needs to be consistency, and if something like that is in place than we have it.

Meh.

I'm still going to always wear my mouthguard. Better safe than sorry!

 

[IPostedWhat]

New mouthguard could help prevent concussions

 

[Curtrain]

Ah, found it, or should I say I found one thread. There are others but I like the title of this one:

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...discussion/24667-not-more-proof-required.html

If I were to use stronger language than 'idiot', I would call him an attention seeking prostitute.

 

[elocomotive]

lol I love reading these threads so I can see people make points and Penguins fans whine about why everybody hates them. Wash rinse repeat..

These kind of broad generalizations are best left to "other" message boards.

 

[puckhead]

*cough* Bobby Orr *cough*

love Bobby Orr. revolutionary player. most complete player in history of the game. Orr takes defense and toughness categories.
for pure offensive talent? I give that to Lemieux. (opinions my vary of course).


in his last junior game one year, he needed 3 goals to break Guy Lafleur's season record.
he scored 6, and added 6 assists.

 

[elocomotive]

As to the actual issue (and Mario aside), it's a tough one...

Fining teams has the benefit of deterring employing Cooke-type of players or the team instructing them to do the types of things they do.

On the other side, I don't think most of the type of plays that would be fineable would come from any instruction from the team, explicit or otherwise. So, the fine would not be a deterrent in most cases, which is the chief objective of adding such a rule. And even in the cases where the team instructed a player or gave "the nod," would it be a strong deterrent among individuals that money is generally not an object?

I'm skeptical this rule would do much

I think D'stones point about having more objective/automatic rules and suspensions is the better way to go. Hockey suffers from issues with refereeing and suspensions not because the people in those jobs are morons, but because they are asked to make judgments which are often impossible to make and asked to go inside the mind of a player to make them.

 

[Darkstone42]

As to the actual issue (and Mario aside), it's a tough one...

Fining teams has the benefit of deterring employing Cooke-type of players or the team instructing them to do the types of things they do.

On the other side, I don't think most of the type of plays that would be fineable would come from any instruction from the team, explicit or otherwise. So, the fine would not be a deterrent in most cases, which is the chief objective of adding such a rule. And even in the cases where the team instructed a player or gave "the nod," would it be a strong deterrent among individuals that money is generally not an object?

I'm skeptical this rule would do much

I think D'stones point about having more objective/automatic rules and suspensions is the better way to go. Hockey suffers from issues with refereeing and suspensions not because the people in those jobs are morons, but because they are asked to make judgments which are often impossible to make and asked to go inside the mind of a player to make them.

One of the concerns I do have with fining teams is that they still have to keep that player under contract. I believe that after a third offense by a player, that player's team, regardless of contract length, should be able to cut that player with only a half-penalty or less on the cap hit. If the team talks to the player and tells him to cut it out, but he keeps doing it and costs his team millions of dollars, the team should have the right to cut him on the basis of a breach of contract. Under the current CBA, that wouldn't be possible.

 

[elocomotive]

One of the concerns I do have with fining teams is that they still have to keep that player under contract. I believe that after a third offense by a player, that player's team, regardless of contract length, should be able to cut that player with only a half-penalty or less on the cap hit. If the team talks to the player and tells him to cut it out, but he keeps doing it and costs his team millions of dollars, the team should have the right to cut him on the basis of a breach of contract. Under the current CBA, that wouldn't be possible.

Thanks for the details. That leans me a little further in the against category.